PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Hysteria fades away


Pages : [1] 2 3

Flying Binghi
8th Aug 2016, 01:01
Looks like the USA will be the worlds biggest energy exporter next year...:cool:

"...Exploitation of new oil and gas reserves by fracking shale rock has transformed the US economy since it started just 11 years ago – creating at least a million jobs and slashing electricity bills and greenhouse gas emissions.

The scale of this energy revolution is almost unimaginable.

The Marcellus shale bed in Pennsylvania is thought by geologists to contain enough gas to power and heat every home in America for 50 to 100 years. Yet a few hundred feet beneath it lies another giant formation, the Utica, that contains enough gas for a further century..."


The USA ? Fracking its way to jobs, wealth and lower emissions « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2016/08/the-usa-fracking-its-way-to-jobs-wealth-and-lower-emissions/)






.

vapilot2004
8th Aug 2016, 01:06
Fracking, the source of the energy glut in America, is the dirtiest, most energy-intensive, polluting, water-wasting, environmentally unsound method of oil extraction known to man.

"Screw the future, kids, full steam ahead" - last words of Captain Greedo, chairman, Oily-Greedy Bass Turds, Inc., and Commander of the USS Titanically Short-Sighted, last seen navigating the treacherous twin shoals of Common Sense and Global Stewardship.

West Coast
8th Aug 2016, 09:11
Fracking, the source of the energy glut in America, is the dirtiest, most energy-intensive, polluting, water-wasting, environmentally unsound method of oil extraction known to man.

Really? Care to back that claim? There's a lot of absolutes in there that have me curious as to accuracy.

meadowrun
8th Aug 2016, 09:33
Must admit I don't get the opposition on this one. It's mainly just another method of oil and gas extraction with pretty much the same associated risks.
The "greener than your greens" seem to be against it because it is more fossil fuel.


I've always thought protests from them might be better targeted at potable water shortages in this world.
More than 2.7 billion people do not have access to fresh water for at least one month each year. Currently, some 860 million people live in slums (http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/93/11/15-155473/en/) around the world; their lack of access to clean water (http://www.globalissues.org/article/601/water-and-development) carries enormous health consequences. Aquifers around the world continue to be drained to levels that are just not replenishable.


Take for instance Sana’a, the capital of Yemen.
Water was scarce even before the current conflict began, made worse by an increasing population and poor water management. Just 48% of the Yemeni capital’s 2.2 million inhabitants receive piped wate (http://blogs.worldbank.org/water/how-can-growing-cities-achieve-water-security-all-world-scarcity)r (http://blogs.worldbank.org/water/how-can-growing-cities-achieve-water-security-all-world-scarcity) and the rest get water through tankers, which is five-to-10 times more expensive. Around 60% of water is lost through leaks, while the cultivation of khat (https://www.theguardian.com/society/khat) – a popular mild narcotic – accounts for 40% of the water drawn from the Sana’a Basin (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/yemen/2013-07-23/how-yemen-chewed-itself-dry).


Seems to me that is a far worse problem than the occasional minor tremor.

Pontius Navigator
8th Aug 2016, 09:37
And when oil wells run dry the sand will sink, the sea will inundate, and sea level rise will be stopped. Don't think it will drop enough to be able to walk across the Red Sea though :)

Hempy
8th Aug 2016, 09:39
Trailer

dZe1AeH0Qz8

Full doco

6mp4ELXKv-w

G-CPTN
8th Aug 2016, 12:01
Meanwhile, our new PM has promised £10,000 to every household in a fracking area (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1566269/theresa-may-unveils-plan-for-10000-handouts-to-fracking-town-familes-in-huge-profit-sharing-plan/).

Hempy
8th Aug 2016, 12:19
£10,000. What a bonus.

Hempy
8th Aug 2016, 13:57
West Coast, I challenge you to spend an hour and a half of your time to watch the full documentary I posted. The people who are interviewed in it are all from true Republican states, and it's not a 'Michael Moore' handpicked selection, but people who have been truly effected, their neighbours and their neighbours. 'Politics' is irrelevant to these people if you want to claim that it's 'biased'.

I have a feeling that you'll just reply with the usual political mantra, corporate jingoism and the old typical right wing 'they're just 'huggy fluffs' response. Watch the doco and look at the people who he talks to.

I don't expect a response. 'Uncomfortable truths' seem to be too difficult to elicit a response amongst some.

Geordie_Expat
8th Aug 2016, 15:14
Somewhere, there is a thread about fracking containing a lot of excellent posts from someone who actually knows something about the subject. He explains the facts about it and I personally found it very illuminating. I can't find it at the moment but if anyone is interested in the subject it is around somewhere (fairly sure it was on JB).

Smeagol
8th Aug 2016, 15:24
Thread was called:

Frack off, the lot of you. We're going to do it anyway!

and the knowledgeable poster (among others) was airwave45

Hempy
8th Aug 2016, 15:33
Mods can feel free to merge if they like. It's not their fault that the OP doesn't know how to use the search function.

Frack at your will. No one (especially our 'aging' right wing friends) seems to GAF about what will happen after they personally have turned into worm food these days, so go for it.

It's all about 'me' for that generation.

Geordie_Expat
8th Aug 2016, 15:56
Thread was called:

Frack off, the lot of you. We're going to do it anyway!

and the knowledgeable poster (among others) was airwave45

Thanks, just found it again and I agree, Airwave45 is the guy who obviously knows a lot about it. Interesting reading.


http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/571992-frack-off-lot-you-we-re-going-do-anyway.html


Hempy, grow up !!

FakePilot
8th Aug 2016, 16:03
Good find/reminder Georgie!

ORAC
8th Aug 2016, 16:04
It's funny but have you noticed that it is exactly the same people who scorn climate change sceptics for not accepting the "scientific consensus" are exactly the same people who refuse to believe the evidence from the Royal Society, the Geological Society and other experts that fracking can be performed safely?

Just saying.....

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Policy-and-Media/Resources/Shale-Gas-and-Fracking

Hempy
8th Aug 2016, 16:11
Hempy, grow up !!
lol! Thanks for that champ. Although I haven't reached anywhere near your vintage just yet (thank Christ...and if I did I wouldn't be wasting what time I had left on PPRuNe) I consider myself well and truly 'grown up'.

Perhaps, given the time you have left, it's time for you to pass on something for your childrens childrens children something to be able to prosper by (I know that it's a foreign thought to you, but kindly consider it for more than a second before divulging into your selfish repartee).

Watch the doco and then come back to me..

Hempy
8th Aug 2016, 16:27
Sorry, your 'memory' isn't correct. 'Widely discredited'? Maybe by the Gas and Oil corporations, but not by anyone else. Watch the doco.

It's a waste of bandwidth asking you to back your comments up against clinical science. Right wingers seem to think that actual proof is debunked by an Oil company pamphlet :ugh:

ORAC
8th Aug 2016, 16:29
Ahhh. The infamous Gaslands.....

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/04/the-gasland-movie-a-fracking-shame-director-pulls-video-to-hide-inconvenient-truths/

Groundtruthing Academy Award Nominee 'Gasland' - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/24/24greenwire-groundtruthing-academy-award-nominee-gasland-33228.html?pagewanted=all)

Fact Checking Josh Fox / Gasland, 1st Posting (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/02/1220728/-Fact-Checking-Josh-Fox-Gasland-1st-Posting#comments)

Fact Checking Josh Fox/Gasland #2; Oil/Gas Industry NOT Exempt from Clean Air/Clean Water Acts (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/7/7/1221731/-Fact-Checking-Josh-Fox-Gasland-2-Oil-Gas-Industry-NOT-Exempt-from-Clean-Air-Clean-Water-Acts)

Hempy
8th Aug 2016, 16:42
Watched it, have you?

Tbh, I don't really GAF what you do or don't do to your own countries. Or what your offspring have to deal with. I put more fossil fuels back into the grid via solar power than my household uses in electricity and petroleum per annum by a reasonable margin. And I live almost the furthest from the sun in my country.

I guess I'm just lucky.

Do what you want to yourselves. Much like why I have opted out of the US gun law argument, honestly, as long as we (Australians) are doing the right thing I don't really care how much you fk yourselves over. Burn your own offspring , mine are good.

Go for it.

edit: It seems that it's not just the US, but the UK as well. Hoo Ha!

sitigeltfel
8th Aug 2016, 16:52
I put more fossil fuels back into the grid via solar power than my household uses in electricity and petroleum per annum by a reasonable margin.

No you don't, you just made that up.

I bet you haven't taken into account all the fossil fuel used on your behalf by government, local authorities, businesses, service providers etc.

Sanctimony on a stick :rolleyes:

ATNotts
8th Aug 2016, 16:55
The original poster could only be either Australian or American!

You only have to look at comparative photographs of glaciers now and 30 years ago, or ask people living in low-lying pacific islands to realise that global warming isn't some sort of "hysteria" but is real, is happening, and undoubtedly human activity is at least in part the cause.

Developing shale gas, ahead of renewables, just puts off the day when the human race will have to find viable alternatives to fossil fuels or else the lights will go off. To believe otherwise is to have one's head firmly in the sand - or be a fully paid up member of the flat earth society.

And, as one would imagine most PPRuNers have some involvement in aviation, might it not be better to conserve what fossil fuels we have to keep pilots in jobs, rather than fritter them away to keep household and industrial energy bills down.

Hempy
8th Aug 2016, 17:09
ATNotts, although the OP is from my home country, if you check his posting history you'll find that all is not well in the 'top paddock'.

Sitiwhatever, you post your latest power bill and I'll paste mine. Mine was (as I stated) in the positive enough to carry our vehicles fuel costs and out household electricity costs. And It's winter in Australia.

Yours?

Waiting with baited breath...

sitigeltfel
8th Aug 2016, 17:40
Sitiwhatever, you post your latest power bill and I'll paste mine. Mine was (as I stated) in the positive enough to carry our vehicles fuel costs and out household electricity costs. And It's winter in Australia.

Yours?

Waiting with baited breath...

I have made no claim (or boast) about my energy usage, it was you who raised this point and it is up to you to prove it. Just accept that you can't, and what you said was (charitable mode on) wrong. You cannot say that you exist solely on solar panel on your roof, or whatever, without factoring in all the other energy generated on your behalf, and without which you would soon be back in the stone age.

BTW, it is bated, not baited breath (unless you have an oral hygiene problem, that is) ;)

Rob Courtney
8th Aug 2016, 18:47
Developing shale gas, ahead of renewables, just puts off the day when the human race will have to find viable alternatives to fossil fuels or else the lights will go off. To believe otherwise is to have one's head firmly in the sand - or be a fully paid up member of the flat earth society.

I think the issue with renewables is you still need a back up in case the wind does not blow or the sun goes in. By all means keep developing them but until they are 100% reliable you run the risk of the lights going out. It is madness not to look at exploiting a clean source of energy just out of sheer dogma.

Imagine where we would be if we had banned the opening of coal mines under environmental considerations a couple of hundred years back.

finfly1
8th Aug 2016, 19:54
Have always believed one or two good volcano eruptions will fix things for the next 50,000 years.

Then what'll ya do with yer carbon credits???

Lonewolf_50
8th Aug 2016, 20:14
Developing shale gas, ahead of renewables,
They are both being developed in parallel, it's just that the latter are more expensive per unit energy. If you want to see how stupid some of the "renewables are" take a look at the ethanol scam here in the US. On the flip side, if you head to southern Texas you'll see some wind farms.
WARNING aviation content.
One has been in work for nearly a decade, and had to overcome interference with radar, ATC, and safe training at a Navy pilot training base nearby. Last I had heard, most of those issues had been figured out.
WARNING end of aviation content
It's never simple, but progress eventually gets made.
Also, viable alternatives to fossil fuels
for electricity has been available for 50 years. It's called nuclear power. Hmm, you can thank our greenie little friends and some politicians for the stunted growth of that alternative to fossil fuels for power generation.


(Agree with you on the jet fuel point you made).

Cazalet33
8th Aug 2016, 20:20
for electricity has been available for 50 years. It's called nuclear power. Hmm, you can thank our greenie little friends and some politicians for the stunted growth of that alternative to fossil fuels for power generation.

Is that statement translated from Farsi?

Iran has been trying to break free from American-style dependence on Texas Black Gold for forty years!

Cazalet33
8th Aug 2016, 20:24
I put more fossil fuels back into the grid via solar power than my household uses in electricity and petroleum per annum by a reasonable margin.

bet you haven't taken into account all the fossil fuel used on your behalf by government, local authorities, businesses, service providers etc.

Who the hell tries to add gumment energy consumption to household energy consumption when measuring how much solar/wind energy the household uploads against energy downloaded from the grid.

Get real!

Fareastdriver
8th Aug 2016, 21:24
I was told that wind turbines, solar panels et al never produce the energy in their lifetime that it took to convert them from minerals in the earth to what they are now.

Cazalet33
8th Aug 2016, 21:35
I was told that wind turbines, solar panels et al never produce the energy in their lifetime that it took to convert them from minerals in the earth to what they are now.

Were you ever told the same thing about oil?

Lonewolf_50
8th Aug 2016, 22:26
At the moment, one of the key advantages of petroleum based energy products is the combination of portability and energy density per unit volume. (Not to mention the flexible range of products). At the moment, alternatives run into trouble with portability due to weight/volume per unit energy as most alternatives first produce electrical energy.
Will this change? We'll see.
Will this change soon? Probably not.


37 years ago, we did a small research project (my last year, engineering degree) about comparing energy from solar panels on satellites in space, from geothermal, and from tidal energy. each of them had their appeal, and each of them had potential for resolving some energy requirements. Each also had/has drawbacks. There's no free lunch.

fltlt
8th Aug 2016, 22:59
At the moment, one of the key advantages of petroleum based energy products is the combination of portability and energy density per unit volume. (Not to mention the flexible range of products). At the moment, alternatives run into trouble with portability due to weight/volume per unit energy as most alternatives first produce electrical energy.
Will this change? We'll see.
Will this change soon? Probably not.


37 years ago, we did a small research project (my last year, engineering degree) about comparing energy from solar panels on satellites in space, from geothermal, and from tidal energy. each of them had their appeal, and each of them had potential for resolving some energy requirements. Each also had/has drawbacks. There's no free lunch.

And if one is honest and talk to the real engineers (not scary video folks) actually involved, they will tell you that all the touchy, feel good , consumer roof top solar installations are a pure waste of time.
The infrastructure to support the ability to "sell" excess power back to the utility consumes and costs more material/manpower/emissions than can ever be recouped.

Solar and wind require economies of scale to be truly effective, couple those with effective distribution and you may have something, not much, but something.
All you folks that prattle on about savings are costing others who don't share the habit.

megan
9th Aug 2016, 01:55
The following comes from the Australian Financial Review newspaper, online it hides behind a wall.South Australia intervenes in electricity market as prices hit $14,000MWh

Turmoil in South Australia’s heavily wind-reliant electricity market has forced the state government to plead with the owner of a mothballed gas-fired power station to turn it back on.

The emergency measures are needed to ease punishing costs for South Australian industry as National Electricity Market (NEM) prices in the state have frequently surged above $1000 a megawatt hour this month and at one point on Tuesday hit the $14,000MWh maximum price.

Complaints from business about the extreme prices – in normal times they are below $100 – prompted the state government to ask energy company ENGIE to switch its mothballed Pelican Point gas power station back on.

The extraordinary intervention – first foreshadowed in December when the government of premier Jay Weatherill hosted an energy crisis meeting – comes as electricity prices soar to near record levels across the nation.

It also comes as the wider national energy market is in upheaval. Gas prices are surging thanks to a brutal cold snap in the southeast that means electricity price relief from bringing more gas generation back into service could be limited.

Cold weather and the closure of South Australia’s Northern and Playford coal-fired power stations as wind provides an increasing share of the state’s power have combined to send NEM prices to their highest average levels since the 2007 drought.

“A planned outage of the Heywood Interconnector to Victoria, coupled with higher than expected gas prices and severe weather conditions have contributed to large-scale price volatility in the energy spot market in recent days,” Mr Koutsantonis said.

