More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[ScienceRocks]

Yeah your winning alright

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/17/why-cant-we-give-up-fossil-fuels

We're not getting any free lunch from the world's economies, either. With only a single year's lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, we've continued to pour record amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures – CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the U.S.) rose 9.3 percent; the Japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-Fukushima, so their emissions edged up 2.4 percent. "There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency," said Corinne Le Quéré, who runs England's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. "But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal." In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rifying-new-math-20120719page=2#ixzz2nsfDXlP8
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

 

[PMZ]

Yeah your winning alright

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/17/why-cant-we-give-up-fossil-fuels

We're not getting any free lunch from the world's economies, either. With only a single year's lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, we've continued to pour record amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures – CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the U.S.) rose 9.3 percent; the Japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-Fukushima, so their emissions edged up 2.4 percent. "There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency," said Corinne Le Quéré, who runs England's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. "But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal." In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rifying-new-math-20120719page=2#ixzz2nsfDXlP8
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

At some point in time the cost of AGW consequences will be unarguable to even the most callous mind. The question then will only be, is it too late?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah your winning alright

Why can't we quit fossil fuels? | Environment | The Guardian

We're not getting any free lunch from the world's economies, either. With only a single year's lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, we've continued to pour record amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures – CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the U.S.) rose 9.3 percent; the Japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-Fukushima, so their emissions edged up 2.4 percent. "There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency," said Corinne Le Quéré, who runs England's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. "But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal." In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rifying-new-math-20120719page=2#ixzz2nsfDXlP8
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly

Despite the best efforts of the greens to stop fracking.

 

[PMZ]

Yeah your winning alright

Why can't we quit fossil fuels? | Environment | The Guardian

We're not getting any free lunch from the world's economies, either. With only a single year's lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, we've continued to pour record amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures – CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the U.S.) rose 9.3 percent; the Japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-Fukushima, so their emissions edged up 2.4 percent. "There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency," said Corinne Le Quéré, who runs England's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. "But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal." In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rifying-new-math-20120719page=2#ixzz2nsfDXlP8
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly

Despite the best efforts of the greens to stop fracking.

Stopping fracking is a safety, ground water and traffic issue. All local problems. It should be a local decision.

 

[freedombecki]

Engineers know that you solve problems as you need to and as you can and as you want to.

Oil is the first to go. We have many solutions to that. I live in one place where there is lots of wind, and another where there is lots of sun. There is no oil in either place.

Why wouldn't I have a solar powered car in the sunny place and a wind powered car in the other? And I can use the same car!

All you keep doing is repeating what you want us to do !
..and that "We have many solutions to that"...well what are they ?
So far all you said is:"I live in one place where there is lots of wind, and another where there is lots of sun."
What makes you think that it`s different in Germany?
You still need to adjust for sudden load demand even if you have "lots of wind"....it`s not constant unless you are inside a wind tunnel.
All the while you`ve got to maintain constant rpm to stay at 60 hertz and at grid voltage, which calls for more torque wanting to drop your rpm and get it out of phase, lagging with the grid...how many times do I have to tell you what the problem is ?
Solar? aren`t there any clouds passing overhead where you live?

Engineers know that you solve problems as you need to

They all know that at Siemens, GE, Mitsubishi etc, the question you keep avoiding is how; if you don`t want to "spin up" another power plant that picks up the slack for wind and solar.

Our integrated power grids have been doing that all the time even long before wind turbines went on-line.
In any power plant 1 or 2 turbines carry the current (base) load and when there is a sudden demand surge that they can`t handle the rest of the other turbines which are on stand-by were spinning in phase share the load by having their exciter voltage increased and their wicket gates opened just a little more& just enough to keep spinning in phase and at constant rpm to accept that load.
No problem, that does not drop the pen stock pressure you get from the reservoir.
So what do you suggest we should do when your "reservoir" the wind speed drops for the whole wind mill park.. while the load demand spikes up?
Now it`s a gamble. If you are lucky you are still able to compensate with the blade pitch to adjust for the lower wind speed as long as that wind speed is still high enough to give you the torque to keep up the rpm.
I guess it never occurred to you that a shallow pitch to stay at nominal rpm delivers less torque and you would be out of phase in 1/120 th of a second, smoking your wind mill unless the disconnect breakers tripped in time...and then you are screwed !
You would brown out an entire region exactly the same way Texas did with their wind mills.

The difference between you and I is that I know that we are smart and capable enough to maintain civilization through the time that we always knew was coming, when the energy of past suns ran out, and our only source would be today's sun.

