US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Another clever photo. Why not include photos of the nuclear, coal, or gas fired plants that back up this expensive white elephant at night and on cloudy days? Why not include the statics on productivity such as cost of the entire plant, cost per kilowatt, disposal costs of deteriorated solar panels, etc.? My hunch is that its cost is not even close to economical. How much coal was used to produce silicon for solar panels ? How will old solar panels be disposed of ? How many square miles of land was taken out of its natural state?

Why are you JAQing?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Allied39

The whole solar panel deal I find entertaining. The above mentioned silicone. And what about the aluminum to make the frames? Mined in Bolivia, bauxite shipped? trucked? to smelters? Clean fellows those smelters.

And I was told just last week that 275watt solar panels can be bought in Georgia for $60. HUH? Yeah, apparently they replace them every two years?!?

Wha? every two years...that sounds stupid......or does it? Is it in the contract that some company is making millions a year replacing panels that do not need replacing? Gee....do ya think? Real green that is.

Yeah, so I have never thought that solar panels themselves have no carbon footprint, unless simply plucked from between the rear cheeks of some hippy.....and pretty sure thats not the case.

But, of course, i have some solar panels, cause it suits me. I want them on my boat....cause I do.
I have two v8's, one from 68....lol, thatun does not burn clean! The other from 96. And also a 4 cylinder in my 37 Austin 7 from the 60's, tad smokey thatun.
I mention this to the fellow gloating about fuel prices. $4 a gallon? No problem....gets to $10 and I'll be driving the same cars....just pass that cost along.....maybe to you.

And lastly, just to point out how idiotic the average person is, whilst driving my V8 around today I marveled at the big green garbage truck. painting a garbage truck does not make it green......well it does.....but not green in the way in works in the average idiots head. They paint them green to make idiots feel better about the garbage truck.

Its all just too ludicrous. Seriously, its an absolute JOKE!!

Good commentary Allied. The renewable energy industry is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies. Example: Nobody knows how to dispose of old wind turbine blades. They are giant sized fiberglass or other composite structures. They are difficult to impossible recycle economically. Because renewables are intermittent, conventional plants with boilers must be be kept at idle to switch on to the grid at any moment. So renewables require constant use of coal, gas, or nuclear. This makes them an expensive unneeded accessory. At best, they are just a token effort. Another thing about wind turbines is that they tend to kill birds.


Green garbage trucks have to be one of the bigger laughs. Apparently green paint gives a garbage truck some redeeming quality. There are also waste disposal companies that call them selves "Enviro" something.

Great that you have the nice old cars. They are quite repairable with no computers and electronics. Will probably outlast anything new if looked after. Will save a lot of energy through no need of manufacturing replacements.

[Allied39]

[QUOTE=
Green garbage trucks have to be one of the bigger laughs. Apparently green paint gives a garbage truck some redeeming quality. There are also waste disposal companies that call them selves "Enviro" something.[/QUOTE]

One of the garbage companies motto's around here.....wait for it....."leaving the planet a little greener than we found it" Really? I crack up every time I see it.

This same company will not pickup garbage unless in a heavy plastic bag, a recent rule change.

It reminds me of the obvious "why do politicians talk to people like they are stupid......because they are!"

Remember the reset with Russia button? A certain politician (she wanders the woods I hear now) pressing a fake plastic button resetting the relationship with Russia? Absolutely asinine. How is that working out.....where's the bloody plastic button?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why are you JAQing?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

That photo is worth at least a thousand missing words. Why do you resort to trendy jargon that requires a web link to explain? Perhaps to be a smartass? Good old regular English has the advantage of being understandable. Besides, rational wiki has to be one of the worst sites on the net. It appeals to lefty socialist commie types who think that the world is about to gag on carbon.



According to some comments, some people on here are not thinking. Asking questions is a way of stimulating thought, But maybe some people are even too numb for questions to be effective.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by newhaul

For a smart seeming individual you are not to bright . How did the groceries you eat get to the store ? It's called DIESEL.

Amazing how the cranks like to rant nonsense. Seandepagnier seems to think that many of us can we can quit our jobs or ride to them on bicycles regardless of the distance and the weather. Wonder how he would feel about biking 40 miles a day through - 17 deg C, snow storms, road ice, torrential rain, or 40 knots of wind?


Solar panels and wind turbines that might be productive 20 to 40 per cent of the time are going to power the world? He forgot that conventional plants have to be kept running at idle to put on line when the renewables are still. Renewables that we have so far are really expensive white elephants.



I've read some crazy stuff on here, but this kind of rant sets a new standard on the low end of the scale.