“The failure in the energy market has led the Government to ask ENGIE, the owner of Pelican Point Power Station, to run the plant for a short period, providing 239MW of additional supply into the energy market.

“It is believed the increased base-load supply from the previously mothballed plant will lead to improved system security.”Not all sweetness and light with renewables, price increase from $100 to $14,000 in order to buy in coal produced power from interstate. Way to go on the business and employment front. The state is already the country's basket case.

Further article.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4500493.htm

sitigeltfel
9th Aug 2016, 09:30
Who the hell tries to add gumment energy consumption to household energy consumption when measuring how much solar/wind energy the household uploads against energy downloaded from the grid.

Get real!

Trying to isolate household energy consumption as a measure of overall consumption is just obfuscation by the zealots. Just like those with their poisonous Prius and toxic Tesla signalling their virtue, while leaving a whiff of hypocrisy in their wake.

As for getting real, the concept is a stranger to you.

Cazalet33
9th Aug 2016, 10:11
Who is trying to "isolate" overall consumption?

We can do nothing about the goverment's sillinesses. What we can do is reduce the damage that we are doing to the planet's atmosphere.

Those of us who produce more domestic energy than we consume are doing the right thing, even though we have to import electricity sometimes from a grid which is partly powered by the idiocy of burning hydrocarbons to make wiggly Amps.

Don't blame us good citizens for government silliness. We are doing a better job of living an ecofriendly lifestyle than any government of Britain ever has.

Fareastdriver
9th Aug 2016, 12:47
Were you ever told the same thing about oil?

No. I do know from experience; for example.

The Forties Field was discovered in 1970. The first oil was produced in 1975 when the pipeline was started by HM the Queen. In 1979 it was producing at 500,000 barrels per day. It was expected to last for only thirty years so that was the life expectancy of the platforms. It continued past that and in 2009 the reserves were estimated at 4.2 billion barrels.

BP, the original owners, sold it and in a short time Apache found another 800,000 million barrels, giving it a further twenty years life.

Stories like that are being repeated all over the world with improved techniques discovering reserves that were previously unknown. You double the reserves, you almost halve the costs.

Some of us can remember the tearing of sackcloth and the gnashing of teeth in the early seventies when the BBC was sagely informing us that the world was going to run out of oil by the end of the century.

Ancient Observer
9th Aug 2016, 13:05
As someone who "studied" Sociology rather than Science/Engineering, I think I am allowed a mis-read of an earlier post.
My mis-read was that someone was looking to use Tidal power for their space shuttle.
It is JB, after all.

Widger
9th Aug 2016, 14:21
Wind power...pah. We live in one of the windiest places in the world (average), have thousands of turbines and even on a day like today, it still only produces 5% of demand.

G. B. National Grid status (http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/)

Have a look at the French page while you are on the site.

The solution is generation from a multitude of sources. Nuclear (Not financed by the Chinese and French), Solar and wind (local generation), gas and of course, in a place lik ethe UK, we should do more tidal. the problem is the greens who complain about global warming also complain about the loss of habitat etc.

er340790
9th Aug 2016, 14:45
What amuses me most is that, as soon as anything happens that doesn't fit their Global Warming mantra (e.g. record cold Winter of 2014 / coldest ever Spring 2015), the Eco-Mentalists just jump on some alternative hysterical mantra aka Climate Change / Localized Cooling to continue their false agenda.

It is all going to be OK on Planet Earth. :ok:


BTW: Ever notice how any Eco-Mentalist, when interviewed, invariably ends with "further study in the area is required" = free hand-outs of Govt funds wanted to perpetuate their gravy train.

And who cares if 90-something percent of scientists agree? 99.9% of Scientists used to think the World was flat / germs didn't exist etc etc etc. :ugh:

Cazalet33
9th Aug 2016, 15:06
Wind power is a useful adjunct, but it can only ever be a minority input on the margin.

In the UK the average power factor of a wind turbine is only 0.3, ie it only produces its rated capacity for 30% of the time. Those times seldom co-incide with peak power demand. The big commercial wind farm companies are paid hundreds of millions to turn their turbines off when wind output exceeds demand. Utter madness!

For the baseload, nuclear makes sense. For the normal usage range, ie above baseload, hydro is the way to go in a country like Scotland. Solar can also be a useful adjunct, even in Northerly latitudes, though with obvious and quite severe limitations.

Burning hydrocarbons to make electricity is just lunacy. There are so many useful things we can make with oil and gas molecules that to burn those substances is just insane.

Never forget that oil and gas are just long term stored solar energy. Unlike other forms of stored solar, they are not replaceable though.

Cazalet33
9th Aug 2016, 15:25
99.9% of Scientists used to think the World was flat

Bullshit!

Try reading up on Eratosthenes. Try reading the works of Islamic scholars. They too all knew that the Earth was round. It was only the Papist church which contradicted the science and insisted the the universe must revolve around St Peter's Square. That was anti-science, not science.

Sailors have known that the Earth is round for as long as man has been sailing out of sight of land. It's bloody obvious when you see a mountain slowly sinking below the horizon, or rising above it as you approach the coast, that the Earth's surface is an endlessly curving sphere. Same when you see the upper masts of an approaching ship and then see more and more of that ships lower parts as you approach. They knew what they were looking at and they understood it.

The global climate change deniers are as tedious as the Holocaust deniers and the lunar landing deniers and the 9-11 deniers and the Evolution deniers.

KenV
9th Aug 2016, 15:35
edit: It seems that it's not just the US, but the UK as well. Hoo Ha! It appears that Hempy's list of no-nothing "right wingers" keeps growing. Eventually he alone will be right and the population of the entire planet will be wrong.

Toadstool
9th Aug 2016, 16:11
Eventually he alone will be right and the population of the entire planet will be wrong.

Don't worry Ken

its Hempy and you just now. :ok:

KenV
9th Aug 2016, 16:46
Burning hydrocarbons to make electricity is just lunacy.Is it really? Have you noticed that the more we burn hydrocarbons, the more we find? Oil reserves are higher now than they were a decade ago, which were higher then than they were the decade before that, which were higher............you get the idea. When the first oil reserves were found and tapped in Pennsylvania around the turn of the previous century, groups have been warning that we're "about to run out." After over a century of "about to run out", we now have enough for a century or two at current growth rates. And all indications are that growth is going to stabilize and perhaps even drop well before then. And if in the next hundred years science comes up with a replacement for oil, the same groups that are now crying about the "lunacy" of burning oil will scream bloody murder about oil's replacement.

There are so many useful things we can make with oil and gas molecules that to burn those substances is just insane.You mean things like plastic bags which pollute the land and rivers, and take tens of thousands of years to decompose in landfills? Face reality, there will always be groups opposed to drilling, transporting, burning, and/or using oil for any purpose.

Hempy
9th Aug 2016, 16:47
Eventually he alone will be right and the population of the entire planet will be wrong.

I'm pretty sure thats exactly what Trump is thinking at the moment as well...

How many terms of office will he serve as president, do you think? Or will he just sort of keep it?

I mean if there's no one left, he's more like Atilla the Hun than future Former US President Trump.

KenV
9th Aug 2016, 16:50
Bullshit! It was only the Papist church which contradicted the science and insisted the the universe must revolve around St Peter's Square. That was anti-science, not science.And now C33 is rewriting history. He really knows how to stick true to form.

KenV
9th Aug 2016, 16:53
......future Former US President Trump........Now there's some enlightened and critical thinking.............

...not. But it is thinking that is staying true to form

SASless
9th Aug 2016, 17:01
Did not the World end in 2006 as forecast by the Grand Poobah of the Global Warming Crowd....Al Gore?

Dang It Boy....that must mean we have been in the Afterlife for a full Decade now!

Any reason you environmental Dooms Day forecasters wonder why reasonable folk just cannot bring themselves to climb onto your hay wagon?


Al Gore's Doomsday Clock Expires & Climate Change Fanatics Are Wrong Again (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again)

Flash2001
9th Aug 2016, 17:37
I dunno, I just moved to Texas and I'm beginning to believe, No relief in sight 'till October.

After an excellent landing etc...

sitigeltfel
9th Aug 2016, 19:18
Who is trying to "isolate" overall consumption?

We can do nothing about the goverment's sillinesses. What we can do is reduce the damage that we are doing to the planet's atmosphere.

Those of us who produce more domestic energy than we consume are doing the right thing, even though we have to import electricity sometimes from a grid which is partly powered by the idiocy of burning hydrocarbons to make wiggly Amps.

Don't blame us good citizens for government silliness. We are doing a better job of living an ecofriendly lifestyle than any government of Britain ever has.

Who gives you the subsidies to enable you to buy and install all this stuff?

Hempy
9th Aug 2016, 19:40
You're just as eligible for a subsidy as anyone else. If you choose not to take up the offer then that's up to you. Do you think people using solar power etc don't pay taxes?

sitigeltfel
9th Aug 2016, 19:53
You're just as eligible for a subsidy as anyone else. If you choose not to take up the offer then that's up to you. Do you think people using solar power etc don't pay taxes?

Even with subsidies, so called eco technology is way outside the economic reach of the ordinary public. So it ends up with the basic rate taxpayer giving money to the wealthy to buy something they themselves cannot afford.

KenV
9th Aug 2016, 19:54
You're just as eligible for a subsidy as anyone else.Yeah, but the supposed altruism kinda fades when someone else is picking up the bill for the chest puffing self righteousness. To say nothing of the net impact on the planet. Who has the bigger net footprint? The guy with no solar panels or the guy with government paid for solar panels that require a LOT of energy, chemicals, etc etc to fabricate and install in the first place. The self righteous are often anything but righteous. The chest puffing self righteous who put on a public display of their moral superiority are never righteous.

Cazalet33
9th Aug 2016, 20:59
eco technology is way outside the economic reach of the ordinary public

Untrue.

The Feed in Tariff is bonkers, but it was/is freely available for anyone. Sure, someone who lives in a tower block won't have a roof or garden upon which to mount solar panels, but for anyone who has appropriate property it is not some kind of means tested thing for the rich. You don't even need the capital as there are plenty of companies who do a subsidy-sharing scheme/scam to enable anyone to install a pv or wind or micro-hydro system with only a few hundred Pounds deposit.

The FiT is not a government subsidy. It is paid for by the people who do not take it up, through their electricity bills. That is perhaps unfair on cave dwellers and tower block inhabitants, but nobody said that life is always totally fair.

Cazalet33
9th Aug 2016, 21:03
It is a myth that solar panels consume more energy to manufacture than they produce in their working lifetime. That's just bullshit. Same goes for wind turbines.

It's just an urban legend purveyed by the ignorant to the ignorant.

West Coast
9th Aug 2016, 21:35
Prove it then.

Cazalet33
9th Aug 2016, 22:12
It's for the bullshitters to prove their idiotic claims. Not me.

Clearly solar panels would not be made because they would not be sold if the bullshitters' claim was true. Same goes for wind turbines and hydro-electric plant.

Of course these sytems produce more power than they consume or they would never have been made in any quantity.

ZOOKER
9th Aug 2016, 22:33
Widger,
Cracking post, and bang-on the money. Our energy come from 3 sources.

1....The Sun.......Solar, from direct insolation......Wind, from the differential heating of The Earth's atmosphere, and the movement of air-masses.......Fossil Fuels.......The accumulations of photosynthetic activity, which took place in past geological time periods.

2.....Gravity.......The movement of water-bodies, caused by the tidal effects of The Sun and The Moon. Hydro-Electric, and Pumped-Storage schemes also fit in here.

3.....Earth-based nuclear generation. Fission at the moment, but hopefully fusion in years to come.

4......Sorry, almost forgot........Cockwomble energy.......Stationary 'cyclists' in 'leisure-centres', (such as our local 'David Lloyd' establishment), who should all be connected to the grid. :E
.

Cazalet33
9th Aug 2016, 22:44
Wind turbines are very visual, politicians can stand in front of them and have their photo taken.

In Scotland politicians tend not to do that. In the Lowlands the entire landscape has been ruined by thousands of industrial scale monster turbines. They are largely detested.

The Pygmy Parliament has decreed that renewable generation must exceed total consumption by 2020. You can't build that much hydro in that time so all the effort has gone into putting up as many of these damned things as possible as quickly as possible.

Because wind turbines have a power factor of only 0.3, the other 70% of the time we will have to import hydro power from Norway. They are laying a pair of enormous cables from near Stavanger to near Blyth to import all that power. Crazy!

West Coast
10th Aug 2016, 00:10
Clearly solar panels would not be made because they would not be sold if the bullshitters' claim was true. Same goes for wind turbines and hydro-electric plant.

That's not necessarily true. It's about apportioning the total costs.

I live in the foothills of Sun Diego where the sun shines quite a bit. I'm considering solar (still working on buying vs leasing) to lessen my portion of the overall energy costs. That I invest in solar will (hopefully) mean MY costs are reduced. A market has developed based on individual homeowners needs, goals and willingness to pay. It doesn't speak to the overall cost or efficiency relative to other forms of energy. I'm also incentivized by the government to buy the panels with a check and tax write offs, so the overall costs of those panels will go up about $4,000.

There doesn't have to be a macro effect to develop a market, a micro (my willingness to pay for solar) one is driving it currently as relates to solar panels.

parabellum
10th Aug 2016, 00:46
Same goes for wind turbines.


I have a brother in law and a nephew, both PhD in sciences and both will disagree with you 100% Caz.


The manufacturing cost, the transport and erection costs and the way, way too much maintenance costs combined with their very poor, by comparison, return of investment, render the wind farms an expensive liability that only act as a sop to the climate change, global warming, green lobbies.


Haven't mention their effect on wild life, especially migrating birds but that is significant too.

Cazalet33
10th Aug 2016, 09:01
Haven't mention their [wind turbines] effect on wild life, especially migrating birds but that is significant too.

I don't believe the little domestic jobs have any effect, but I'm quite certain that the big 125m tall bruisers do.

Even bats are killed by those things. They don't fly into the blades of course, but the low pressure zone of the aerofoil ruptures their lungs leading to the poor wee buggers drowning in their own blood.

A mega-scale commercial wind farm near me was initially turned down by the County Planners, on numerous grounds. The Company appealed. In Scotland the appeal system is intrinsically corrupt. A self-employed "Reporter" is appointed personally by the Scottish Government Minister on a case by case basis. He knows that his next job depends on him delivering the required result to his Minister. The Scottish Government has a policy of festooning the countryside with these colossal turbines, so the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

In his Adjudication he dismissed every point made by the objectors and by the Council, and upheld every counterpoint made by the developer. It became pure farce when he had to deal with the proven fact that at least one Osprey, probably two, had taken up residence nearby. We don't have spotted owls or crested newts in this part of the world, but we are inordinately fond of our Ospreys. It should have been a slam dunk for the objectors, but the Reporter merely wrote a clause into his Consent saying that if two or more Ospreys are found to have been killed by one of the turbines in a 25 year period then the company must make a suitable donation to an appropriate Charity!

Cazalet33
10th Aug 2016, 09:05
I'm also incentivized by the government to buy the panels with a check and tax write offs, so the overall costs of those panels will go up about $4,000.

I don't understand why you believe that the energy input to the manufacture of those panels increases as a result of the tax benefits.

ORAC
10th Aug 2016, 09:06
ZOOKER,

You forgot geothermal - driven by plate tectonics and natural nuclear activity in the earth's core.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

Nuclear Fission Confirmed as Source of More than Half of Earth's Heat - Scientific American Blog Network (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/)

ZOOKER
10th Aug 2016, 10:31
ORAC,

Many thanks. It was getting late and I think my mind was more on The U.K. at the time.

In fact, during the 1980s. The British Geological Survey published a special report about the potential for small-scale geothermal sources in The British Isles. It was titled 'Hot Dry Rock' if I remember correctly. I have a copy in the loft, somewhere. Several sites were discussed, including the obvious one at Bath.

ATNotts
10th Aug 2016, 10:32
One day we will work out fusion and then a whole new age will open up. Once that happens all these wind turbines will be obsolete. The question is do we put all our resources into fusion now or are we so far off that we will need something in between.

