More record temps

[daveman]

Your house represents the United States. The breakers you shut off represent the half of our power that comes from coal. Now turn on a Mini Maglite. That AA-powered flashlight represents alternative sources.

Now, try to continue your life that way....

Seriously? All the breakers for your house represent coal powered electrical generation and a AA flashlight represents alternative sources?

As I look at the Electric Power Monthly - Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source it looks like coal provides 45% of the electricity in the US annually, while alternative, non-carbon emitting sources (nuclear, hydro, Wind, solar, geothermal, etc.,) provide 30% of the electricity in the US. If you could power your whole house with a handful of AA batteries, why do you need breakers?

Ahh, but all those sources aren't embraced by the enviorunts, are they?

Nuclear's out. It's Satan's toe jam.

Hydroelectric? No way! It gets in the way of fish humping!

Geothermal? No can do. Takes too much water.

No, they've bet other people's farms on wind and solar. And from your link, "other renewables" is "Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind."

Percentage of power created by these other renewables was 4.2% of all power generated Feb '10 - Feb '11.

Any method that burns stuff is verboten, so the amount of power generated by acceptable green sources is even less.

So: Acceptable green sources simply aren't up to replacing coal. It would be astoundingly stupid to legislate coal out of use.

 

[daveman]

Please indicate anywhere that I indicated or implied that "alternative sources aren't economically feasible without being propped up by the government."

What I said is that government subsidies of private ventures designed to generate private profits "undermines the basic economic principles of a free-market system, and is a corporate welfare system designed to create and sustain market failures."

Not making the coal industry pay the public costs of its product's environmental damages, are also demonstrative of inefficiencies and market failures.

In a free and functional market, there would be no government subsidization of any company's profits, and all participants in the market would be obligated to cover all of the the costs (private and public) of their services and products before they earn profits on those services and products.

There are multiple clean energy alternatives (including nuclear, IMO) which could be viable and competitive with fossil fuels under viable and functional free market conditions.

If alternative sources could stand on their own, they would.

But they can't. They have to be propped up with tax dollars.

Do you dispute this?

What I dispute is the fact that we don't know if they can compete in a level market situation due to government subsidies for existent coal and oil energy systems. I believe that all systems should be made to compete equally within the market place. I don't think any profit making enterprise should be entitled to tax-payer subsidies. Either you believe in free markets with even handed regulation, or you don't.

I have no problem with that. Make all sources compete on the market, and watch wind and solar fade away.

 

[Trakar]

If alternative sources could stand on their own, they would.

But they can't. They have to be propped up with tax dollars.

Do you dispute this?

What I dispute is the fact that we don't know if they can compete in a level market situation due to government subsidies for existent coal and oil energy systems. I believe that all systems should be made to compete equally within the market place. I don't think any profit making enterprise should be entitled to tax-payer subsidies. Either you believe in free markets with even handed regulation, or you don't.

I have no problem with that. Make all sources compete on the market, and watch wind and solar fade away.

That's half the battle, now what about the externalities? Should all people be held to account for their actions? Should some people be able to generate record breaking profits while contributing to a hugely troubling and dangerous situation that is going to cost additional tax dollars to deal with those issues? If there's any leeway to grant its that not much of anyone paid any serious attention to the early climate scientists when they started talking about these issues a century and half ago. I don't think they should be grandfathered into paying a contrition for what they have done in the past, but for each ton of carbon tuel they are selling, they need to pay a carbon tax to help deal with the atmospheric carbon enhancement that ton of fuel represents. When coal becomes to expensive, energy companies will invest in more price competitive alternatives.

Personally, I'd rather see a heavy temporary shift to Natural Gas systems which while still carbon fuelled, are much cleaner and easier to scale so that we can go more with distributed local power networks along with a doubling of our nuclear power capacity to bring it up more into the 40-50% level. The rest will evolve as the market guides it over the next few decades.

 

[daveman]

What I dispute is the fact that we don't know if they can compete in a level market situation due to government subsidies for existent coal and oil energy systems. I believe that all systems should be made to compete equally within the market place. I don't think any profit making enterprise should be entitled to tax-payer subsidies. Either you believe in free markets with even handed regulation, or you don't.

I have no problem with that. Make all sources compete on the market, and watch wind and solar fade away.

That's half the battle, now what about the externalities? Should all people be held to account for their actions? Should some people be able to generate record breaking profits while contributing to a hugely troubling and dangerous situation that is going to cost additional tax dollars to deal with those issues? If there's any leeway to grant its that not much of anyone paid any serious attention to the early climate scientists when they started talking about these issues a century and half ago. I don't think they should be grandfathered into paying a contrition for what they have done in the past, but for each ton of carbon tuel they are selling, they need to pay a carbon tax to help deal with the atmospheric carbon enhancement that ton of fuel represents. When coal becomes to expensive, energy companies will invest in more price competitive alternatives.

Personally, I'd rather see a heavy temporary shift to Natural Gas systems which while still carbon fuelled, are much cleaner and easier to scale so that we can go more with distributed local power networks along with a doubling of our nuclear power capacity to bring it up more into the 40-50% level. The rest will evolve as the market guides it over the next few decades.

