GoBills808 Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I couldn't agree more. Again, I think we're very much on the same page. Any practical alternative to fossils fuels is likely a long way off, and I am 100% against artificially driving up the cost of any form of energy, like what was done to the coal industry a few years ago. That doesn't mean that I do not support research and investment into developing reliable alternative energy, but again - you're right. It probably won't be a reality for a long time. I don't fault people for caring, either - it's just that what so many people believe to be truth is a bunch of manufactured bull#$%& because they take a political view, not a realistic one. The only meaningful legacy that Al Gore will leave is Manbearpig. Don't you think it's realistic to look at all the costs of producing various types of energy, hard to quantify though they may be, rather than simply price per joule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Don't you think it's realistic to look at all the costs of producing various types of energy, hard to quantify though they may be, rather than simply price per joule? Does anyone not do that? I mean...can you think of an energy source where production and infrastructure costs aren't factored in to pricing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Does anyone not do that? I mean...can you think of an energy source where production and infrastructure costs aren't factored in to pricing? Then there's no argument to be made against solar for electricity, at least. It's cheaper per kW/hour than any fossil fuel as of around 2016 without not counting carbon emissions. If the argument then becomes storage, that's certainly a cost to factor in. But it's why I asked how 'price' was being defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 Then there's no argument to be made against solar for electricity, at least. It's cheaper per kW/hour than any fossil fuel as of around 2016 without not counting carbon emissions. If the argument then becomes storage, that's certainly a cost to factor in. But it's why I asked how 'price' was being defined. I'd included that under "infrastructure." And instead of "storage," think of it as "portability." The big advantage of fossil fuels over everything else is that you can carry it with you in useful quantities pretty easily. Energy sources with higher energy density (nuclear, rocket fuel), are not nearly as portable. Even electricity, which is highly mobile, is still not as portable (you can move large quantities easily over predefined routes - wires. Or you can move limited quantities more freely - batteries.) Azalin said it best: until you can use it to put jets in the air, you don't have an alternative. That's the standard for portability. (And yes, nuclear-powered jets have been tried. The best attempt was ridiculously impractical; the worst was never tried, as it was an Strangelovian nightmare.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 I'd included that under "infrastructure." And instead of "storage," think of it as "portability." The big advantage of fossil fuels over everything else is that you can carry it with you in useful quantities pretty easily. Energy sources with higher energy density (nuclear, rocket fuel), are not nearly as portable. Even electricity, which is highly mobile, is still not as portable (you can move large quantities easily over predefined routes - wires. Or you can move limited quantities more freely - batteries.) Azalin said it best: until you can use it to put jets in the air, you don't have an alternative. That's the standard for portability. (And yes, nuclear-powered jets have been tried. The best attempt was ridiculously impractical; the worst was never tried, as it was an Strangelovian nightmare.) I wouldn't use 'can it fly a plane' as the standard, personally. Jet fuel is a small piece of the energy consumption pie to make that argument logical. My point was in response to the idea that we should only phase in 'renewables' when they become cost effective, and for a large percentage of daily usage solar would fit that description even discounting the incidental costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Volvo will go all electric by 2019, drop traditional engines CBS News - 52 minutes ago In Volvo's view, the combustion engine is going the way of tailfins and ashtrays. Volvo will begin producing electric motors on all its cars from 2019, becoming the first traditional automaker to forgo the combustion engine altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 We have to stop thinking about reversal and start thinking about mitigating effects. We've been beyond the tipping point for 15 years or so. And Hawking isn't a climatologist - there's no reason to think he knows what he's talking about. You are correct. Climate scientists and policy experts are criticizing famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking for arguing President Donald Trump’s policies would push the Earth “over the brink” towards runaway global warming. Climate scientists, even those usually worried about future global warming, pushed back against Hawking’s claims that Earth would become like Venus. Zeke Hausfather @hausfath A good example that even brilliant scientists sometimes say silly things when it's outside their field of expertise (see Nobel disease) https://twitter.com/garethsjones1/status/881576291517988864 … Ryan Maue ✔ @RyanMaue Stephen Hawking's wacky & bizarre opinions on climate change (e.g. Earth becoming Venus) pollute policy debate. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726 … Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which means its climate is extremely hot compared to Earth’s climate. Earth’s atmosphere is only four-hundredths of one% carbon dioxide. Venus’s average surface temperature is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, while Earth’s average surface temperature from 1951 and 1980 was 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted July 5, 2017 Share Posted July 5, 2017 Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which means its climate is extremely hot compared to Earth’s climate. Earth’s atmosphere is only four-hundredths of one% carbon dioxide. Venus’s average surface temperature is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, while Earth’s average surface temperature from 1951 and 1980 was 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit. So... he's calling the human race a bunch of slackers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Very wide right Posted July 6, 2017 Author Share Posted July 6, 2017 Thank you all for continuing to keep my topic going strong.I started this dialogue in 2014 and its still on top!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Link according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician. The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments. Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend. Well................let's see Conducted by scientists peer-reviewed I know.............I know................they were paid for by evil, energy corporations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Link That paper's such a load of **** that it's illegal to have it anywhere near the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician. s conservative activist scientists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 SETTLED SCIENCE” IN TWO HEADLINES Climate science is “settled,” right? To the 97th percentile! Anyone who asks pesky questions about what we might not know, or what might be a meaningful uncertainty, is a “denier,” the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier. Well then: Amazing how one wet winter can change the science. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/settled-science-in-two-headlines.