I am sure the future lies with fusion and better storage technology. I also think that technology will be coming from the far east.
I dropped physics at school, and so far as I am concerned it's pretty much a closed book. However I'm interested in whether there would be any downsides to fusion as a method of producing clean energy.

Does it produce any radioactive waste, how radioactive would it be, and how could it be managed?

Presently we haven't found a politically / socially acceptable way of storing the waste from conventional nuclear power stations, and the quantity of waste grows annually. Surely if there is to be a waste product, before going hell for leather to embrace fusion technology, the question of how that waste is stored / disposed of needs to be addressed. it sounds like putting the cart before the horse, but is surely better to resolve the consequences of an action before embarking on a course which solves one problem, but creates another.

Cazalet33
10th Aug 2016, 10:57
I have a ground source heat pump to heat the house.

I drilled a well to 222m below ground level. I picked that depth completely arbitrarily by asking the driller how deep I could go for a certain amount of money. I then did the calcs and satisfied myself that I can extract 9kW worth of heat for a 2kW electrical input. In other words, I get 7kW of 'free' heat.

It works well (forget the pun), but the coldest nights tend to be those bone-crunching still air nights when my wind turbine is flaccid. On those nights I have to either draw power from the grid and pay the same as everyone else or else fire up the log-burning boiler.

I wish there was some way I could make that system self-sustaining, such as with a Stirling engine, but there just isn't any of a suitable rating on the market, yet.

If I could power a Stirling engine from the heat output of the Frolig boiler I'd be in clover as I have an almost unlimited supply of logwood (with some sweaty and healthy work) and there is a nearby transport depot which specialises in woodchips and other forestry byproducts and can sell me in bulk (10 tonne lots) at very reasonable rates.

West Coast
10th Aug 2016, 18:46
I don't understand why you believe that the energy input to the manufacture of those panels increases as a result of the tax benefits.

I didn't say that, nor did I infer it.

KenV
10th Aug 2016, 19:19
I didn't say that, nor did I infer it. He claims you implied it. He inferred it.

Rosevidney1
10th Aug 2016, 22:45
It won't be available in the UK during my lifetime but it seems a Thorium reactor will be the best we can hope for unless a totally new source of energy can be identified. In the meantime what is wrong with a greater number of smaller reactors, rather than the monsters we now see?

Lonewolf_50
10th Aug 2016, 22:51
In the meantime what is wrong with a greater number of smaller reactors, rather than the monsters we now see? Probably nothing, other than the usual crowds of huggy fluffs who try to get such projects stopped.


(I have asked the same question about Thorium reactors on this side of the pond, and I get differing answers).

G-CPTN
10th Aug 2016, 23:14
In the meantime what is wrong with a greater number of smaller reactors, rather than the monsters we now see?
See:- http://www.pprune.org/9469774-post346.html post346

Flying Binghi
11th Aug 2016, 01:40
via Hempy, #9:
...I challenge you to spend an hour and a half of your time to watch the full documentary I posted...

Hempy, i had a look-see at the short video yer posted. In the video, when the method of fracking is shown the sound track has an explosion. Hempy, please advise if the fracking method is explosive... if it is then I will watch the main video. Other-wise, I'll just list the video under the hysterical nonsense category and not waste my time...:hmm:




.

LowNSlow
12th Aug 2016, 16:49
Using the IPCC's CO2 figures for the production of GRP, steel and concrete and a rated power of 2.3MW for a 90m tall turbine like thisNews Detail (http://www.enercon.de/en/news/news-detail/cc_news/show/News/enercon-announces-new-low-wind-speed-wecs/) then the turbine will generate approx. 410,000kg of CO2. It will take the turbine approx. 2.7 years for it to generate the power produced by an oil powered generator producing the same amount of CO2. Sounds like a winner right?

However, a 2.3MW unit should develop 72,533KWh over the course of a year compared to the 7,120KWh the manufacturer claims for the turbine. If oil is used to generate the 88% shortfall of the turbine v requirements then another 1,360,000kg of CO2 will be generated over the course of the year.

Comparing oil v turbine, oil produces 1,536,000kg CO2 to generate the annual 72,533KWh expected from a 2.3MW unit but it will require just over 10 turbines to fulfill the demand of one equivalent oil fired plant to give a total of 4,100,000kg of CO2. Still, on this basis the turbines will be ahead of the oil plant after approx. 2.7 years again.

Does this mean that we can close down the nasty oil plants? Unfortunately not as, to maintain base load through the year for the 321 days the turbines are not operating (88% shortfall above), we will have to have the oil plant running anyway to the tune of 1,360,000kg CO/year anyway plus their emissions when they are running at idle waiting for the turbines to stop.

Can somebody remind me why the turbines were built again please?

John Hill
12th Aug 2016, 21:51
The problem with wind turbines is that they extract energy from a very low density medium (air) and the movement of the medium is inconsistent.

Tidal power systems on the other hand extract energy from a dense medium, water, which moves to a consistent schedule.

fltlt
12th Aug 2016, 21:56
Using the IPCC's CO2 figures for the production of GRP, steel and concrete and a rated power of 2.3MW for a 90m tall turbine like thisNews Detail (http://www.enercon.de/en/news/news-detail/cc_news/show/News/enercon-announces-new-low-wind-speed-wecs/) then the turbine will generate approx. 410,000kg of CO2. It will take the turbine approx. 2.7 years for it to generate the power produced by an oil powered generator producing the same amount of CO2. Sounds like a winner right?

However, a 2.3MW unit should develop 72,533KWh over the course of a year compared to the 7,120KWh the manufacturer claims for the turbine. If oil is used to generate the 88% shortfall of the turbine v requirements then another 1,360,000kg of CO2 will be generated over the course of the year.

Comparing oil v turbine, oil produces 1,536,000kg CO2 to generate the annual 72,533KWh expected from a 2.3MW unit but it will require just over 10 turbines to fulfill the demand of one equivalent oil fired plant to give a total of 4,100,000kg of CO2. Still, on this basis the turbines will be ahead of the oil plant after approx. 2.7 years again.

Does this mean that we can close down the nasty oil plants? Unfortunately not as, to maintain base load through the year for the 321 days the turbines are not operating (88% shortfall above), we will have to have the oil plant running anyway to the tune of 1,360,000kg CO/year anyway plus their emissions when they are running at idle waiting for the turbines to stop.

Can somebody remind me why the turbines were built again please?

Oh sir, please sir, me sir!

Money, and plenty of it to be made in subsidies, and misguided idiots that wrote the laws to make it possible.

Save the planet/children always works, ask the teachers unions.

G-CPTN
12th Aug 2016, 22:21
Tidal power systems on the other hand extract energy from a dense medium, water, which moves to a consistent schedule.
Then why haven't we got successful tidal energy extraction?

Norman Deplume
13th Aug 2016, 01:36
Then why haven't we got successful tidal energy extraction?
Because it is ridiculously expensive. Nice idea but it is obscenely expensive, otherwise every country that had a coast would be doing it. Look into the numbers.

Shove a nuclear power plant in, bury the waste underground. Job done. Cheap, reliable power.

If we need gas powered plants in the meantime then we can utilise our underground resources through fracking. Or would you rather the gas was shipped in by tanker from the Persian/Arabian Gulf as is done now?

Rip down those filthy ugly wind turbines and their associated power lines that despoil our once beautiful countryside and by doing that you will reduce electricity bills for the peasantry such as myself. In the UK a significant proportion of electricity bills go towards subsidising these bird mincing, bat zapping vanity projects.

Commit to nuclear power and fracking and the Middle East can go back to doing what they do best: Driving round the desert on camels looking for water, pearl fishing, and killing each other.

If you want hydroelectric power then go to Scandinavia or harness the hydroelectric power from Mr Cazalets tears as he realises the futility of his one man crusade to save the planet by installing a couple of solar panels (at our expense) in Tunbridge Wells, or wherever he lives. To be fair, the performance of his electric car sounds impressive (performance, not endurance or cost effectiveness). P.S. pleased don't take that personally Mr Cazalet, no offence is intended, I enjoy reading your technical posts.

Do the above and the world will will be a better place. Simple really.

Note to self: Don't go on Pprune after I've been to the pub......whoops done it again, sorry.

John Hill
13th Aug 2016, 03:49
Then why haven't we got successful tidal energy extraction?


See Rance tidal power plant and Sihwa Lake tidal power Plant.

LowNSlow
13th Aug 2016, 12:33
and fltlt goes straight to the top of the class :ok::ok::ok:

fltlt
13th Aug 2016, 17:39
That's not necessarily true. It's about apportioning the total costs.

I live in the foothills of Sun Diego where the sun shines quite a bit. I'm considering solar (still working on buying vs leasing) to lessen my portion of the overall energy costs. That I invest in solar will (hopefully) mean MY costs are reduced. A market has developed based on individual homeowners needs, goals and willingness to pay. It doesn't speak to the overall cost or efficiency relative to other forms of energy. I'm also incentivized by the government to buy the panels with a check and tax write offs, so the overall costs of those panels will go up about $4,000.

There doesn't have to be a macro effect to develop a market, a micro (my willingness to pay for solar) one is driving it currently as relates to solar panels.

Living in lala land you must be aware of Aaarnolds signature on the feel good clean air bill some years ago, for one that set up a tent on the capital lawn to smoke cigars, drives an H1 Hummer, etc., etc., etc., it seems counter intuitive, but I digress.
When the greenies rise to occupy state govt positions and rise to the top it is a prime example of the "Peter Principle".
It's been happening for years, the problem is that when unelected state officials are allowed to "Make the Laws" as in SCAQMD, AQMD, et al, it is their personal views of what is right, nothing else.
So you get the automobile manufacturers being told that if x% of your vehicles are not hybrid/electric/pedal power by the year y, then sorry, we the great state of ca will not allow you to sell ANY of your other vehicles in ca.
Blackmail, nah.
Then when the sales of said green vehicles fall Waaay short of your touted green agenda you sweeten the pot by handing out subsidies (read paid for by everyone else that couldn't afford to buy one)
and throw in a car pool lane get out of jail free pass for only you in the vehicle.
Now that still didn't work, so they are now floating the idea of "pay to play" tracking the miles you drive and taxing you for them.
If you do, in a moment of bed wetting insanity, purchase an all electric vehicle, Leaf, etc., and a half dozen of your latte drinking friends live in the same electrikery sub station served area, you may not get the home charging station you need because the circuits were never designed to carry those loads.
Don't believe me, go talk to SCE/PG&E.

On the other side of the coin, the green govt utility folks mandate by z year the utility companies (SCE/PG&E) must purchase, I believe it's north of 30% now, from "renewable resources" otherwise we are going to levy taxes in a disproportionate amount on you all.
Now I wonder were that macro push to renewables/subsidies came from?
Social engineering of personal beliefs through legislation and taxation, didn't someone fight a war over that some time ago?
Oh, and to appease the little people, rebates and subsidies even to the extent of providing a yearly "rebate" on your utility bill titled "Green/Alternative" or words to that effect, rebate, in big, bold, letters.
Probably 99.9% of regular folks don't realize it's their money they are getting back because they were overcharged in the first place.

It's all for the planet and the children.
How could one say no to raking in millions and millions of dollars for those two.
You can fool.......

G-CPTN
13th Aug 2016, 18:03
See Rance tidal power plant and Sihwa Lake tidal power Plant.
Neither seem to be without associated ecological problems - silting and toxin buildup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station#Environmental_impact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sihwa_Lake_Tidal_Power_Station#Environmental_context

SASless
13th Aug 2016, 18:06
You cannot make this Crap up....really!

Why are the Lefties so into being the "Thought Police" and have this thing about ending Free Speech anytime it does not comport with their tightly held views?

Some State Attorney Generals....all Democrats of course....are onboard with this thinking and have threatened to prosecute folks who do not embrace the AGW Doctrine and Agenda.

Fortunately, the First Amendment still protects "Speech" and "Expression" and so far the majority of the American People strongly object to any such effort by State and Federal Prosecutors.

US Attorney General: 'We May Prosecute Climate Change Deniers'. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/)

fltlt
13th Aug 2016, 19:29
You cannot make this Crap up....really!

Why are the Lefties so into being the "Thought Police" and have this thing about ending Free Speech anytime it does not comport with their tightly held views?

Some State Attorney Generals....all Democrats of course....are onboard with this thinking and have threatened to prosecute folks who do not embrace the AGW Doctrine and Agenda.

Fortunately, the First Amendment still protects "Speech" and "Expression" and so far the majority of the American People strongly object to any such effort by State and Federal Prosecutors.

US Attorney General: 'We May Prosecute Climate Change Deniers'. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/)

You can fool....
For the folks that throw the BS flag, legislate against them.

But as long as most folks stick their heads in the sand, they will get away with it.
Of course all you solar power nuts have heard of the huge plant just across the Nevada state line in CA, the owners (Microsoft, Alphabet, nee Google) and all the rest of the companies that own and operate internet servers have had to pony up a lot more money as it isn't producing as advertised.
Now one would ask why such companies would invest in such things, for the planet and the children? Nope, to satisfy Govt regulations and utility tax credits, paid for by who, us, regular folks.
For those that can be bothered, look up the history of SEGS I, II and III in CA.

SEGS I got heatstroke and burnt to the ground, liquid sodium gets hot.
Then they went PV, after cleaning up north of 50 tons, yes tons, of broken mirror glass caused by, wait for it, drum roll please, birds.
Seems the pesky critters used to drop stones on them.
When they installed new ones, never bothered to clean up underneath.
Then the PV subsidy ran out, so now it's back to desert.
No Buck's, no Buck Solar.

One of the "new" solar plants declared bankruptcy, Govt quietly gave them another few sacks of dollars. Move along, nothing to see here.

Now the Ca govt has upped the renewable %, extended the credits, whole new mega solar projects are springing up.

And just to amuse you, each project has to have at least two "protect the wildlife" degree'd individuals on staff at north of $85,000 salary each.

Regular folks have absolutely no idea how their hard earned tax dollars are funneled.

A very intelligent friend of mine has a Chevy Volt.
Asked why he bought it, answer was it had subsidies, for both the car and the home charging station and he can charge it for free when away from home.
Same for his solar panels, subsidies.

Caveat was if there had been no subsidies he wouldn't have bothered.
And yes, he leans left and likes lentils, but isn't a shove it down you're throat type.

Gotta love lala land.

layman
14th Aug 2016, 15:11
fltlt

did an internet search but couldn't find any articles(s) on the broken solar panels caused by birds dropping stones.

Are you able to point to any sources for this. Just interested to have a read

thanks
layman

fltlt
14th Aug 2016, 15:33
fltlt

did an internet search but couldn't find any articles(s) on the broken solar panels caused by birds dropping stones.

Are you able to point to any sources for this. Just interested to have a read

thanks
layman

Standing amid heaps of shattered panels talking with the project manager in charge of the changeover to PV.
You have to remember that the original parabolic mirrors were probably 10ft long by 4ft high, somewhat thin to keep the weight down for the tracker frames.
One stone literally destroyed the whole section.
When the night cleaning crews found the missing panel(s) they were noted and fixed within a couple of days.
If you have ever been in, and I do mean in a solar array field, you will understand why no real effort was expended to remove the broken glass.
Crows love to drop things.

ORAC
14th Aug 2016, 15:38
It would appear the limit for renewables is about 30% of total supply. At least in Germany - and I can't see it being much different elsewhere.......

Buffering Volatility: A Study on the Limits of Germany’s Energy Revolution (http://www.nber.org/papers/w22467#fromrss)

"Based on German hourly feed-in and consumption data for electric power, this paper studies the storage and buffering needs resulting from the volatility of wind and solar energy. It shows that joint buffers for wind and solar energy require less storage capacity than would be necessary to buffer wind or solar energy alone. The storage requirement of over 6,000 pumped storage plants, which is 183 times Germany’s current capacity, would nevertheless be huge. Taking the volatility of demand into account would further increase storage needs, and managing demand by way of peak-load pricing would only marginally reduce the storage capacity required. Thus, only a buffering strategy based on dual structures, i.e. conventional energy filling the gaps left in windless and dark periods, seems feasible. Green and fossil plants would then be complements, rather than substitutes, contrary to widespread assumptions. Unfortunately, however, this buffering strategy loses its effectiveness when wind and solar production overshoots electricity demand, which happens beyond coverage of about a third of aggregate electricity production. Voluminous, costly and inefficient storage devices will then be unavoidable. This will make it difficult for Germany to pursue its energy revolution beyond merely replacing nuclear fuel towards a territory where it can also crowd out fossil fuel."