We will do that with you or without you, but we will do it.

Technology is revolutionized on a continuing basis. I've lived long enough to know that neither you nor I can even imagine future capabilities.

So, the old saying, lead, follow, or get out of the way, applies.

Your choice.

Use your own money for this research that is so vital, PMZ or get out of the way. The worst way to take people's incentive away from them is to flood them with money at the gate. They have no reason to run for the roses when you give them no cause for getting to the winner's circle.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You conservatives don't even believe in science or the last 150 years of public funded science. The private sector that is your god isn't everything.

 

[PMZ]

All you keep doing is repeating what you want us to do !
..and that "We have many solutions to that"...well what are they ?
So far all you said is:"I live in one place where there is lots of wind, and another where there is lots of sun."
What makes you think that it`s different in Germany?
You still need to adjust for sudden load demand even if you have "lots of wind"....it`s not constant unless you are inside a wind tunnel.
All the while you`ve got to maintain constant rpm to stay at 60 hertz and at grid voltage, which calls for more torque wanting to drop your rpm and get it out of phase, lagging with the grid...how many times do I have to tell you what the problem is ?
Solar? aren`t there any clouds passing overhead where you live?
They all know that at Siemens, GE, Mitsubishi etc, the question you keep avoiding is how; if you don`t want to "spin up" another power plant that picks up the slack for wind and solar.

Our integrated power grids have been doing that all the time even long before wind turbines went on-line.
In any power plant 1 or 2 turbines carry the current (base) load and when there is a sudden demand surge that they can`t handle the rest of the other turbines which are on stand-by were spinning in phase share the load by having their exciter voltage increased and their wicket gates opened just a little more& just enough to keep spinning in phase and at constant rpm to accept that load.
No problem, that does not drop the pen stock pressure you get from the reservoir.
So what do you suggest we should do when your "reservoir" the wind speed drops for the whole wind mill park.. while the load demand spikes up?
Now it`s a gamble. If you are lucky you are still able to compensate with the blade pitch to adjust for the lower wind speed as long as that wind speed is still high enough to give you the torque to keep up the rpm.
I guess it never occurred to you that a shallow pitch to stay at nominal rpm delivers less torque and you would be out of phase in 1/120 th of a second, smoking your wind mill unless the disconnect breakers tripped in time...and then you are screwed !
You would brown out an entire region exactly the same way Texas did with their wind mills.

The difference between you and I is that I know that we are smart and capable enough to maintain civilization through the time that we always knew was coming, when the energy of past suns ran out, and our only source would be today's sun.

We will do that with you or without you, but we will do it.

Technology is revolutionized on a continuing basis. I've lived long enough to know that neither you nor I can even imagine future capabilities.

So, the old saying, lead, follow, or get out of the way, applies.

Your choice.

Use your own money for this research that is so vital, PMZ or get out of the way. The worst way to take people's incentive away from them is to flood them with money at the gate. They have no reason to run for the roses when you give them no cause for getting to the winner's circle.

Do you come from another planet? If not, earth is your home too. You don't get to trash it.

So lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

[HenryBHough]

Had it not been for nature's cycle of climate change cockroaches would be the dominant species. As liberals are now dominant I fail to see that as a positive development.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You conservatives don't even believe in science or the last 150 years of public funded science. The private sector that is your god isn't everything.

You conservatives don't even believe in science or the last 150 years of public funded science.

Liberals fail economics.
And then they lie about science.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nasa spin offs = public sector science
National weather service with 60% of advancement within meteorology = public sector science
USGS = public sector science
Major federal grants for research = public sector science

Believe me I love the private sector and will fight tooth in tail against anyone that wants to do away with it. I feel the same about the public as it is just as important.

 

[skookerasbil]

You conservatives don't even believe in science or the last 150 years of public funded science. The private sector that is your god isn't everything.

You conservatives don't even believe in science or the last 150 years of public funded science.

Liberals fail economics.
And then they lie about science.

Indeed.


Yo Todd......how much of a hoot is this forum??!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Those economics sure work well for most of the first world...The hybrid public/private system of economics we all enjoy.

Fuck your early 20th century idiocy.

 

[westwall]

Yeah your winning alright

Why can't we quit fossil fuels? | Environment | The Guardian

We're not getting any free lunch from the world's economies, either. With only a single year's lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, we've continued to pour record amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures – CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas, so its emissions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the U.S.) rose 9.3 percent; the Japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-Fukushima, so their emissions edged up 2.4 percent. "There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency," said Corinne Le Quéré, who runs England's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. "But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal." In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...rifying-new-math-20120719page=2#ixzz2nsfDXlP8
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Big. Fucking. Deal. Man contribute less than 5% of the GLOBAL CO2 budget and when compared to the weight of the atmosphere at QUADRILLIONS of tons and your pathetic attempt at plucking on the emotional heart strings fails miserably.