Carbon tax? Nonsense. AGW is junk science. Don't wreck the economy based on garbage.

 

[Old Rocks]

Junk science embraced by about 97% of scientists. Sure, Daveboy, sure.

Virtually all the Scientific Socities, National Academies of Science, and major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The effects of AGW are going to do a very good job of wrecking everybodies economy, sooner than later.

 

[daveman]

Junk science embraced by about 97% of scientists. Sure, Daveboy, sure.

Virtually all the Scientific Socities, National Academies of Science, and major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The effects of AGW are going to do a very good job of wrecking everybodies economy, sooner than later.

You really need to pay attention, Roxy...but then, if you paid attention, you wouldn't be an AGW cultist.

All these scientists whose hosannas you sing are operating off the same distorted, cherrypicked data and faulty models. Of course they'd reach the same conclusions.

Idiot.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. All the scientists all over the world are in on a conspiracy to mislead poor little Daveboy. Never mind the differant culteral and political systems they are from. Never mind that they are looking at data and observations from areas as diverse as the polar regions and tropical rain forests, and coming to the same conclusions.

Daveboy, don't lose that little tinfoil hat, you look so cute in it.

 

[edthecynic]

Junk science embraced by about 97% of scientists. Sure, Daveboy, sure.

Virtually all the Scientific Socities, National Academies of Science, and major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The effects of AGW are going to do a very good job of wrecking everybodies economy, sooner than later.

You really need to pay attention, Roxy...but then, if you paid attention, you wouldn't be an AGW cultist.

All these scientists whose hosannas you sing are operating off the same distorted, cherrypicked data and faulty models. Of course they'd reach the same conclusions.

Idiot.

And you know this because the deniers have the only accurate data.
Oh wait a minute, deniers have NO data. They just pontificate about everyone else's data.

 

[daveman]

LOL. All the scientists all over the world are in on a conspiracy to mislead poor little Daveboy. Never mind the differant culteral and political systems they are from. Never mind that they are looking at data and observations from areas as diverse as the polar regions and tropical rain forests, and coming to the same conclusions.

Daveboy, don't lose that little tinfoil hat, you look so cute in it.

Yes, that's right, Roxy. We're all gonna die. World socialism is the only thing that can save us.

 

[daveman]

Junk science embraced by about 97% of scientists. Sure, Daveboy, sure.

Virtually all the Scientific Socities, National Academies of Science, and major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The effects of AGW are going to do a very good job of wrecking everybodies economy, sooner than later.

You really need to pay attention, Roxy...but then, if you paid attention, you wouldn't be an AGW cultist.

All these scientists whose hosannas you sing are operating off the same distorted, cherrypicked data and faulty models. Of course they'd reach the same conclusions.

Idiot.

And you know this because the deniers have the only accurate data.
Oh wait a minute, deniers have NO data. They just pontificate about everyone else's data.

Deniers can see the cultists' data, and how it's been manipulated.

Cultists won't see it.

 

[Trakar]

I have no problem with that. Make all sources compete on the market, and watch wind and solar fade away.

That's half the battle, now what about the externalities? Should all people be held to account for their actions? Should some people be able to generate record breaking profits while contributing to a hugely troubling and dangerous situation that is going to cost additional tax dollars to deal with those issues? If there's any leeway to grant its that not much of anyone paid any serious attention to the early climate scientists when they started talking about these issues a century and half ago. I don't think they should be grandfathered into paying a contrition for what they have done in the past, but for each ton of carbon tuel they are selling, they need to pay a carbon tax to help deal with the atmospheric carbon enhancement that ton of fuel represents. When coal becomes to expensive, energy companies will invest in more price competitive alternatives.

Personally, I'd rather see a heavy temporary shift to Natural Gas systems which while still carbon fuelled, are much cleaner and easier to scale so that we can go more with distributed local power networks along with a doubling of our nuclear power capacity to bring it up more into the 40-50% level. The rest will evolve as the market guides it over the next few decades.

Carbon tax? Nonsense. AGW is junk science. Don't wreck the economy based on garbage.

So, you are saying that some people shouldn't have to pay all of the costs associated with their actions? That we should raise taxes on all individual citizens to pay for the profit making actions of these few individuals? Either you believe in the free market system and principles of individual responsibility or you don't. If you don't believe in those principles don't espouse them as solutions, if you do believe in them then you have to accept all the premises that are a part of those systems.

 

[daveman]

That's half the battle, now what about the externalities? Should all people be held to account for their actions? Should some people be able to generate record breaking profits while contributing to a hugely troubling and dangerous situation that is going to cost additional tax dollars to deal with those issues? If there's any leeway to grant its that not much of anyone paid any serious attention to the early climate scientists when they started talking about these issues a century and half ago. I don't think they should be grandfathered into paying a contrition for what they have done in the past, but for each ton of carbon tuel they are selling, they need to pay a carbon tax to help deal with the atmospheric carbon enhancement that ton of fuel represents. When coal becomes to expensive, energy companies will invest in more price competitive alternatives.