G-CPTN
14th Aug 2016, 15:44
from Wiki:- The greatest source of mirror breakage is wind, with 3,000 mirrors typically replaced each year.

fltlt
14th Aug 2016, 15:59
And yes, in the middle of the Mojave Desert we have crows/blackbirds, big, black damn birds.
They scavenge at the military landfills. DPW was curious and tracked them a few years ago.
Breakfast at Irwin, over to Edwards for lunch, but then the air force always had better food, then I guess menu dependent Edwards/Irwin for supper.
Odd forays down to 29 Palms when the Marines have something really special on the menu I guess.
Anybody here seen two crows fighting over an unopened MRE in a trash trailer?
Or a coyote laid on the hood of a Humvee, grinning because he scored an unopened MRE which he had between his front paws? Walk past and it jumps down, MRE in mouth, and wanders off, happy as a clam, no chasing rabbits for a short while.
And yes, animals have MRE's they covet and ones they completely ignore.
The desert is a fascinating place, but not for humans, at least this one.

SASless
14th Aug 2016, 16:16
I bet even the Crows and Coyotes will not even turn an Eye towards the Pork in Jamaican Jerk Spice in the MRE's....even Nigerians turned their Noses up at them.

fltlt
14th Aug 2016, 16:20
from Wiki:-

Don't you just love Wiki, if you google ground mounts for PV panels the design standard used to be, and it's been a few years since I looked, for Daggett, CA 92327.
The ridges funnel the wind which can top 120mph at ground level.
Now SEGS I is about a mile or so due west of Daggett airfield, so you can obtain all the met data from there if interested.
When the plant was originally designed due care and consideration was taken as to field orientation.
Now granted, some of the breakage may have been done by the wind, and that was my initial comment seeing all the mountains of broken glass and being told, that's what's left to haul away.
The project manager for I believe it was SunRay at the time, I have his card somewhere, said that when they cleaned the arrays each night after, or during severe winds, they might find one or two broken panels, but panels were breaking every day when there was no wind.
Normally nobody is out in the field during the day, but every night, more broken panels. Someone shooting, vandalism?
Finally, due to costs, they sat on the hill south of I 15 and watched panels breaking with birds circling overhead using the thermal from the field.
No birds, no breakage.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Simply recanting what I was told from someone who was responsible for the P&L day to day operations whilst stood in the middle of the array field discussing a completely different business operation.

fltlt
14th Aug 2016, 16:28
[QUOTE=SASless;9473464]I bet even the Crows and Coyotes will not even turn an Eye towards the Pork in Jamaican Jerk Spice in the MRE's....even Nigerians turned their Noses up at them.

It is amusing that taste, rather than hunger drives their selection.
And they don't rip them open to find out what they are, so one must presume the sealing is only good enough for leaks, not smell.

fltlt
14th Aug 2016, 17:28
San Bernardino Sun newspaper yesterday, front page story: Ivanpah ( the large Microsoft/Alphabet solar field on the Cal/Nev border) finally reaches an agreement with PG&E regarding its lower than projected output since 2014, google it.

Then Wiki/Google Soda Mountain Project and follow along as the Feds, State, County and BLM play hot potato, the public's opinion shall not matter.

Oh, almost forgot, World Bank financing for mega solar projects for investors.

And just to maintain a military aspect, look up Johnson Valley off highway vehicle park, how would you like to share your quad/atv adventures with the Marines?
Only in lala land.

I present the above for your own edification as it appears Wiki beats actual, oh well, I shall now just sit back and watch.
Enjoy yourselves, wiki away.

layman
15th Aug 2016, 06:20
fltlt / G-CPTN - thanks

Regularly drive past an 83,000 flat panel / 20Mw solar farm that's been operating for 2 years and they're still grazing sheep under them. Hopefully not too much glass for them to chew on!

Just reading a bit further in the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems) and it appears to show SEGS I still generating power, albeit quite a bit down from its peak

cheers
layman

fltlt
15th Aug 2016, 18:28
fltlt / G-CPTN - thanks

Regularly drive past an 83,000 flat panel / 20Mw solar farm that's been operating for 2 years and they're still grazing sheep under them. Hopefully not too much glass for them to chew on!

Just reading a bit further in the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems) and it appears to show SEGS I still generating power, albeit quite a bit down from its peak

cheers
layman

I bet it is down quite a bit from its peak layman, because it isn't there anymore, just like the last time I was out here.

Your comment of still generating piqued my interest, so I took a trip to find out.

I am currently sat 5 feet from the old perimeter fence, took a whole bunch of pictures, of concrete pads in sand.
The cooling ponds are empty and the proposed lot for SEGS II is still fenced in sand.
So unless the SEGS I nomenclature has been transferred to the Harper Lake facility, it ain't generating nothing but land tax for the county.
BTW, it's 97 deg. CAVU here at 1027 PST.

fltlt
15th Aug 2016, 18:33
layman,
Just to clarify, the broken glass was not from PV panels, they were from the concave linear arrays that focused the sunlight on a roughly 4 inch pipe running throughout the field,
If memory serves, it contained some type of glycol.

fltlt
15th Aug 2016, 19:32
I googled the physical address:
35100 Santa Fe St. Daggett Ca 92327 because I can't seem to upload the photo's. You can, at least I can, still see the facility in all its former glory, but having physically stood there this morning, it ain't so.
Interesting.

Fareastdriver
15th Aug 2016, 19:36
Just copy the address and give it to Google Earth search.

G-CPTN
15th Aug 2016, 20:13
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/35100+Santa+Fe+St,+Daggett,+CA+92327,+USA/@34.8819351,-116.6948833,4890m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c46020a7764c47:0x3485e64229c7b31 4!8m2!3d34.863767!4d-116.825314

So what are the circles?

fltlt
15th Aug 2016, 20:42
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/35100+Santa+Fe+St,+Daggett,+CA+92327,+USA/@34.8819351,-116.6948833,4890m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c46020a7764c47:0x3485e64229c7b31 4!8m2!3d34.863767!4d-116.825314

So what are the circles?

Alfalfa fields.

fltlt
15th Aug 2016, 20:46
Alfalfa fields.

And they are round because of the pivot irrigation.

G-CPTN
15th Aug 2016, 20:53
Thanks. . . .

fltlt
15th Aug 2016, 21:01
Thanks. . . .

For a bit of a laugh, if you look to the east of the airfield and south you may see houses with wooden fences around their yards and plastic covered green houses, depending on the season you may even see the marijuana plants, or look up in the hills and find open air meth operations.
Some areas of the desert just aren't safe to go off-roading.
Druggies tend to shoot.

G-CPTN
15th Aug 2016, 21:10
I can well imagine that possession of a firearm would be essential in that sort of area - properties surrounded by 'nothing' . . .

fltlt
15th Aug 2016, 21:22
I can well imagine that possession of a firearm would be essential in that sort of area - properties surrounded by 'nothing' . . .

When the Sherrifs are only a phone call, "what's the nearest cross street" and maybe 15 - 30 minutes away, absolutely.

Fareastdriver
15th Aug 2016, 21:29
There's a breaker's yard just over the other side of the Highway from the runway which must be an absolute Aladdin's Cave.

fltlt
15th Aug 2016, 21:32
There's a breaker's yard just over the other side of the Highway from the runway which must be an absolute Aladdin's Cave.

Look for the one at El Mirage, then the boneyard at Mojave.

G-CPTN
15th Aug 2016, 22:26
There's a breaker's yard just over the other side of the Highway from the runway which must be an absolute Aladdin's Cave.
I love breaker's yards - in another life I would probably settle for that as a 'profession' - except that I would be loath to part with the interesting stuff.

Scrap yard (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/35100+Santa+Fe+St,+Daggett,+CA+92327,+USA/@34.8444842,-116.7799602,190m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c46020a7764c47:0x3485e64229c7b31 4!8m2!3d34.863767!4d-116.825314).

In this life I have abandoned any idea of resurrecting old vehicles - I have had too much pain.

As you suggest, I imagine that there are vehicles there that are beyond my wildest dreams.

fltlt
15th Aug 2016, 22:56
I love breaker's yards - in another life I would probably settle for that as a 'profession' - except that I would be loath to part with the interesting stuff.

Scrap yard (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/35100+Santa+Fe+St,+Daggett,+CA+92327,+USA/@34.8444842,-116.7799602,190m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c46020a7764c47:0x3485e64229c7b31 4!8m2!3d34.863767!4d-116.825314).

In this life I have abandoned any idea of resurrecting old vehicles - I have had too much pain.

As you suggest, I imagine that there are vehicles there that are beyond my wildest dreams.

Desert climate, desert dwellers/hoarders, way out of the way places, friend of mine bought a 50's Cadillac, the one with the bullet grille and big fins, just happened to be out on his atv and saw it on somebody's property.
Last registered mid 70's, the mice/rats left only the seat springs, but everything was still attached, chrome, glass all good, paint weathered.
Tires, yeah well.
He paid $200, it cost more than that for the tow company to go get it.
Best part, I was at his house when they delivered it.
Opened the hood, everything still there.
Pulled the plugs, shot some light oil in each cylinder, replace plugs, clean black widow spider webs out of the air cleaner, check the points, hook up a battery, pour some gas down the carb, turned the key and the damn thing started right up.
He re did the whole thing, from stem to stern and ended up making $5K when he sold it.

There was a woman in Baker, had more classic mustangs than you could shake a stick at, sometimes a case of beer....
Unfortunately she is long gone now, along with the Mustangs.

Cazalet33
16th Aug 2016, 08:05
It's never wise to tangle with the global climate change deniers because denial of reality is the fundament of what they believe, but Professor Brian Cox gamely took one on recently.

Very funny to see the politician reflexively reaching for the usual conspiracy theory crap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9-KNzaHDL4

vapilot2004
16th Aug 2016, 08:45
There's a breaker's yard just over the other side of the Highway from the runway which must be an absolute Aladdin's Cave.

I have visited more than a few of those, happily exploring while living at the western end of the Mojave (Edwards AFB) with my older brother. They are magical places of mystery and discovery for some of us. :ok:

Fareastdriver
16th Aug 2016, 10:06
Regrettably the yard I was enthusing about would be a waste of time. I zoomed in with Google Earth and all the scrap turned out to be chunks of iron a lot smaller than a mid-sized saloon that was parked amongst them.

fltlt
16th Aug 2016, 16:37
Regrettably the yard I was enthusing about would be a waste of time. I zoomed in with Google Earth and all the scrap turned out to be chunks of iron a lot smaller than a mid-sized saloon that was parked amongst them.
If you follow Route 66 (the road immediately south of and parrallel to Santa Fe) about 5-6 miles west you will see the Marine Corp/Navy DRMO yard,
Trucks/Humvees/ HET's and anything else your little heart desires.
All for disposal sale on Iron Planet.
But, buyer beware, ex military Humvees are NOT legal for road use in the US.

On the way west you will see Daggett, go due north a couple of miles and you will see MCLB Yermo, the west coast storage and overhaul facility for the ground equipment, and the railhead for NTC rotations.

vulcanised
16th Aug 2016, 17:30
Here's a bit of it

EarthCam - Route 66 Cam (http://www.earthcam.com/usa/oklahoma/vinita/?cam=route66east)

fltlt
16th Aug 2016, 17:39
I feel bad having hijacked this thread, not on purpose btw.

So maybe we should return to the subject heading.

tdracer
16th Aug 2016, 18:31
But, buyer beware, ex military Humvees are NOT legal for road use in the US.Not necessarily:
We Drive a Surplus Humvee, No Enlistment Required! ? Feature ? Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/we-drive-a-surplus-humvee-no-enlistment-required-feature)

So far, about 2500 Humvees have been honorably discharged from military bases to private ownership, a process that got easier last summer when IronPlanet began offering Standard Form 97, “The United States Government Certificate to Obtain Title to a Vehicle.” That crucial piece of paperwork allows buyers to prove ownership, and from there one can pursue the quest for a license plate, although IronPlanet isn’t making any promises on that front. For instance, it’s easy to imagine that California might actively thwart the proliferation of menacing diesel troop carriers on its thoroughfares. Whereas in Texas, the DMV clerk might compliment your sidearm and “Don’t Tread on Me” belt buckle while handing over a vanity plate that reads “SECEDE.” Check your state guidelines before bidding. (apologies for the continuing thread drift)

Fareastdriver
16th Aug 2016, 19:18
I was really thinking about a 1957 De Soto convertible.

fltlt
16th Aug 2016, 19:35
Not necessarily:
We Drive a Surplus Humvee, No Enlistment Required! ? Feature ? Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/we-drive-a-surplus-humvee-no-enlistment-required-feature)

(apologies for the continuing thread drift)

Ok, I will bite again, why have all these Humvees suddenly appeared for sale, what happened to them before, anyone know?
Well if you dig into AM General's original prime contract to manufacture them, you will find a small clause that basically said, and I am paraphrasing here:
Govt thou shall not allow any of these vehicles to be sold to the general public after you have finished with them, and to prove to us that you can't you are to cut off the front part of one chassis rail.
God knows how many folks tried to buy bits, AMG's answer, you have a contract?
Now why do you think they would do that?
They wanted to sell a passel load of their H1's to wealthy folks, think Aaarnolds H1, and they didn't want surplus Humvees lowering the resale value of their horrendously expensive civilian H1's.
Didn't quite work out that way, and you can only offload so many through FMS/aid/giveaways.

So looking to make some dollars, the contract restriction being negotiated out, a few were "test marketed" by DRMO/Iron Planet.
The rush to be first led to initially ludicrous and beyond bidding, then things settled out when folks found out all the paperwork required, restrictions, etc., plus the "what do you mean I can't register it for the road" in the majority of the US, maybe someone managed to wrangle road use somewhere.
The majority of the newer vehicles, Humvee, HET, etc., cannot be exported in one piece, they have to be stripped and shipped as parts, that's honestly where the money is, not in reselling the vehicles themselves.
And yes, I have delved in this area. American scrap metal is highly valued around the world, and I say this tongue in cheek, Russian stuff sometimes has an afterglow so to speak.
Last time, no more, please, back to the thread.

SASless
16th Aug 2016, 19:38
FED,

My Father had a 1957 Desoto....Push Button Transmission control....huge Fins....big old V-8...grand memories of riding in that. He Traded up to a 1960 Bonneville Pontiac Coupe....now that was the Ride!

fltlt
16th Aug 2016, 19:55
A few things I forgot to add, they don't meet emission standards, safety standards and AMG certainly didn't want product liability/insurance issues.
That is now officially it for me, I apologize for the unintended tremendous thread drift, sorry Flying Binghi.

fltlt
16th Aug 2016, 20:08
Fund it and they shall come:

http://energy.gov/eere/articles/energy-department-announces-40-million-open-water-wave-energy-test-site

Flying Binghi
18th Aug 2016, 11:02
Considering that global warming hysteria is an on-going saga over many years a bit of thread drift is to be expected..;)


via Cazalet33:
It's never wise to tangle with the global climate change deniers because denial of reality is the fundament of what they believe, but Professor Brian Cox gamely took one on recently...

Looked fairly obvious to me that MR were never allowed to fully reply - It wern't a full and open debate. Now why is it the climate hysterics are so worried about what MR has to say that they kept interupting him..:hmm:

WUWT had a look-see. Many of the near 300 comments to the article make interesting reading: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/16/climate-clash-aussie-senator-malcolm-roberts-owns-tv-physicist-brian-cox/

Similar thoughts at Joanne Nova: Brian Cox thinks 17,000 employees at NASA always produce perfect graphs. NASA employees disagree. Who to believe? « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2016/08/brian-cox-thinks-17000-employees-at-nasa-always-produce-perfect-graphs-nasa-employees-disagree-who-to-believe/)





.