Seriously, grow up.

 

[westwall]

You conservatives don't even believe in science or the last 150 years of public funded science. The private sector that is your god isn't everything.

Yeah sure. Your wonderful lib POTUS defunded the Space Program and NASA is reduced to a Muslim outreach program Kindly go fuck yourself.

 

[westwall]

The difference between you and I is that I know that we are smart and capable enough to maintain civilization through the time that we always knew was coming, when the energy of past suns ran out, and our only source would be today's sun.

We will do that with you or without you, but we will do it.

Technology is revolutionized on a continuing basis. I've lived long enough to know that neither you nor I can even imagine future capabilities.

So, the old saying, lead, follow, or get out of the way, applies.

Your choice.

Use your own money for this research that is so vital, PMZ or get out of the way. The worst way to take people's incentive away from them is to flood them with money at the gate. They have no reason to run for the roses when you give them no cause for getting to the winner's circle.

Do you come from another planet? If not, earth is your home too. You don't get to trash it.

So lead, follow, or get out of the way.

You keep saying that and don't a have a damned clue what it means. The truth is it's you that's going to get squished. So get ready for it.

 

[Abraham3]

Use your own money for this research that is so vital, PMZ or get out of the way. The worst way to take people's incentive away from them is to flood them with money at the gate. They have no reason to run for the roses when you give them no cause for getting to the winner's circle.

Do you come from another planet? If not, earth is your home too. You don't get to trash it.

So lead, follow, or get out of the way.

You keep saying that and don't a have a damned clue what it means. The truth is it's you that's going to get squished. So get ready for it.

More threats of personal violence? Is that a running theme with you? Does is stem from any physiological shortcomings?

Given the relative standing among the sciences between those who believe AGW is valid and that warming presents a threat and people like you who to to any lengths to simply deny the science, attack the scientists and with or without cognizance, bark for the fossil fuel companies, surely you realize that your cause is hopeless. We WILL move away from fossil fuels. We WILL move toward alternative energy sources. It will be slowly enough, however, that we will still suffer almost every bit of harm ever predicted. You and yours will not be treated kindly by history.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You conservatives don't even believe in science or the last 150 years of public funded science. The private sector that is your god isn't everything.

Yeah sure. Your wonderful lib POTUS defunded the Space Program and NASA is reduced to a Muslim outreach program Kindly go fuck yourself.

What's more important to a liberal, NASA or Obamaphones? We both know the answer to that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you come from another planet? If not, earth is your home too. You don't get to trash it.

So lead, follow, or get out of the way.

You keep saying that and don't a have a damned clue what it means. The truth is it's you that's going to get squished. So get ready for it.

More threats of personal violence? Is that a running theme with you? Does is stem from any physiological shortcomings?

Given the relative standing among the sciences between those who believe AGW is valid and that warming presents a threat and people like you who to to any lengths to simply deny the science, attack the scientists and with or without cognizance, bark for the fossil fuel companies, surely you realize that your cause is hopeless. We WILL move away from fossil fuels. We WILL move toward alternative energy sources. It will be slowly enough, however, that we will still suffer almost every bit of harm ever predicted. You and yours will not be treated kindly by history.

LOL! Are you shaking in fear?

We will move away from fossil fuels, when the economics makes sense and when the technology is there.
You can stop whining now.

 

[PMZ]

I want to be at the dealer laughing when Westhole has to trade in the last pickup truck in the world for an EV.

Priceless.

 

[westwall]

Do you come from another planet? If not, earth is your home too. You don't get to trash it.

So lead, follow, or get out of the way.

You keep saying that and don't a have a damned clue what it means. The truth is it's you that's going to get squished. So get ready for it.

More threats of personal violence? Is that a running theme with you? Does is stem from any physiological shortcomings?

Given the relative standing among the sciences between those who believe AGW is valid and that warming presents a threat and people like you who to to any lengths to simply deny the science, attack the scientists and with or without cognizance, bark for the fossil fuel companies, surely you realize that your cause is hopeless. We WILL move away from fossil fuels. We WILL move toward alternative energy sources. It will be slowly enough, however, that we will still suffer almost every bit of harm ever predicted. You and yours will not be treated kindly by history.

Where is there a threat of violence? pmsmz is telling the world to get out of his way, I'm letting him know the world is the immovable object. You really are a stupid child aren't you....