Personally, I'd rather see a heavy temporary shift to Natural Gas systems which while still carbon fuelled, are much cleaner and easier to scale so that we can go more with distributed local power networks along with a doubling of our nuclear power capacity to bring it up more into the 40-50% level. The rest will evolve as the market guides it over the next few decades.

Carbon tax? Nonsense. AGW is junk science. Don't wreck the economy based on garbage.

So, you are saying that some people shouldn't have to pay all of the costs associated with their actions? That we should raise taxes on all individual citizens to pay for the profit making actions of these few individuals? Either you believe in the free market system and principles of individual responsibility or you don't. If you don't believe in those principles don't espouse them as solutions, if you do believe in them then you have to accept all the premises that are a part of those systems.

Is that what I said?

Hint: "No."

 

[Wicked Jester]

Junk science embraced by about 97% of scientists. Sure, Daveboy, sure.

Virtually all the Scientific Socities, National Academies of Science, and major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

The effects of AGW are going to do a very good job of wrecking everybodies economy, sooner than later.

97% of ALL scientists?........Really?........Got a link with credible sources to prove that load of BS?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[gslack]

Please indicate anywhere that I indicated or implied that "alternative sources aren't economically feasible without being propped up by the government."

What I said is that government subsidies of private ventures designed to generate private profits "undermines the basic economic principles of a free-market system, and is a corporate welfare system designed to create and sustain market failures."

Not making the coal industry pay the public costs of its product's environmental damages, are also demonstrative of inefficiencies and market failures.

In a free and functional market, there would be no government subsidization of any company's profits, and all participants in the market would be obligated to cover all of the the costs (private and public) of their services and products before they earn profits on those services and products.

There are multiple clean energy alternatives (including nuclear, IMO) which could be viable and competitive with fossil fuels under viable and functional free market conditions.

If alternative sources could stand on their own, they would.

But they can't. They have to be propped up with tax dollars.

Do you dispute this?

What I dispute is the fact that we don't know if they can compete in a level market situation due to government subsidies for existent coal and oil energy systems. I believe that all systems should be made to compete equally within the market place. I don't think any profit making enterprise should be entitled to tax-payer subsidies. Either you believe in free markets with even handed regulation, or you don't.

I cannot figure out if you're seriously not seeing the problem with your arguments fundamentally, or if you are just wanting to argue somehow...

The very reason for the subsidies is to give alternative sources as fair a chance as they can. This was caused by the alternative sources respective lobbyists and the environmental groups and people pressuring the government and industries involved. People on YOUR side of this caused this... So now you are wanting to remove the subsidies your side worked so hard to get so your side will get a fair shot?

Dude seriously you make no sense at all.. I think you just want to argue, this is another case of you arguing to argue. Again you make no valuable point at all and now you argue against what the very people supporting your case argue for....

 

[Chris]

Record Events for Mon Aug 22, 2011 through Sun Aug 28, 2011

High Temperatures: 1487
Low Temperatures: 25
Lowest Max Temperatures: 44
Highest Min Temperatures: 1242

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

 

[daveman]

My tomato plants are dying.

ZOMG!! Global tomato plant genocide!!

 

[Chris]

Record Events for Mon Aug 22, 2011 through Sun Aug 28, 2011

High Temperatures: 1487
Low Temperatures: 25
Lowest Max Temperatures: 47
Highest Min Temperatures: 1283

HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View

 

[daveman]

Parts of Britain suffer coldest summer for nearly two decades - Telegraph

As Britons return to work today after a soggy Bank Holiday weekend, official weather data reveals that average temperatures were significantly down on recent years.
The UK’s average temperature from June 1 to August 15 was only 57F (13.9C) – the lowest for 13 years.
For central England the average was 59F (15C), making it the coolest summer since 1993.
Helen Waite, a Met Office forecaster, said: “The average temperature for central England this summer has been just 15C – this sort of temperature is normally typical of September.
“Generally speaking, you would expect to see temperatures of at least 17C for this time of year.”​

Obviously, this is caused by global warming.

 

[SW2SILVER]

Record hottest August temperatures on record in the US. Were do you live, Daveman? Just wondering. It has been hotter than hell here in the US. But how odd that it also coincides with the record population growth AND growing pollution from those same record numbers of people... Some of the folks that argue against human caused global warming seem to have more concern with profits and the well-being of the "economy" than they are with scientific standards of exactitude. If the planet dies, the economy won’t do so bloody well, will it? But, why bother with the long term?

 

[Meister]

Record hottest August temperatures on record in the US. Were do you live, Daveman? Just wondering. It has been hotter than hell here in the US. But how odd that it also coincides with the record population growth AND growing pollution from those same record numbers of people... Some of the folks that argue against human caused global warming seem to have more concern with profits and the well-being of the "economy" than they are with scientific standards of exactitude. If the planet dies, the economy won’t do so bloody well, will it? But, why bother with the long term?

It's the people and not the Sun, I see.