Hempy
18th Aug 2016, 11:16
Jo Nova and WUWT...:D:D

A kids TV show host and a TV weatherman. I suppose that makes their 'science' credible if you believe what they write before they write it.

Flying Binghi
18th Aug 2016, 12:24
via Hempy:
Jo Nova and WUWT...

A kids TV show host and a TV weatherman. I suppose that makes their 'science' credible if you believe what they write before they write it.

Oh, do tell Hempy. In the WUWT and Joanne Nova postings, just what did 'they' get wrong ? I suspect all I'll hear back on this is crickets chirping..:hmm:





.

Hempy
18th Aug 2016, 12:44
Mate, seriously, if you are going to try to prove a point your best bet is to derive your information from an at least semi-credible source. The two links you've provided could only be considered 'credible' by those that are simply searching the net trying to find a view corroborative with their own. The fact that they have no knowledge on the subject whatsoever is irrelevant if they are spewing out the brain dead message you adhere to, right?

Personally I'll take Prof. Brian Cox's take on things over an ex kids TV show host and an ex TV weathermans 'expert knowledge'.

Go for the loony fringe though, as much as you like. It's a good fit.

Flying Binghi
18th Aug 2016, 13:44
via Hempy:
Mate, seriously, if you are going to try to prove a point your best bet is to derive your information from an at least semi-credible source. The two links you've provided could only be considered 'credible' by those that are simply searching the net trying to find a view corroborative with their own. The fact that they have no knowledge on the subject whatsoever is irrelevant if they are spewing out the brain dead message you adhere to, right?

Personally I'll take Prof. Brian Cox's take on things over an ex kids TV show host and an ex TV weathermans 'expert knowledge'.

Go for the loony fringe though, as much as you like. It's a good fit.

So Hempy, I'll take that answer as there is nothing in the WUWT and Joanne Nova postings that you can debunk..:hmm:

Of note, the WUWT posting were actually written by Eric Worral.


Re, dedicated though un-credentialed enthusiasts... I'm reminded that the first aircraft flight were done by a couple of push bike mechanics. The university educated types trying to do it at the time had no idea..:)





.

Cazalet33
18th Aug 2016, 13:52
I felt rather sorry for the science professor in that thing. Having to explain science to an anti-science person is just like Professor Richards Dawkins explaining science to a creationist.

He does so rather well in this short clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITU0Omr-jDA

For Professor Cox it was an uphill struggle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9-KNzaHDL4

A slightly more full version of that clip shows a bit more of the patient explanation of science to the anti-science politician:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8

Hempy
18th Aug 2016, 13:58
So Hempy, I'll take that answer as there is nothing in the WUWT and Joanne Nova postings that you can debunk..

Ha! Sorry that made me laugh out loud!

What am I supposed to be 'debunking' exactly? Your links contain rants from non-entities who claim to know more than eminent scientists. I don't need to 'debunk' them, it's been done already by science.

Wingswinger
18th Aug 2016, 14:01
Has anyone proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that climate change is anthropogenic? Or is still no more than a hypothesis?

Cazalet33
18th Aug 2016, 14:08
The extent of global climate change as a result of greenhouse gas emissions most certainly has been shown/demonstrated/proved.

The deniers will always deny the science, so there's really no point in trying to engage with them.

SASless
18th Aug 2016, 15:13
Typical Leftie tactics...discount the information and attack the source/messenger whenever opposing thought or positions are voiced.

Never...never.....debate the issues, facts, or attempt to defend the Lefty position.

If one challenges the Lefty position....One is a "Denier" translated loosely as being a Heretic, Loon, Moron, etc.

Oddly, those who carry on like that actually think we consider them even remotely credible.

Understandably we are not.

When your "Scientific Model" fails to accurately predict Results....per Scientific Law....your Model fails.

Until the AGW Crowd can produce a repeatable set of forecasts based upon their Data....there shall always be those who are not willing to accept their claims.

When the Lefty's clamor for the arrest and imprisonment of "Deniers" we know who is the Loser in the debate.

De_flieger
18th Aug 2016, 15:21
A whole lot of meteorological organisations from different countries all conclude that anthropogenic climate change is real, for example:

The Russian national meterological organisation - the Hydrometeorological Centre of Russia Climate (http://wmc.meteoinfo.ru/climate) or for a more detailed look at their measurements of climate change within Russia one of their reports is here, the Assessment Report on Climate Change and its consequences in Russian Federation, http://wmc.meteoinfo.ru/media/climate/obzhee_rezume_eng.pdf

Great Britain, the Met Office Is climate change caused by human activity? - Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change/why/causes)

The United States; NASA: Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Causes (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

China, the China Meteorological Administration: china_climate (http://www.cma.gov.cn/en2014/climate/featutes/201409/t20140919_261797.html)
and one of their statements addressing some actions they will take to address climate change as a global challenge. CMA (http://www.cma.gov.cn/en/NewsReleases/News/201411/t20141118_267243.html)

Australia, the CSIRO: Causes of past and recent change (http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-campus/global-climate-change/causes-of-change/)
and the Australian Academy of Science https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-booklets/science-climate-change/3-are-human-activities-causing

There are plenty more national scientific organisations that have concluded that climate change is real and anthropogenic, if you have the time to seek out their websites.

On the other hand, we have Malcolm Roberts claiming they are all wrong, and corruptly acting together to perpetuate a global fraud. For someone who loves the phrase "empirical evidence", MR hasnt actually provided any evidence of this corruption, just repeatedly claiming it over and over again. For those who think it's a pity that Malcolm Roberts wasn't allowed to explain his views on Q and A, his views on what is behind this "climate fraud" are available to read, published by him on his website. If you have the time, scroll down to page 51 of the 135 pages in his rambling "appendix" to another document, where he explains why all these organisations and so many more are acting in this way, and I quote here:

"The objective is global control through global socialist governance by international bankers hiding control behind environmentalism".
http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/docs/new/14_Appendix.pdf
He also repeatedly talks about a "New World Order", and how it is an agenda to take away personal freedoms from us as we are all "sovereigns", and discusses how the environmentalist movement - when not responsible for attempting to cull millions upon millions of people - is a "Socialist trojan war horse triggering major wars and making profits from both sides". I've just had the misfortune of skimming through some of his (very strange) self-published documents and documents, available to read on his website, and its a hodge-podge of hundreds of pages of his manifestos, complaints, accusations and wild claims that appear to skim the very edges of sanity. He jumps from claims about Barack Obama being linked to the Bilderbergs and how the UN Agenda 21 was born of Nazi ideology, to Socialist control taking over personal freedoms, to elaborate letters of complaint to University Chancellors for not taking him seriously. I can't imagine why the Chancellors didn't....

Cazalet33
18th Aug 2016, 15:23
What, on Earth, is this entity called "Lefty", or "Leftie"?

What does the word mean? Is it intentionally a personal smear?

Why are scientists being smeared with the bizarre and undefined insult of "leftie".

Is it a bit like that "lentil knitter" thing?

Weather forecasts are based on scientific principles. Weather forecasts can be wrong, but that doesn't mean that science is wrong. It certainly doesn't mean that scientists are "leftie" or "rightie".

Cazalet33
18th Aug 2016, 15:27
"The objective is global control through global socialist governance by international bankers hiding control behind environmentalism".

He also repeatedly talks about a "New World Order", and how it is an agenda to take away personal freedoms from us as we are all "sovereigns", and discusses how the environmentalist movement - when not responsible for attempting to cull millions upon millions of people - is a "Socialist trojan war horse triggering major wars and making profits from both sides".

Thankyou, Flieger. You have explained his viewpoint very well.

Hempy
18th Aug 2016, 15:29
I get your drift SASless

Universities are nothing but a Left Wing plant. Everything they teach at University is a Left Wing Plant. The 'science' that the University Professors come out with is simply 'A Conspiracy!'

Don't believe a word of those highly credentialed, decades old scientists. They are all just plants by the Dems!

Next you'll be telling us that JFK was assassinated because of the DNC, the moon landings were fake because the Dems passed the funding bill, and that 9/11 was bought about by 'Democrat' Neo conservatives who looked to controlled demolition via WTC1, 2, and especially 7 as a way of swaying public response..

Bankstown Boy
18th Aug 2016, 22:09
Brian Cox, the physicist?
Advanced fellow of particle physics?
School of physics and astronomy of University of Manchester?
That Brian Cox?

The guy who explains quantum physics 101 wrong repeatedly?
The guy who said that the lunar phases were caused by the shadow of the earth?
That Brian Cox?

No one would argue that he is not eminently qualified to talk about particle physics, more that he doesn't appear to be very good at it. Don't get me wrong, he's a great presenter, with a nice presentation manner and 'fits' television and all but, as the old saying goes, "never let the facts get in the way of a good story". He sure doesn't.

Jeez, if he's a 'good' source to talk about your religion, I'd sure hate to see what the 'normal' ones think.

BTW I seemed to have missed the connection between particle physics and climate science.

Isn't the 'standard' meme meant to be that only climate scientists could possibly ever be allowed to talk about climate. I mean isn't the dogma that the rest of us are mere dolts and we are meant to worship at the feet of the almighty climate scientists and their divinely appointed representative on earth, Al Gore?

SASless
18th Aug 2016, 22:33
Gee....the NASA link stated "Most Climate Scientists ... ", Which on its very face suggests a lack of uniform acceptance and most importantly there was no mention of their foremost AGW proponent named Hansen who got caught with his hand on the scale like some old fashioned crooked Butcher selling Chickens to a Widow.

fltlt
18th Aug 2016, 22:47
Gee....the NASA link stated "Most Climate Scientists ... ", Which on its very face suggests a lack of uniform acceptance and most importantly there was no mention of their foremost AGW proponent named Hansen who got caught with his hand on the scale like some old fashioned crooked Butcher selling Chickens to a Widow.

His eminenance is now tied up with the Democrat party, preaching continuance of the endless stream of everybody else's tax money.
If you go to the US EPA site and sign up for their news letters, it's free and anybody can do it, you will begin to understand the depth, scope and funding driving all this. Macro social engineering doesn't even begin to describe it.

Trossie
19th Aug 2016, 09:42
I am glad that Bankstown Boy has put the Cox story into correct perspective.

Brian Cox is a particle physicist. When he tries to muscle his way into other realms of physics he often has to be corrected. This can be seen very well on the BBC's Skywatch Live where he tries to muscle his way into astrophysics and quite frequently needs to be corrected by his co-host Dara Ó Briain, who is an astrophysicist.

Now Cox is trying to muscle his way into climate science??!!!

He might be quite a good presenter, but with too much media presentation the exact truth can't be allowed to get in the way of a good story. I know scientists who cannot stand him and feel that he should stick to his particle physics.

However,... global climate change as a result of greenhouse gas emissions most certainly has been shown/demonstrated/proved.The same as the fact that the USA warmed slightly in the few days after "9/11" due to the lack of contrails in the skies when all civil aviation was grounded (contrails are ice particles, like cirrus clouds, and reflect solar radiation and reduce the amount that reaches the lower atmosphere and ground). But are these effects that can be shown/demonstrated/proved of any scale that are of any relevance?

It's all very nice to wave a graph provided by NASA showing that temperatures have risen. What caused them to rise? And temperatures were rising when only a tiny, tiny part of the world was industrialised so wasn't the same thing that was causing it to rise then what is causing it to rise now and man's influence is as tiny as the influence of those contrails?

The religion of AGW will quote the scriptures of the 2,000-odd carefully selected climate scientists/priests and tell you that you must believe, all based on a hypothesis based on models.

As that Aussie asked, "Where is the empirical evidence?" Religions fall down and bluster when faced with that question.

Yes the climate has warmed (as it has done in the past in human recorded history), yes humans might have a tiny, tiny influence. But why are we trying to bust a gut and impoverish ourselves when any influence of ours is so pathetically tiny that it is like 'farting against thunder' or 'pissing in the ocean'? Shouldn't we be putting our efforts into the real problem and that is how to live with that climate?

I would like to quote Arthur Clarke on man's influence in planetary warming (which he puts down to the energy that we use that degrades to heat, not anything to do with CO2 and all that twaddle),
"... there is a bright side to the picture: there may be no other way of averting the next Ice Age which is otherwise inevitable." (Arthur C. Clarke, '3001 The Final Odyssey', 1997, p257.)

vulcanised
19th Aug 2016, 12:30
Seems to me that only the presenters who are 'on message' get the BBC jobs.
.

Cazalet33
19th Aug 2016, 12:47
And so the conspiracy theories go on and on. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

The scientists are all part of a vast worldwide conspiracy, therefore science is wrong, therefore global climate change is all caused by lizard men.

mickjoebill
19th Aug 2016, 12:52
ABC radio aired an interview a few days ago where Dr Cox said words to the effect that our world has become so developed that we need to trust "specialists" rather than try and understand everything ourselves.
He gave the example that there is probably no one on the planet who knows all aspects of the technologies and science that make a cellphone.

Perhaps he should chose a specialism and stick to it?
Unless of course you think he researches and writes every word of his TV documentaries and has a multi specialist status.

The public think the brightest presenters on TV are the hosts of quizz shows, because they know all the answers:)

Mickjoebill

SASless
19th Aug 2016, 13:51
If you get caught fiddling your Data then I am wrong to think you are not credible?

When I do that....and you try to convince people I should be Jailed for being a "Denier"....that adds to your Resume somehow?

Hansen got caught and as a result shot NASA square in the Ass when it comes to his work and NASA's Standards.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

Trossie
20th Aug 2016, 10:00
And so the conspiracy theories go on and on. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

The scientists are all part of a vast worldwide conspiracy, therefore science is wrong, therefore global climate change is all caused by lizard men.You can only consider this to be a 'conspiracy' if you consider all religions to be 'conspiracies'. This 'AGW' thing is a religion. It is based on a selected number of 'scriptures' out of which a model has been formed to create a hypothesis (i.e. a 'belief'). There are close parallels as 'evidence', same as any religion will trawl up in its defence. But, now this is the important bit, like all religions there is no empirical evidence.

Global climate change, which has always been happening (long before there was any concept that one of the animals on the planet could interfere with it!), is caused by that great big nuclear furnace in the sky, the Sun.

le Pingouin
20th Aug 2016, 11:48
And the evidence for the warming being entirely natural is.......?

"Global climate change, which has always been happening (long before there was any concept that one of the animals on the planet could interfere with it!), is caused by that great big nuclear furnace in the sky, the Sun."

That's called faith.

Bankstown Boy
20th Aug 2016, 13:36
le Pingouin

You don't need proof to disprove a hypothesis, you need proof to support it; that is the scientific method in a nutshell.

You need the proof to support the hypothesis and turn it into a theory and ultimately into a rule.

All the non-adherents of the CAGW religion need to do (in scientific terms) is to show an alternate cause, that's enough, without even needing "'dis'-proof" to kill the hypothesis stony cold dead.

It's call science.

Job done.

meadowrun
20th Aug 2016, 13:51
We think in human lifespan terms, with a little added for history read and short-term future guessed.
Climate change is in geologic time or even sidereal.

le Pingouin
20th Aug 2016, 13:54
And thus far they have failed to show an alternate cause. Just pointing at the big yellow ball in the sky and saying that did it last time isn't sufficient. It's called science.

SASless
20th Aug 2016, 13:57
BB,

I was taught the Theory had to be "repeatable" and have consistent results when tested or else it was flawed and thus not reliable.

That is what kills current AGW Theories....they just are not there yet.

There is absolutely no requirement to show an alternate cause.....just show the Results are not consistent when tested.

Mankind's existence on the Time Continuum of this Planet is a very small dot....and recorded history is smaller yet.

For us to attempt to define what the environmental conditions were Millions of Years ago at best are going to be SWAG's.

Until we get reliable and CONSISTENT data from ground based and space based measurements....there is going to never be a reliable Theory that can be proven sufficiently to prove AGW and its Causes as is hoped by its supporters.

le Pingouin
20th Aug 2016, 14:05
And the problem with requiring that level of certainty is it leaves us vulnerable to severely negative outcomes.

De_flieger
20th Aug 2016, 14:10
Typical Leftie tactics...discount the information and attack the source/messenger whenever opposing thought or positions are voiced.Ok, I'll try not to fall into that trap.