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 They couch everything in terms like "could" or "if we don't do something" which makes it a very soft science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 They couch everything in terms like "could" or "if we don't do something" which makes it a very soft science. "Doing something" means communizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Link https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming Your a idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming Your a idiot Setting the standard for idiots everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 Setting the standard for idiots everywhere. Further Communizing the educational system can fix that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 11, 2017 Share Posted July 11, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming Your a idiot The proper usage is Your a moran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 ‘The Ugly Environmentalist’ by Jonah GoldbergRead more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449477/climate-change-alarmists-environmentalists-hyberbolic-rhetoric-increasing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 The Four Most Effective Things You Can Do About Climate Change, According To Science. Don’t bother clicking. The four things are what you’d expect from people happy to have everyone else reduced to a pre-modern existence: “Do Not Have That Child,” “Live Car-Free,” “Skip That Flight,” “Eat a Plant-Based Diet.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 The Audubon Society sure uses GW as a fundraiser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Like the old song says: There it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 Like the old song says: There it is According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, No. No, no, no, no, no. No, it hasn't. And it's the same bull **** study you posted about at the top of this page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Blood sucking ticks are spreading like crazy in the northeast now because of shorter winters and longer falls. Never had them in my yard before and laid down to read and there were some on my leg. I looked up some web sites and sure enough they are at record numbers. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/28/tick-populations-booming-due-to-climate-change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Blood sucking ticks are spreading like crazy in the northeast now because of shorter winters and longer falls. Never had them in my yard before and laid down to read and there were some on my leg. I looked up some web sites and sure enough they are at record numbers. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/28/tick-populations-booming-due-to-climate-change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Usually blood-sucking ticks leave liberals alone.....................................................professional courtesy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Hurts like an SOB to have to get a tick pulled off yer naughty bits. One of Hall and Oates had been under the gun for Lyme disease for years, and when he went on Howard Stern (a great interview surprisingly) they brought out Richard to talk about tick removal from his body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Hurts like an SOB to have to get a tick pulled off yer naughty bits. One of Hall and Oates had been under the gun for Lyme disease for years, and when he went on Howard Stern (a great interview surprisingly) they brought out Richard to talk about tick removal from his body. hall hates deers because they spread ticks so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 hall hates deers because they spread ticks so much Mr. Hall it was then!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 High in the 60's in WNY today, July 25th. This proves without a shadow of doubt that we are entering a cooling off period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 High in the 60's in WNY today, July 25th. This proves without a shadow of doubt that we are entering a cooling off period. Every change in the temperature is due to global warning, it is the answer to the weather every single day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Blood sucking ticks are spreading like crazy in the northeast now because of shorter winters and longer falls. Never had them in my yard before and laid down to read and there were some on my leg. I looked up some web sites and sure enough they are at record numbers. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/28/tick-populations-booming-due-to-climate-change Maybe it we give enough of our money to third world countries for windmills we can bring back some ice and not have to worry about ticks. http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 is is okay to make icecubes in the freezer, more than i really need for the week, will the world melt? will someone please take on a self-appointed authority to rule on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 TODAY IN THE ANNALS OF STUPID, CLIMATE EDITION A group of “children” (as activist lawyers call their clients) filed a federal lawsuit a while ago claiming that a right to a stable climate should be enforced by judicial decree as a postulate of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and the federal district court judge in Oregon (figures) denied a motion to dismiss. This lawsuit is so silly I didn’t bother to make note of it here. If the plaintiffs actually won this case, it would essentially mean the end of the Constitution. Are we really supposed to think that federal judges should supervise climate policy? It has worked so well in the case of public schools. More likely it is intended as a way of prying open the doors for trial lawyers to extract tobacco-settlement style exactions from the energy industry. Guess who else thinks it is silly? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which yesterday issued a stay on further proceedings at the trial court level pending review by the appeals court. If even the famously flaky 9th Circuit thinks you’re going too far. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Why are we still at the mercy of the weather? It's 2017... 2017!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) Can someone please school me real quick on a question. I'm not that concerned about ice melting or the ocean and air temps raising slightly. But what about the 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide that gets released into the atmosphere every year? Won't this have a cumulative effect over 50 or 100 years? Um...plants eat it. And, there is no shortage of plants. Ugh. Again? Well, there's always "the science", which has been totally corrupted beyond all recognition. In 2 sentences: our atmosphere's CO2 sensitivity has been wildly overestimated to suit a political agenda. You dial it down, and: presto, every failed model starts to make statistical sense. So, to answer your question directly? We literally have no idea what the difference between what 40 billion and 140 billion tons of CO2 will do. This planet has endure 4x the level of C02 we have today. What we do know is: the modeling that is "the science" so far has proven, beyond all doubt, that the climate is NOT as sensitive to CO2 as has been claimed. The empirical measurements prove it. The proper usage is Your a moran. No, it's you're a maroon. Finally, again, I ask: when are you all going to come to terms with the following 2 facts? 1. Global Warming is now the issue that Americans care least about 2. Now causatively based on #1, but also substantively: this is a dead political issue. Edited July 27, 2017 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Finally, again, I ask: when are you all going to come to terms with the following 2 facts? 1. Global Warming is now the issue that Americans care least about 2. Now causatively based on #1, but also substantively: this is a dead political issue. I think Russia-Trump collusion might be number one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts