Solar prices are about to go up

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Is the subject area where a wind energy field is proposed subject to 40+ ft. seas?

I believe that the North Sea has experienced hurricane force winds and the North Sea is renowned for the storms and the size of its seas. I'm pretty sure also that the people proposing the installation of wind turbines off the US east coast would have researched the dangers. I'm pretty sure they have scientists on staff or at least on contract to advise them.

in other words you ( like myself) don't actually know what their storm procedures are.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

it was our last president not the current one and don't bring the MMGW bit into it .
Btw arctic ice is gaining rather rapidly this year.

But it's OK for you to do it???

By the way the arctic ice always increases rapidly this time of year (no worries though, the icebreakers will take care of it).

As shown in this graph, the rate and extent is well (a million square kilometers) below the lowest interdecile range value (if I understand correctly, 80% of all values for that date) and only slightly (about 200000 sq km) above the record low year set in 2012.



Not exactly reassuring, certainly nothing close to a 'recovery'...

Of course we wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't for AGW and the pollution produced by fossil fuel consumption.

Just for fun and to highlight the interconnectedness of these problems, an old cartoon (Vanity Fair,1861) of which I've just become aware.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by james247

My president isn't doing this. As a cruiser I won't be visiting America ie USA until you get a new president who can see beyond his p.......
And realise that there are a few climate issues in the world. Good luck

It is rude and ill mannered of you. But such uncivilized trash talk is par for the course with low information types.

I am sorry for you that the calming mystical energy of the ocean hasn't yet brought you peace. May you find tranquility.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

But it's OK for you to do it???

By the way the arctic ice always increases rapidly this time of year (no worries though, the icebreakers will take care of it).

As shown in this graph, the rate and extent is well (a million square kilometers) below the lowest interdecile range value (if I understand correctly, 80% of all values for that date) and only slightly (about 200000 sq km) above the record low year set in 2012.



Not exactly reassuring, certainly nothing close to a 'recovery'...

Of course we wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't for AGW and the pollution produced by fossil fuel consumption.

Just for fun and to highlight the interconnectedness of these problems, an old cartoon (Vanity Fair,1861) of which I've just become aware.

actually October 2012 was 7 million kilometers.
2017 is 8.2 million.
So that is far more than the 200,000 that your chart seems to suggest.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent — which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites — averaged for October 2012 was 7.00 million square km (2.70 million square miles
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201210

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually October 2012 was 7 million kilometers.
2017 is 8.2 million.
So that is far more than the 200,000 that your chart seems to suggest.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent — which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites — averaged for October 2012 was 7.00 million square km (2.70 million square miles
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201210

I remember 2 years ago asking the question whether or not we should be preparing for antartic sailing conditions. It was a provocative question written with the intent to stimulate discussion about the potential of nature caused global cooling. i.e. solar lowered activity.

The timing of this question was at the height of the AGW hysteria. Obviously I was an heretic to even think that NGC (Natural Global Cooling) was propably a more pressing issue than AGW.

Now it is being widely discussed amongst climate theorists that we are indeed entering into a cooling period.

As with any shifts in temperature, their are winners and loosers. Bikini sales go down. That is the sale of the number of bikinis goes down. Not the bikinis being worn go down as some of you perverse sea salts were imagining. :-)

But winners such as the Califonian snow resorts who this year broke records for length of their snow season.

Oh. While I'm talking about winners and loosers. I remember the comment of a famous scientist who was asked about his thoughts on the effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. His response. Well if what you are predicting comes about we will see extraordinary plant and forest growth. In other words a greener planet. But what would he know. Just another heretical thinker.

Getting back to the issue of solar panels perhaps costing more or not. I personally don't care if they even double in price. The cost benefit of solar panels on a boat go way beyond what you pay for 4 to 8 panels. IMHO.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

...As shown in this graph, the rate and extent is well (about a million square kilometers) below the lowest interdecile range value (if I understand correctly, 80% of all values for that date) and only slightly (about 200000 sq km) above the record low year set in 2012...

Is that better? I thought it was obvious that since the chart is not indexed the values stated were approximate.

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually October 2012 was 7 million kilometers.
2017 is 8.2 million.
So that is far more than the 200,000 that your chart seems to suggest.

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent — which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites — averaged for October 2012 was 7.00 million square km (2.70 million square miles
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201210

'My' chart is from the same source, the NSIDC.

Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying; it appears you are missing the point that the arctic sea ice is far below the mean and even 80% of all daily individual values for a given year entirely, and 'comparing apples (a monthly average?) to oranges (a daily value?)'.

Of course, this is something of a moot point.

There isn't a respected climatologist alive who thinks that fluctuations in the sea ice cover alone are anything more than a canary in the coal mine, and likewise that there will be fluctuations in the rate of warming. The problem is that the CO2 and its effects will last centuries, and most politicians and the plebeians in general have an attention span of 4 years (if we're lucky).

This 'residence time' is also why the faster the carbon economy is fazed out the less warming will take place.

It seems to me that what worries climate scientists most is the lack of understanding and shortsightedness of a certain group of people who are forming opinions before they have even a layman's grasp of what and why this is happening, for a variety of all-too-common and well-known reasons...

This thread is a perfect example.

Economics is arguably a more difficult subject than climate change, even more so than weather prediction, probably largely because, while the whims of people should be statistically predictable, their volatility makes it difficult to identify even which parameters to consider.

And yet people on this thread talk glibly, and apparently with great confidence and conviction, of 'free markets' and 'trade agreements' as if they invented the idea and were instrumental in forming the agreements...

Hard to remember that without the discovery of oil in an area with an advancing industrial society, whales would have likely not survived...

But





Or maybe more appropriately

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Now it is being widely discussed amongst climate theorists that we are indeed entering into a cooling period.

As a child of the 70's I seem to remember this being discussed at the time and the idea it would be good to learn to ski.

Pete

[bgallinger]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Bingo...more Crony Crapitalism on display.

Lets not forget the sinking of Solyndra to the tune of $500 million

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Pete7

As a child of the 70's I seem to remember this being discussed at the time and the idea it would be good to learn to ski.

Pete

Which goes to show how wrong memory and the media can be

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ok at the office thought you had some on the house to. Its been a year since we discussed your installs ( other than the awesome one on your boat)

We live in an apartment in the office building. No house.

[CaptTom]

The fact is, both wind and solar generation are becoming economically feasible, and in some cases the cheapest source. The tax incentives that got us to this point actually did what they were supposed to do, and we're approaching a point (if we're not already there) where they're no longer needed.

This tipping point will create a large disruption in the utility industry. Smart utilities are already trying to get on the bandwagon.

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Funny how all them homes with solar still need the grid....without it they would not have their American Dream Lifestyle of Air Conditioning running on solar.

That's true today. We need the grid for storage. But Elon Musk is banking on a day not too far off when many homes won't need the grid at all. We'll use his battery bank in our garage for storage.

Everyone talks about the next miracle breakthrough in battery technology being just around the corner. Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps it'll just be evolution, as current technologies and (especially) manufacturing processes improve incrementally.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

We live in an apartment in the office building. No house.

forgive me if has been a while. ( my elderly blond is really showing)

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I remember 2 years ago asking the question whether or not we should be preparing for antartic sailing conditions. It was a provocative question written with the intent to stimulate discussion about the potential of nature caused global cooling. i.e. solar lowered activity.

The timing of this question was at the height of the AGW hysteria. Obviously I was an heretic to even think that NGC (Natural Global Cooling) was propably a more pressing issue than AGW.

Now it is being widely discussed amongst climate theorists that we are indeed entering into a cooling period.

As with any shifts in temperature, their are winners and loosers. Bikini sales go down. That is the sale of the number of bikinis goes down. Not the bikinis being worn go down as some of you perverse sea salts were imagining. :-)

But winners such as the Califonian snow resorts who this year broke records for length of their snow season.

Oh. While I'm talking about winners and loosers. I remember the comment of a famous scientist who was asked about his thoughts on the effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. His response. Well if what you are predicting comes about we will see extraordinary plant and forest growth. In other words a greener planet. But what would he know. Just another heretical thinker.

Getting back to the issue of solar panels perhaps costing more or not. I personally don't care if they even double in price. The cost benefit of solar panels on a boat go way beyond what you pay for 4 to 8 panels. IMHO.

Maybe, however what is being discussed among climate scientists is that there may be a mini ice age in the Northern Hemisphere and more specifically in northern Europe for the reason I mentioned in an earlier post. I suppose some "low information" types wouldn't be aware that the scientifically proven warming of the Earth is not the same in all areas of the globe.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

I suppose some "low information" types wouldn't be aware that the scientifically proven warming of the Earth is not the same in all areas of the globe.

Why not if CO2 is the cause and CO2 is a "well mixed gas" ?

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by StuM

Why not if CO2 is the cause and CO2 is a "well mixed gas" ?

Look it up Stu.