That Brian Cox?

No one would argue that he is not eminently qualified to talk about particle physics, more that he doesn't appear to be very good at it. Don't get me wrong, he's a great presenter, with a nice presentation manner and 'fits' television and all but, as the old saying goes, "never let the facts get in the way of a good story". He sure doesn't.

Jeez, if he's a 'good' source to talk about your religion, I'd sure hate to see what the 'normal' ones think.
Now Cox is trying to muscle his way into climate science??!!!

He might be quite a good presenter, but with too much media presentation the exact truth can't be allowed to get in the way of a good story. I know scientists who cannot stand him and feel that he should stick to his particle physics.
Perhaps he should chose a specialism and stick to it?
Unless of course you think he researches and writes every word of his TV documentaries and has a multi specialist status.

Luckily it's only grubby lentil-knitting Guardian-reading lefties that attack the messenger!
Brian Cox was invited onto a panel on a tv show, with members from a range of backgrounds - two members of the House of Representatives, one of which is the Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science, one Senator, one mathematician and one particle physicist and broadcaster. As one of many questions asked that night, Brian Cox was asked about the data involved in human induced climate change, and he gave his answers as best he could, hardly "trying to muscle into climate science". If you want to see exactly what he said, and the context of it, the transcript of the show is here
Experts and Empirical Evidence | Q&A | ABC TV (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4499754.htm)
and the show is available to watch online from the same site.

Bankstown Boy
20th Aug 2016, 14:13
Sorry le Pingouin

F- must try harder.

The primary fear behind CAGW is the C part, otherwise the AGW part is like a kiss from your Aunty - ultimately a little bland and mildly tasteless.

The "C" part requires a 'rub' of forcings and a good degree of 'runaway', otherwise generally known as "positive feedback'.

Since this hasn't happened in the last 4.5billion years, even with some seriously higher temperatures (science content warning) then we have to suspect other things.

Sun's more likely - just saying.

It if wasn't so damned expensive, we'd just laugh. I mean, concerned about the permafrost melting and the methane escaping? Ever stopped to wonder how the methane got there in the first place? Just a guess, it didn't land there and burrow in on a cold night.

This whole argument is farce, piled on tragedy, piled on a joke.

I'm just sad that so many have been sucked in by the CAGW scam. Reality when it arrives,will be brutal for some.

SASless
20th Aug 2016, 14:22
And the problem with requiring that level of certainty is it leaves us vulnerable to severely negative outcomes.


Errrrr....what severely negative outcomes?

You seem to have missed the point that unless Proven Correct....Assumptions are just that....mere base assumptions.

You can "What If" all you care to do....but unless you can PROVE that is what is happening then your conjecture holds no real value.

Prove it and I will jump on your Band Wagon with a Big Drum!

De_flieger
20th Aug 2016, 14:34
SASless, you say "the NASA link stated "Most Climate Scientists ... ", did you read the rest of the page, or is it a case of having seen that one word "Most", you discarded entirely the rest of the page that explains the evidence for climate change and the human-induced causes behind it, and provides numerous links to other resources, papers, evidence and datasets? If the Road Safety Board said "Most people agree that alcohol reduces driving ability and increases the risk of accidents", would that "prove" that there are renegade scientists out there that can prove alcohol makes you a safer driver, fighting the good fight against the conspiracy behind Big Auto?

If we are going to start quoting Arthur C. Clarke and 3001, it's probably worth remembering that 3001 is a work of fiction. It's a novel. Another good book is Thomas The Tank Engine, published by the Rev W. Awdry, but it isn't reliable evidence of sentient steam engines, very useful or otherwise... :p

De_flieger
20th Aug 2016, 14:51
Unfortunately for the idea that its more likely to be the sun behind climate change, the measured output (irradiance) of the sun hasnt changed significantly in the last few dozen years; and while there is a correlation between sunspot activity and global temperatures, this correlation has been diverging as the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase. That is, the global temperatures are higher than where they should be, given the observed solar activity levels. This is something that has been modelled, and tested over the years - predictions have been made and tested over time, and the sunspot activity and solar irradiance has been shown not to be responsible for the current global temperature observations. There's more information here, Correlation of global temperature with solar activity (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html)
they discuss how observed, directly measured solar irradiance has varied within a range of 0.2% across a 30 year period, and they also look at the effects of sunspot activity and the "Maunder Minimum". There are other resources out there that repeat these findings. These observations show how the current increase in global temperatures are not due to sunspot activity or lack thereof; this isnt a "guess", or idea, its ongoing measurements over decades. You're welcome to say "the sun's more likely, just saying", but observations taken over recent decades have shown that it isnt.

Even the Daily Mail has worked it out!Solar activity is NOT linked to global warming: Sunspot theory of climate change is the result of an ancient error in the data | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3192370/Solar-activity-NOT-linked-global-warming-Sunspot-theory-climate-change-result-ancient-error-data.html) ;)

le Pingouin
20th Aug 2016, 14:56
It's a bit like buying insurance for your car or house. You have no proof that you car will ever be totalled or your house burnt down until it happens so by your argument why bother with insurance?

Assumptions? Like certain crops losing nutritional value with increased CO2 levels? Like increased ocean acidity with increased CO2 levels?

fltlt
20th Aug 2016, 14:57
If one were are looking for pure heat sources, assuming the sun is a constant, what do we have:

Electrical power generating plants of all types.
IC engines, they produce heat much more efficiently than power.
The use of all types of equipment generating heat as a by product.
Air conditioning units.
Buildings
Humans.
The planet itself, undersea vents/volcanoes.

Now we have created storage for the assumed constant source of the sun, heat absorbed and released more slowly.
Now I am sure some very smart person out there can calculate the above in BTU's. I for one would be very interested in the results, but there will be no tax money in any of it.

SASless
20th Aug 2016, 15:14
Bad logic again I suggest....I know the risk of collision in a vehicle is real. Most of us have experienced that first hand.

I also know losing a house and contents to a fire is a very real risk as we all see Fire Wagons running with Red Lights and Sirens to House Fires.

The dire consequences that AGW Advocates are warning us of are only theoretical at this time as the PROOF just isn't there.

You are asking us to take AGW as real based upon mere Faith.....which I am not prepared to do.




De Flieger.....did you read the rest of the post where I reminded you of NASA's notorious Mr. Hansen and how he got caught fabricating data?

Do you forget the Email Scandals that destroyed the AGW Advocates not so long ago?

Do you give any real Credence to the IPCC which refused to publish any contrary opinions?

Scientific Ethics demands that all evidence be considered when formulating Theory.....AGW Zealots do not allow that and many are so extreme as to insist "Deniers" be jailed for their dissent.

Hansen by the way....is exactly one of those Zealots who has called for jailing dissenters to the AGW Theories.

I do sometimes wish there was an emoticon with a single (or dual) up raised digit to add to posts here at pprune as a protruding tongue just doesn't quite get there.

le Pingouin
20th Aug 2016, 15:23
CO2 levels are increasing - that is incontrovertible. CO2 increasing ocean acidity is simple chemistry - partial gas pressures and gas solubility. The decreased nutritional value of significant crops has been experimentally established.

Or don't you accept that CO2 levels are increasing?

SASless
20th Aug 2016, 15:36
That is not the issue.....WHY is the issue.

You also accept higher CO2 levels have existed in the past and have some benefit re plant growth too....don't you?

Include all the data when you throw out your arguments....can you explain why the CO2 levels vary over Centuries or Tens of Centuries based upon scientific analysis of core samples and other measures?

le Pingouin
20th Aug 2016, 15:46
After you. Can you explain in detail the variation over millenia?

Where has all the CO2 gone that we've pumped into the air in the last couple of hundred years gone? It's not hard to do back of the envelope calculations and get a reasonable match with the increased atmospheric CO2 levels. So if it's not us what is raising the CO2 levels?

SASless
20th Aug 2016, 15:59
I do not have to explain them....just point out to you they exist per research done in the name of AGW.

It is up to the AGW folks to explain them....and that is their problem....they cannot....or will not.


A quick google found a French study of the joint Ice Core Drilling project down to Ten Thousand feet depth in the Arctic and this linked article.

The French Study talked of 323ppm of CO2 and called that unprecedented while nothing historical highs of 300ppm.

A very quick glance at the linked article shows that 323 number not to be as extreme as the French would suggest.

I make no claims as to the reliability of either article.

Make of it what you wish.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

le Pingouin
20th Aug 2016, 16:06
Yes you do. You're the one claiming they could be the cause of the current warming.

SASless
20th Aug 2016, 16:12
Yes you do. You're the one claiming they could be the cause of the current warming.

Sorry Mate....I have made no such claims of warming.

I have just challenged the whole premise of AGW as being unproven so far.

le Pingouin
20th Aug 2016, 16:16
Getting back to CO2 levels, do you accept they've increased or not? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Cazalet33
20th Aug 2016, 16:53
Pingu,

I think you're bashing your head against a brick wall there mate.

The standard response will always be that of the tobacco lobby who denied for half a century that there was a colossal mass of evidence which showed that smoking was harmful to health. The deniers position will always be that there is no causal link. No amount of science will ever change their position.

I stopped pissing into that wind a decade ago and bought a wind turbine; some solar panels and later an electric car. A decade and a half earlier I quit smoking.

Trossie
20th Aug 2016, 17:33
Now let's consider nitrogen levels, do you accept they've increased or not? A yes or no answer will suffice.

le Pingouin
20th Aug 2016, 17:36
Hmmm, a troll!

West Coast
20th Aug 2016, 19:44
I stopped pissing into that wind a decade ago and bought a wind turbine; some solar panels and later an electric car. A decade and a half earlier I quit smoking.

Vegan too?

fltlt
20th Aug 2016, 20:22
Pingu,

I think you're bashing your head against a brick wall there mate.

The standard response will always be that of the tobacco lobby who denied for half a century that there was a colossal mass of evidence which showed that smoking was harmful to health. The deniers position will always be that there is no causal link. No amount of science will ever change their position.

I stopped pissing into that wind a decade ago and bought a wind turbine; some solar panels and later an electric car. A decade and a half earlier I quit smoking.

I'm serious Cazalet, le penouin et al, how many BTU's is all of mankind with all of its activities putting into the atmosphere, right now compared to the Middle Ages, not insert name of religious gas here, plain simple heat?

evansb
20th Aug 2016, 20:57
Humans rarely change their behavior until it is too late.
The capacity to delude ourselves is inexhaustible.
Ask the average western citizen if they care about the "environment" and predictably they will say yes. Most likely they are concerned about the environment, rather than care for the environment. Care usually involves overt action.

Most of the anthropogenic climate change skeptics I've talked to have generally been consumers of large amounts of fossil fuels in their private and professional lives. i.e. They commute an hour a day for work, live in large air conditioned homes, have natural gas powered furnaces, coal generated electricity, drive huge pickup trucks or SUVs, pull fifth-wheel trailers, (caravans), love their ATVs, RVs and motorcycles, and take at least one jet fueled long distance vacation a year.

Funny that..


Modern human activity has done so much insurmountable, nearly irreversible damage to our planet, that merely denying anthropogenic climate change is of no significance, but it does give insight into a person's perspective.
Care takes effort. Concern is just a thought..

SASless
20th Aug 2016, 22:50
So you have no heat or AirCon, walk everywhere you go, forego lights in the evening and hit the Bed at dark, grow your own food, take no vacations beyond the neighborhood Pub where Beer is Room Temp even in High Summer, bathe in cold water drawn by hand from a well or stream, use no soap....am I getting what you are saying?

Hempy
20th Aug 2016, 23:55
evansb, I think you'll find that the vast majority of AGW denialists are aging dinosaurs. Fortunately the younger generations are more eco friendly. When the dinosaurs shuffle off their mortal coil and todays 20 year olds are running governments around the world things will be very different in respect to ecological policy.

This isn't a problem that can be solved today, it will take decades. Fortunately the people who will run things in decades time are aware that it needs solving.

Flying Binghi
21st Aug 2016, 01:40
"...Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years..."


Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years : Abstract : Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html)


h/t: NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" ? Jacob Bronowski. Climate news from Germany in English ? by Pierre L. Gosselin (http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.u5AYSwRZ.A8opnEe0.dpbs)




.

Flying Binghi
21st Aug 2016, 01:59
Via Jennifer Marohasy:

"...Celebrity physicist Brian Cox misled the ABC TV Q&A audience on at least 3 points-of-fact on Monday night. This is typical of the direction that much of science is taking. Richard Horton, the current editor of the medical journal, The Lancet, recently stated that, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”..."
continues.. Speaking Truth to Power, and Correcting Brian Cox - Jennifer Marohasy (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/)


Via Donna Laframboise:

"...We’re told that science is special. Not only is it based on evidence rather than dogma – so goes the argument – it contains a built-in mechanism that identifies and corrects errors. How marvelous.

But what if this is one of those blind faith mantras that has been repeated so frequently everyone believes it’s true irrespective of the actual facts? Eugenie Samuel Reich is the author of Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World. In telling the story of a young physicist named Jan Hendrik Schön, her book..."
continues.. https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2016/04/11/is-science-really-self-correcting/


Via Joanne Nova:

"...Most people don’t believe, despite all the 97% consensus surveys, all the two week junkets, billlions in government funding, and speeches by Leonardo Di Caprio..."
continues.. US Rassmussen Poll ? 61% say climate debate is not over « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2016/08/us-rassmussen-poll-61-say-climate-debate-is-not-over/)






.

megan
21st Aug 2016, 03:50
le PingouinThe decreased nutritional value of significant crops has been experimentally established.Where is the paper detailing those experiments? I ask because some hot house growers increase the CO2 levels to something like 1,000PPM to increase productivity. Increased CO2 levels works for some, but not all plants, with respect to productivity. The broad statement of yours I have quoted above requires qualification as to what crops and the circumstances in which they were grown, because increased CO2 may require adjustment in the nutrient levels available to the plant.

Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses (http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm#plant)

De_flieger
21st Aug 2016, 03:56
SASless, yes, I read the rest of your post. If I understand this correctly, you claim that James Hansen made misleading claims and fabricated data. I dont know enough about the details of his career or publications to confirm or deny this, but the mainstream literature indicates that he's made a lot of claims, some of which are very alarming and potentially overstate risks, but we won't know for sure for decades or centuries to come if his predictions come true. If they do though, large areas of the globe that are currently habitable, won't be, so its a bit of a problem if they are correct. His academic career seems to have continued without serious problems though, indicating either the controversy was at least partially a beat-up by people opposing him for ideological reasons, or most of the other scientists in the field, across many different nations and research groups, many of whom are directly competing with each other, are all involved in an elaborate global left-wing conspiracy... Occams razor comes into play somewhere along the line here.

Even if his work was entirely misleading, not that I am saying that is the case, but if it was, then in that case it would be appropriate not to include it on the NASA website. Which is apparently your grounds for disagreeing with the webpage - they didnt publish or discuss the work of someone you claim to be acting fraudulently?? That doesnt quite seem to make sense to me.

Your next statement - "Do you forget the Email Scandals that destroyed the AGW Advocates not so long ago?" Nope. The email scandals, the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, that released thousands of emails and documents, and was investigated by eight separate independent bodies across the globe and found no evidence of fraud or misconduct. The investigations were carried out by among others, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK), the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania State University, the EPA (USA) and the National Science Foundation (USA). All these groups found no evidence of misconduct or fraud, and concluded that their investigations into the emails did not change in any way the scientific consensus about climate change. They did say however that the controversy was at least partially due to cherrypicking phrases taken out of context, and misunderstanding of certain scientific concepts. The EPA has a webpage containing part of their response here: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/myths-facts.html
Or you can have a quick look at the Wikipedia page about the email release, its not a primary source but it does explain the overall event and has links to the primary sources, reports released by different groups investigating the emails and the scientific community responses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
So the email controversy didn't exactly "destroy the AGW Advocates" :ok:

De_flieger
21st Aug 2016, 04:28
A big part of the "skeptic" or "denier" viewpoint that I don't understand is the way the claims keep changing.

Met offices: "The earth is getting hotter" Response "No its not, its cooling, where's the data??"

"Heres all our data showing that its getting hotter" "youre manipulating the data"

"Heres the other national and global measurements showing its getting hotter" "Theyre manipulating the data too, its a conspiracy"

"Wheres the evidence for that?" "Its a conspiracy and the lack of evidence shows how well its hidden. Also, we demand evidence for your claims the earth is warming"

"Here's the warming evidence" "Its only warming because of the sun, not CO2"

"Heres the evidence that the warming isnt due to short-term solar changes. Also, I thought you just said it wasn't warming?"

"CO2 levels have been higher in the past" "Yes, at times when there were significantly higher sea levels and very different life forms, and most life was either aquatic or algae and lichens spreading across the rocks. Also at a phase in the Sun's life cycle where it was producing less solar output, which is something that changes gradually over hundreds of millions of years, and is a well understood aspect of astrophysics"

"All the scientists are just in it for the money anyway" "You mean like all the celebrity bloggers that have 'Donate Here' links on their websites? And sell advertising space on their blogs?"

"The scientists are talking outside their field of expertise" "You mean like Jennifer Marohasy who keeps being used by those so-called "skeptics" (but noone in the mainstream scientific community) as an authoritative source on anthropogenic climate change, and holds a BSc majoring in Botany and Entomology and a PhD in Botany? So no climate qualifications at all? Or maybe Joanne Nova who holds a BSc majoring in Microbiology and molecular biology? Those climate experts?"

le Pingouin
21st Aug 2016, 06:31
Binghi, You forgot to note this bit of the abstract from the Nature article:

"Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades"

vapilot2004
21st Aug 2016, 06:47
You forgot to note this bit of the abstract from the Nature article:

Binghi's omission is not that bad. For some "paid by energy etc" scientists, they conveniently leave out entire experimental data sets and their results.

le Pingouin
21st Aug 2016, 07:05
megan, it involves grains and legumes, basically foods that are staples for much of the worlds population. Adjusting nutrient levels to plants by third world subsistence farmers isn't a realistic option.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13179.html

"Productivity" only measures crop yield, not nutritional value, so is a poor metric.

Hempy
21st Aug 2016, 07:13
Via Joanne Nova:

"...Most people don’t believe, despite all the 97% consensus surveys, all the two week junkets, billlions in government funding, and speeches by Leonardo Di Caprio..."
continues.. US Rassmussen Poll ? 61% say climate debate is not over « JoNova

This is the most idiotic, puerile article I've ever read on her blog (admittedly not that many, I'm sure there's more). I didn't know nature listened to opinion polls! Who cares about what percentage of the population are deniers, the overwhelming evidence is undeniable.

And she gets paid to write that rubbish by cretins who soak it up just so they can have a big love in about how 'right' they are...see! :ugh:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Trossie
22nd Aug 2016, 11:46
If we are going to start quoting Arthur C. Clarke and 3001, it's probably worth remembering that 3001 is a work of fiction. It's a novel. Another good book is Thomas The Tank Engine, published by the Rev W. Awdry, but it isn't reliable evidence of sentient steam engines, very useful or otherwise...That quote from Arthur C. Clarke was not in the 'story' part of the book but from the extensive footnotes. Arthur C. Clarke is a little bit more respected as a scientist than Rev. Awdry as a railwayman! (Both write extremely good stories, but Mr Clarke's are somewhat more relevant to this thread!) :=

Trossie
22nd Aug 2016, 11:49
A full page of sermons from the religious zealots. Wow!!

Hempy
22nd Aug 2016, 12:19
What's religion got to do with anything on this thread ??

Trossie
22nd Aug 2016, 13:04
The religion of AGW. ;)

Step back and look at yourselves, you are all 'true believers' who can only see those who disagree as deniers/heretics. :=

When you lot try to attach all your 'the science is certain' to your pronouncements and try to ridicule the deniers/heretics, I will leave you with this quote:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

(Not quite a quote from 'Thomas the Tank Engine'!)

le Pingouin
22nd Aug 2016, 15:49
So Trossie, maybe you'll tell us whether you accept the CO2 level has increased over the last couple of hundred years? Or is that some conspiracy as well?

fltlt
22nd Aug 2016, 19:02
So Trossie, maybe you'll tell us whether you accept the CO2 level has increased over the last couple of hundred years? Or is that some conspiracy as well?

And it has, and will be greater or less in the past and in the future.

Your point please.

For the umpteenth time, make a prediction, have it actually happen as predicted, rinse and repeat, many times, you may have something.

There are so many unknowns that affect climate, complicated inter relationships of things we have no idea of, to simply go Chicken Little at the CO2 altar is a little obsessive.
Oh, and don't forget all the other gases that are now on and off the table: HFC's, methane, the list goes on and on.
You folks keep going, regular folks really don't notice you, check the polls.
We agree to disagree.

KenV
22nd Aug 2016, 19:06
So Trossie, maybe you'll tell us whether you accept the CO2 level has increased over the last couple of hundred years? Or is that some conspiracy as well?Hmmm. Let's concede that "the CO2 level has increased over the last couple of hundred years." Have humans been burning fossil fuels at significant levels "over the last couple of hundred years?" No, you say? Then how does one account for the increase in CO2 levels before humans started burning fossil fuels at significant levels?

fltlt
22nd Aug 2016, 22:24
Social engineering at its best, and this is just the tip of the iceberg:

http://energy.gov/eere/articles/energy-department-driving-clean-energy-development-and-sustainable-solutions-16-states

Look around the site, the gift that never stops giving, Other People's Money.

SASless
23rd Aug 2016, 02:28
FOX Business Channel had some American Female Medical Doctor on today pushing the AGW Agenda, amongst one of her stated Mandates was the absolute end of the use of Fossil Fuels by 2030.....a whole Fourteen Years away.

Her vague answer on what was to replace that form of fuel was "Renewable Energy".

She never did answer how she thought that could be done, done without destroying Western Society's Economies, and how much she thought it would cost.

She bragged that by doing so the World would be a better place, Medical Costs caused by Fossil Fuel Pollution would more than make up for the cost of converting to non-Fossil Energy....and of course there would be an abundance of jobs created that would offset any possible loss of current jobs.

Sorry folks.....but all that failed to pass the Smell Test!

Nemrytter
23rd Aug 2016, 09:51
For the umpteenth time, make a prediction, have it actually happen as predicted, rinse and repeat, many times, you may have something.You mean like the prediction that the global mean temperature will, on average, become warmer? Does that count?

Datapoint: As predicted, 2014 was the warmest year on record at the time.
Datapoint: As predicted, 2015 is the current warmest year on record.
Datapoint: As predicted, 2016 is likely to be the warmest year on record.:rolleyes:

Bankstown Boy
23rd Aug 2016, 10:15
silly me!

I was under the impression that a few years results were just weather not worthy of discussion?

Almighty climate change / global warming / climate weirding required decades of 'records' to even begin to contemplate a trend.

After all the 18 years of no statistical warming prior to the last el nino wasn't long enough, I remember being told that 30 years would be nice.

I keep forgetting the mantra
"if its hot, its global warming; if its cold, its just weather*"

*except of course if its really cold, then its global warming again!)

Nemrytter
23rd Aug 2016, 10:35
Aah, the classic next move from those who complain about AGW:
"Give evidence"
(some evidence)
"No, I don't like that evidence."

After all the 18 years of no statistical warming prior to the last el nino wasn't long enough, I remember being told that 30 years would be nice.And the other classic move: Choose an abnormally hot year as a starting point and then claim that there's no warming in the subsequent years.
(that was recently debunked by the RSS temperature dataset, btw).

Bankstown Boy
23rd Aug 2016, 10:47
its cold here in Sydney today - must be proof of cooling?

too short a period?

not the kind of evidence you want to present?

ah yes, the classic unicorn hunt from the religious zealots
"Here's my evidence"
(ahem, that paper's been withdrawn)
"DENIER!!!
(lets have a discussion)
"The debate is OVER!!!
(come on guys, give us some proof of your hypothesis)
"Don't you believe that CO2 is rising - DENIER!!!)
(No, its not that, but ...)
"DENIER!!!
(come on guys, lets have a civil debate; after you want to economically destroy the world to save it - can't we at least discuss it?)
"its was warmer yesterday afternoon / last week / last year - DENIER!!!!)
(yes, but warmer compared to what baseline? 1MBPa? 10kBPa? 2kBPa? the last 150 years?)
"RECORDED HISTORY - DENIER!!!!"

[sounds of same people leaving the religious/alarmist zealots alone]:ugh:

Nemrytter
23rd Aug 2016, 11:03
What on earth are you on about? You're the one not showing any evidence and generally being hysterical.

Bankstown Boy
23rd Aug 2016, 11:07
Nemrytter,

We've been here before.

From all of your previous comments I suspect that you are both smart and well informed when it comes to CAGW. Your problem appears to be a complete inability to see the issue from another view.

You know that the burden of proof lies with your side and you know that 2.5 years just aint gunna cut it, so why be offensive?

It belittles you

chuks
23rd Aug 2016, 11:08
Whatever happened to Green Granite? He was all over this like a rash, but now nothing ....

The denialists invented the "hysteria" they now claim is receding. Meanwhile, climate change seems to be accelerating, just going by reports of such unwelcome phenomena as melting permafrost and bleaching coral reefs.

It's a fact of life that the North Sea fisheries are forced to adjust to various species shifting habitat because of changing temperatures. Fish can be very sensitive to a change of just a few degrees in water temperature, plus most of them can not read so do not know that all this is just fakery on the part of crooked climate scientists.

We await the election of Donald Trump, when climate change should cease to exist, officially at least.

Nemrytter
23rd Aug 2016, 11:22
Your problem appears to be a complete inability to see the issue from another view.Actually my personal view is that there is some hysteria surrounding climate change. Not from the scientists, though, but from the armies of bloggers and activist organisations. Most of whom have little or no background in science.

Unfortunately that's where most people get their information and therefore there's this unrealistic perspective on things.
ou know that the burden of proof lies with your side and you know that 2.5 years just aint gunna cut it, so why be offensive?I don't think I was being offensive, apologies if you thought so.
There is a massive amount of peer-reviewed literature that supports the accepted AGW theory and I dislike the double-standards applied by people such as Trossie when it comes to what data they accept as 'proof'. They're quite happy to accept single, isolated, datapoints that support their viewpoint but refuse to accept similarly poor datapoints that disagree with their opinion.
Quite frankly it shows a huge degree of ignorance, but I suspect that the rubbish standard of science education in places like the UK and USA is the subject for another thread on another day.

Hempy
23rd Aug 2016, 11:24
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/h3mpy/7B83372D-5753-4CCB-AEDD-91D5E1A73488_zpso9vweafw.jpg

SASless
23rd Aug 2016, 12:43
Chuks dear Boy,

In the mid-70's I got the pleasure of hopping about the desert and mountains of Iran with seriously educated Geologists....mostly Australian with the odd Brit thrown in for levity.

Realizing all the sea creatures that were found in the Rocks and the fact we were in real mountains....well above a mile above Sea Level....I can confirm you proposition that Fish are sensitive to Temperature Change as there was not one of them to be found flopping anywhere near where we were working.

In the Summer it was quite warm.....and in the Winter it was quite cold with a Temp Delta of about 150 Degrees F.

But....either the land rose or the water fell....and it happened long before Vertipods appeared to be blamed for the change.

As you hold a Liberal Arts Degree I am assuming you had to take at least one Religion Course even if it was only to sensitize you to Islam's dictates....and I would ask you if it were AGW that caused that Forty Day Flood one particular creed (not Moby Dick) talks about where the original Binary Theory was experimented with by Man?

Hempy
23rd Aug 2016, 13:01
PPRuNe seriously needs an ARRSE style Waltenkommando..

chuks
23rd Aug 2016, 13:14
SASless really did work in Iran; he's not making that one up at all, and I really did take a Theology course as part of my Liberal Arts BA. I think he knew that already.

SASless, the thing about AGW right now is that some scientists see an alarmingly short-term change in the climate. Of course it's true that the climate has changed many times over history; the problem now with AGW is taken to be the very rapid rate of change.

I think it's easy, if you want to, to see the same crowd at work here who like to see other conspiracies at work, whether that's Hillary Clinton planning to somehow "abolish" the Second Amendment or merely the US government being behind 9/11 to some degree. The hottest topic in the States right now, the candidacy of Donald Trump, buffoon extraordinaire, ties in nicely to AGW denialism, since the Donald sees AGW as a dastardly Chinese plot to cripple American industry; for him climate change does not exist!

If you like whacky conspiracy theories, if you dislike science that tells you stuff you do not want to be told, if you really think that people get into climate science who want to fake that ... Donald Trump is your man!

SASless
23rd Aug 2016, 13:26
Chuks old Bean,

I hear Trump's Opponent proved she can open a Pickle Jar while being interviewed by a very serious TV Program the other Night and that should settle the Issue I agree.

But....as I consider AGW and its proof....and compare the Pickle Jar Theory for picking Presidents.....I find myself wanting more Data by which to make up my Mind.

Call me a Denier, or Conspiracy Lover, but unless and until the Data can be used to accurately replicate the Theory....I will have to remain unconvinced and go with my Gut Instincts.

Just as I saw some proof of the receding of the Oceans in Iran....I have to assume the current drought in California is no where as dramatic as seeing Sea Shells Ten Thousand feet up a Mountain side.

As AGW advocates warn us....the Sea is rising....and I have to ask how high would top the Mountain Top Sea Shells and thus become above normal for at one time those Shells were under water.

Even if in the most extreme case.....the Seas rise to to top even Everest....that would prove the most effective way to rid the Planet of AGW caused by Mankind.

The question to be answered is what do we do about Volcanic Activity that dwarfs Man created pollution by several orders of magnitude?

LowNSlow
23rd Aug 2016, 13:48
This is an interesting document that questions the 280ppm baseline that is used as the basis for the increase in CO2. It also questions some of the decisions by the IPCC in accepting data without interrogating it: http://http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf

Hempy
23rd Aug 2016, 13:50
So far (in 2016), SASless has been a policeman, a helicopter pilot, in the military, and a part of a geological survey in Iran. What a wonderful resume.

SASless, you seem to have done more in your lifetime than anyone could hope to achieve. Hats off to you Sir.

I'd love to hear a narrative of all the stories you have to tell about your varied and no doubt illustrious career. Perhaps a new thread is in order, I'm sure it'll be enthralling for all of us.

LowNSlow
23rd Aug 2016, 13:53
This document makes some interesting points about the assumption of 280ppm as the datum point for CO2 levels, it postulates 312ppm instead, and takes issue with the IPCC for using non verified data in it's reports: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf

Hempy
23rd Aug 2016, 13:54
Cheers mate, we saw it the first time

De_flieger
23rd Aug 2016, 14:04
The question to be answered is what do we do about Volcanic Activity that dwarfs Man created pollution by several orders of magnitude? That's an interesting claim, but not one shared by researchers in the field. The current estimates are that human-created carbon dioxide emissions are (in round figures) 100 times the carbon dioxide emissions due to volcanic activity both land based and underwater. Scientific American has an article on it here: Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere? - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/)
and the United States Geological Survey has a few resources that address that topic, here's one of them: Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity? (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html)
which again calculates that carbon dioxide emissions due to volcanic activity works out to just under 1% of the carbon emissions created by human activity.

LowNSlow
23rd Aug 2016, 14:06
Hempy :ok: damn this antiquated system I struggle under!!

chuks
23rd Aug 2016, 14:08
I know SASless pretty well. (We met when I reached for my nice, new bar card, when I found that we were shaking hands.) He might get a bit florid now and then, not to mention larcenous, but I have never known him to speak with a forked tongue.

All that said, he seems to be a bit mixed up here between having seen evidence of the sea level dropping, or the land rising. Given that there's fossil evidence of marine life in high mountainous regions it's pretty safe to assume that we are looking at geological lifting there, layers of rock being raised, rather than evidence of some global flood in the style of the Bible story of Noah's Ark, when the face of the Earth was covered with water. (Not to over-do the science, but where was that global flood supposed to recede to?)

Nemrytter
23rd Aug 2016, 14:11
This is an interesting document that questions the 280ppm baseline that is used as the basis for the increase in CO2. It also questions some of the decisions by the IPCC in accepting data without interrogating it: http://http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdfThat article was published in a well-known anti-AGW journal and was roundly demolished in a response by Meijer and Keeling (behind paywall, but part is available here: http://klimarealistene.com/web-content/07.05.pdf)

De_flieger
23rd Aug 2016, 14:25
My (very limited) understanding of the mountains around Iran is that they were formed largely by tectonic uplift over millions of years, so it's entirely possible the seashells you saw were fossilised, and then lifted in place as tectonic plates moved and the mountains were created. This document has some interesting diagrams about what is called the "Zagros fold and thrust belt" http://tectonics.caltech.edu/publications/pdf/mcquarrie_JSG2004.pdf
and how tectonic plates and regions of rock were lifted and folded over the millions of years. Apparently folding and faults created a large number of mountain chains in the area, that's how the Himalayas came to be, created over tens of millions of years. I can't claim to know much about it but apparently the lifting and folding has resulted in a lot of oil producing folds and basins, so it's a fairly highly studied area. There's certainly places in Australia where you can find shells visible in the rocks in road cuttings that are hundreds of metres above sea level, carried there through the tectonic folding that created the mountains that make the cuttings necessary. :)

SASless
23rd Aug 2016, 14:34
A couple of the Geo's I flew were University Professors in OZ....and over the Year or so i flew them I got quite an education. Being both inquisitive and lazy....a well timed question allowed for both an enlightening lecture and a long slow cup of Coffee from the Thermos. I knew I had scored when I saw the Pipe come out and the Prof start fiddling with it while expounding upon what we were observing.

Ours was the first Geological Mapping of that area and the finds of valuable Minerals and such showed how valuable that area was.

What i found really amazing was the leavings of Centuries old Copper Smelters....and not a real Tree to be seen.

Which makes One wonder how they fired the Smelters all those hundreds of Years ago.

le Pingouin
23rd Aug 2016, 14:56
Cutting down enough trees over a wide enough area (as growing empires are wont to do) can adversely alter local rainfall patterns and the trees don't come back.

dboy
23rd Aug 2016, 15:57
Last month it was the 15th month in a row with warmest temperature records ever registered. How can people say :" there is nothing going on".

I dont know if it is ALL caused by human beings, but they are a part of that. And in the mean time if i am reading in the newspaper that in 2020 a commercial company wants to go to the moon for mining raw materials, i am getting really sad. Why first not taking care of our own mother planet??? But no, first destroying this place and then go somewhere else to f*ck it up. I am happy not having kids, cause the future world they would have to grow at is really looking pale at the moment.

Cazalet33
23rd Aug 2016, 16:20
Cutting down enough trees over a wide enough area (as growing empires are wont to do) can adversely alter local rainfall patterns and the trees don't come back.

That is actually reversible in a human lifetime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vfuCPFb8wk

LowNSlow
23rd Aug 2016, 17:03
Thanks for the reference Nemrytter but I wouldn't describe "The variability of these early measurements must therefore be attributed to "local or regional" factors or poor measurement practice." as roundly demolishing but a justification for ignoring them. Roundly demolishing them would have involved repeating the measurements at the locations specified and then showing that they were "local or regional".

This link Astounding discovery: World War II had low carbon footprint « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/astounding-discovery-world-war-ii-had-low-carbon-footprint/) makes an interesting observation. On the basis that pre-WW2 oil production was around 2 billion barrels/year, there was a consumption of around 12 billion barrels during the War and production was running at approx. 3.5 billion barrels/year at the end of WW2. How did this level of CO2 expenditure result in a decrease in the global CO2 figures?

SASless
23rd Aug 2016, 17:53
dboy,

You reckon Temps/CO2 levels might have been rising right up to the start of an Ice Age where they then dropped.....to start all over again until the next Ice Age....of which there have been several.

Cazalet33
23rd Aug 2016, 18:01
Barrels of oil burnt is not the only measure of greenhouse gas emissions.

Indonesia, for example, has almost no industry and very low uptake of cars per million of population, but in recent years became the world's third worst emitter of greenhouse gases due to human activities.

Not all anthropogenic CO2 is emitted by Volvos and The Guardian's printing presses, y'know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHYLAXkenFw

SASless
24th Aug 2016, 04:23
OH MY! How very awkward this latest bit of NASA Science is going to be for the AGW Crowd!

How long will it take for them to claim NASA is all wrong.....much as i did when that fellow Hansen's name was brought up?

chuks
24th Aug 2016, 06:54
Hang in there, SASless! You just keep cherry-picking away and perhaps this climate change will stop, go away, never happen, turn out to be crooked scientists faking all of it, including the way that parts of Siberia are now turning into boggy brown soup.

Have you tried putting your hands over your ears, shutting your eyes, and chanting "Nah-nah-nah, I can't hear you!"? I think that, along with using Breitbart as a source of serious information, should sort all of this out quickly, but there you are.

Yes, I do wear sandals with socks and eat müsli, but why do you ask?

Hempy
24th Aug 2016, 07:09
How long will it take for them to claim NASA is all wrong.....

Haven't you been saying that all along?

tartare
24th Aug 2016, 07:35
A genuine question if AGW is correct - then aren't we all rooted anyway?
To make meaningful changes in carbon emissions that would reverse climate change or even hold it at sustainable levels is beyond anything any we can collectively muster as a race?
In other words it's already too late.

Trossie
24th Aug 2016, 08:10
... has been a policeman, a helicopter pilot, in the military, and a part of a geological survey in Iran. What a wonderful resume. Only a person who has lived a boring life would find that to be exceptional.

Trossie
24th Aug 2016, 08:36
To make meaningful changes in carbon emissions that would reverse climate change or even hold it at sustainable levels is beyond anything any we can collectively muster as a race?tartare, that is pretty much what this whole thing revolves around. If we are too small to make any difference, then surely we were too small to have made any difference in the first place?

ORAC
24th Aug 2016, 09:08
But have already made all the changes we need to, so stop getting your knickers in a twist....

Climate change just never is going to happen, is it? | Tim Worstall (http://www.timworstall.com/2015/12/19/climate-change-just-never-is-going-to-happen-is-it/)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/25/china-coal-peak-hailed-turning-point-climate-change-battle

LowNSlow
24th Aug 2016, 09:26
Cazalet, obviously barrels of oil burnt isn't the only influence but it is a useful indicator of the level of industry taking place. Another great generator of CO2 during WW2 was the cement industry which went into overdrive during the 1940's with the building of new structures during the war followed by the rebuilding of old structures post war. Quite surprising then that CO2 levels fell during the period......

Cazalet33
24th Aug 2016, 10:20
L&S, I guess you've just discovered the concept of lag.

LowNSlow
24th Aug 2016, 11:13
Caz, did you open the link?

Cazalet33
24th Aug 2016, 14:13
No.

With a name like "Climate change just never is going to happen" you might imagine why.

oicur12.again
24th Aug 2016, 15:01
The Breitbart article does not really paint an accurate picture of what NASA is saying.

Next time, instead of reading this spin version, go to the NASA website and read the implication behind the original article.

Toadstool
24th Aug 2016, 15:15
The Breitbart article does not really paint an accurate picture of what NASA is saying.

Next time, instead of reading this spin version, go to the NASA website and read the implication behind the original article.

oicur12

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/aug/19/reading-breitbart-news-steve-bannon-donald-trump

The first thing you notice when visiting Breitbart is its idiosyncratic presentation. Every headline is in capitals. It implies a sense of significance and dire urgency.



This may explain why our most prolific RW Breibart-quoting pruner is a fan of using flying random capital letters.

If Breitbart’s success is from publishing articles that it knows will upset its readers, the key is to publish the stories that present the perfect combination of facts to fuel rightwing anger. For example, a story about homeland security secretary Jeh Johnson, who visited Louisiana following the recent floods, saying Obama could not also attend because he has a “very busy schedule”. It is true – he did say that. But the article is illustrated with a picture of a smiling Obama on a golf course, and the text notes the president is “on vacation”.



For all the veneer of objectivity, readers are only presented with stories that further rightwing narratives.

That is not to say that the actual news it is reporting is incorrect. Its the spin applied that gives the bias. Just like the spin in the newspaper from which I have quoted.

West Coast recently challenged me, as he constantly does with others when using sources not from the right, for quoting Trump from a left wing US news site. Alas, had he taken the time to actually read the article, he would have seen that the quote I had used came directly from Trump's twitter account:E

Perhaps the news regarding Antartica, while being correct, has to be taken into context with other scientific articles.

LowNSlow
24th Aug 2016, 16:38
Caz not that link, this one Astounding discovery: World War II had low carbon footprint « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/astounding-discovery-world-war-ii-had-low-carbon-footprint/)

SASless
24th Aug 2016, 16:46
Odd.....I got to the NASA web site via that article.

Seems you are typical....focus on the Messenger and ignore the information provided. Granted it does require one to read beyond the Title and Source to do that I suppose.

I took the effort to go to the Site and read every article there and in fact the By Line at Breitbart did not convey the full context of the NASA Article....but then how is Breitbart any different than say the NYT, LA Times, WaPo, or any Drive By Media outlet in that regard?

I used that Source and a provocative statement to gain what I knew would be the first reply.

Thank You for helping in that endeavor.

At the NASA site....they made forecasts without any data to support their conclusion.....so should we accept their forecasts or ask for some explanation as to why they feel free to say what they do?

Cazalet33
24th Aug 2016, 17:54
they made forecasts without any data to support their conclusion

this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.

so should we accept their forecasts or ask for some explanation as to why they feel free to say what they do?


You don't have to accept their evidence, but you might.

wiggy
24th Aug 2016, 18:12
[lurk off]It's a brave person who equates the NASA that existed in the 60's with the current version...

The management heavy post Moon landing version of NASA made a largely politically motivated decision to launch a space shuttle that wasn't supported by available data. [/lurk on]

Cazalet33
24th Aug 2016, 18:31
And the rest, Wiggy, can be seen in a movie starring the dude in the slow-moving white SUV.

Hempy
25th Aug 2016, 01:34
http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19082.html?token=Efx4ux6qecvncjQcwmVB4tB5gbQZsGS3LEzCi vP4c6YpmiEPin2VX6EMuT2YWZKU&referrer_url=http://www.nature.com/articles/nature19082.epdf?

megan
25th Aug 2016, 04:30
A great article Hempy. What I liked most was the measure of doubt it expressed in drawing definite conclusions from observations made, as in the science is not understood/settled. Uses of the words/phrases "we think, might etc" give it gravitas in my mind. Just to pick one sentence, "Exceptions are Antarctica, for which the small trend relative to variability does not allow for the detection of significant trends, and Asia, for which strong lag-1 autocorrelation leads to uncertainty in the lower (5%) bound for the onset of warming". Yes, we have a broad understanding at the macro, but not at the micro level.

SASless
25th Aug 2016, 14:10
State of Oregon has become the first (and only) US State to ban Coal in all forms insisting Alternative Energy (omitting Hydro-Electric) to be the only source for Electrical Generation in the State.

Never mind the reality of the situation....the Lefties in Portland, Salem, and Eugene outnumber the rest of the State and they have control of the Legislature.

So....increased costs and lack of supply problems are coming to the people of the State as a direct result.

The political change from Right to Left began with the massive influx of Californians many Years back. It was bad enough when the Oakies arrived during then Depression but at least they were seeking a new life out West.

When I lived in Oregon....I kept posted on my Pickup Truck's Bumper....a simple Bumper Sticker that read....."Do Not Californicate Oregon!" and now folks understand why I did.

Warnings of rate hikes as Oregon becomes 1st state to kill coal | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/24/warnings-rate-hikes-as-oregon-becomes-1st-state-to-kill-coal.html)

fltlt
26th Aug 2016, 04:13
We have met the enemy, and it's us that just let the minority do what their donors want:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/coal-glut-environmental-pushback-derail-west-coast-port-plans-1470070765

What used to be just the fruits and nuts in CA now have Oregon and Washington lining up behind them, there's subsidies and grants, lions, tigers and bears, oh my in those hills.

Watch closely, there are some very quiet "pilot programs" going on in Oregon pushed by the Fast Pass folks, their equipment placed on every major thoroughfare can be used to track vehicles, then issue bills for "miles driven" or automatic speeding tickets, the list is endless.

The idea was floated in CA a few years ago and surprisingly received strong resistance, all they did was move it north and "pilot test" it there.
Of course the surveys said 97% they liked it, as a result it is slowly being spread south as "test" phases.

Notice the acceptance of draconian Govt., both state and federal, rules and regulations by large corporations, fearing if they stand up and say something they will be forced to accept worse.
This truly is social engineering on a scale never seen before.

Trossie
26th Aug 2016, 08:40
When I lived in Oregon...Watch out SASless, you'll have some boring git commenting on your 'wonderful resume' because you've lived in more than one place!

SASless
26th Aug 2016, 15:23
Some of us are born to be Gypsy's I reckon....but in my travels I obtained an Education that cannot be had in any University.....not even that Acme of Liberal Arts our dear friend and colleague "Chuks" matriculated from a few Years back.

I look at some of my friends who graduated College and went to work for a firm....and worked there their entire working career....same town, same home, same job, same work.....every day, all day, their whole Life.

For them it might have been fine...but I would have gone completely insane.

fltlt
26th Aug 2016, 16:04
And just who is doing macro social engineering, can't sell enough to be commercially viable, so legislate instead, and from the radio and tv ads paid for by the lentil munchers prior to the vote, who was mentioned, "the children".
I have nothing against kids, but trotting them out for each and every fundraising/we want it our way is tiresome.
Anyway:

http://www.thedrive.com/news/4996/california-votes-to-cut-greenhouse-gases-40-percent-by-2030?xid=hl

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
27th Aug 2016, 00:08
...i am reading in the newspaper that in 2020 a commercial company wants to go to the moon for mining raw materials...

If the greenies and alarmists get control, it will be the only place we will be able to mine for raw materials.

Captain Dart
27th Aug 2016, 03:11
Don't be too sure. In Kim Robinson's epic 'Mars' trilogy, 'reds' actively resist the terraforming and development of Mars, as their agenda is to keep the planet pristine.

Perhaps 'greys' will object, especially as footprints, vehicle tracks, mining scars etc would be visible on the airless lunar surface for eons. At least 'lunar warming' would not be an issue.

Maybe the company could sneakily do it on the side away from Earth!

Shannon volmet
27th Aug 2016, 23:07
I have no doubt whatsoever that climate change is occurring. However, in the brief period that mankind has been polluting the atmosphere represents a miniscule period of time in the existence of planet Earth. I feel that what we are seeing is more as a result of planetary evolution, something we can only observe but have no control over. Scientists can only theorise as to what is going on, but they will never be sure. Yes, everything we do to reduce the amount of pollution we make can only be a positive, but nature will do whatever nature is going to do, and we can only stand in awe.

chuks
28th Aug 2016, 20:46
A guy who worked for Bristow worried about going completely insane? Put your hand on your heart and tell us that you came out of that adventure completely sane, SASless.

If you do, I will throw a radio at you. Just a small one, but ....

evansb
28th Aug 2016, 21:34
It took less than a century to denude the northern coast of Africa of tall trees. The resultant climate change and encroachment of the desert was a direct result of deforestation. The huge subterranean aquifer is a tribute to a once grand forest. In a related man-made climate change, do you remember the Cedars of Lebanon?..

If a single volcanic eruption in Indonesia in 1883 caused global climate change, resulting in crop failure, famine and disease in Europe for a couple of years, certainly 300 years of human industrialization can have an equal if not subtle yet longer lasting impact.

Regarding Oregon, the Columbia River has been dammed and altered for power for over a century. The impact on wildlife and the indigenous population is unquestionable. The question never asked is when and if population growth will ever cease, with the consequent increasing demand on power sources? In the grand scheme, humans have clearly indicated that they don't really care about wildlife, and the loss of arable land will only be a concern when it is far too late.

Humankind's expansion has always been about maximizing economies. If a population increase ultimately demands more power than "eco" sources can provide, you can be assured that every ounce of coal and nuclear energy will exploited, but only after every avenue of "green" energy sources is exhausted.