[Allied39]

[QUOTE=Allied39;
Remember the reset with Russia button? A certain politician (she wanders the woods I hear now) pressing a fake plastic button resetting the relationship with Russia? Absolutely asinine. How is that working out.....where's the bloody plastic button?[/QUOTE]

And by the way, before the mods get onto me, I am not turning this thread political, absolutely not. The whole reason for that paragraph, as stated in the last words......"where's the bloody PLASTIC button?"

Middle of the Pacific I bet.

[OutOfControl]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Amazing how the cranks like to rant nonsense. Seandepagnier seems to think that many of us can we can quit our jobs or ride to them on bicycles regardless of the distance and the weather. Wonder how he would feel about biking 40 miles a day through - 17 deg C, snow storms, road ice, torrential rain, or 40 knots of wind?

http://seandepagnier.users.sourceforge.net/me.jpg

Looks like he might be fairly comfortable, not sure about the 40 mile trips.
I think he should add a cup holder though.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by OutOfControl

http://seandepagnier.users.sourceforge.net/me.jpg

Looks like he might be fairly comfortable, not sure about the 40 mile trips.
I think he should add a cup holder though.

Would like to see him ride that here . We got 3 inches of rain in the last 2 days . freezing last week with snow

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

... Dr. Lennart Bengtsson [2c]:
'CO2”s heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase' ...

The “saturation” argument was based on an experiment done years ago [1901], by Knut Ångström & Herr J. Koch. Infrared radiation was fired into a container of CO2 and the molar density of CO2 was gradually increased. The amount of radiation absorbed followed a logarithmic curve. This is the law of diminishing returns. For years this was accepted as how CO2 would behave in the atmosphere. [1a & 1b]
The reality is, CO2 doesn’t behave this way, and the saturation argument is invalid.

The increase in the CO2 however, is not linear! The logarithmic argument assumes linear CO2 increases, but it is nothing like that.
The increase in CO2 is exponential. The increase is so rapid that the temperature is increasing more now, curving up. It can’t continue this for long, but it really does not have to, for us to be in trouble.

You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming, even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts. It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated, with respect to absorption by CO2.
Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2, because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there, water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through, were it not for CO2.
These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

Dr. Spencer R. Weart [2a] and Dr. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert [2b] explain it much better, than I can.

“A Saturated Gassy Argument” ➥ https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...assy-argument/
and

“Part II: What Ångström didn’t know” ➥ https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...gument-part-ii

[1a] “Ueber die Bedeutumg des Wasserdarnpfes u m d der Kohlemsaure be$ der Absorpt$om deroErdatmosphare” ~ by von Knut Ångström [German]
➥ https://www.realclimate.org/images/Angstrom.pdf

"The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide"
As explained by David Archibald [2d] ➥ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/...arbon-dioxide/

[1b] The 1901 Monthly Weather Review, article commenting on Ångström’s work [English]
➥ https://www.realclimate.org/images/M...romComment.pdf

[2a] Spencer R. Weart ➥ https://history.aip.org/climate/author.htm
[2b] Raymond T. Pierrehumbert ➥ https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/
[2c] Lennart Bengtsson ➥ https://mpimet.mpg.de/en/staff/exter...nart-bengtsson
[2d] David Archibald ➥ https://www.heartland.org/about-us/w...avid-archibald
(B.S., Geology, Queensland University (1979), No other credentials, yet claims to be a "climate scientist")


Please be substantive – sniping, insults, and tedious repetition should just be culled, as should the perpetrators.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Would like to see him ride that here . We got 3 inches of rain in the last 2 days . freezing last week with snow

I think he would have just got on with it.. seem to remember him being stuck for a few weeks somewhere up N because the waterways were frozen up.
Not every ones a puddy tat..

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The “saturation” argument was based on an experiment done years ago [1901], by Knut Ångström & Herr J. Koch. Infrared radiation was fired into a container of CO2 and the molar density of CO2 was gradually increased. The amount of radiation absorbed followed a logarithmic curve. This is the law of diminishing returns. For years this was accepted as how CO2 would behave in the atmosphere. [1a & 1b]
The reality is, CO2 doesn’t behave this way, and the saturation argument is invalid.

The increase in the CO2 however, is not linear! The logarithmic argument assumes linear CO2 increases, but it is nothing like that.
The increase in CO2 is exponential. The increase is so rapid that the temperature is increasing more now, curving up. It can’t continue this for long, but it really does not have to, for us to be in trouble.

You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming, even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts. It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated, with respect to absorption by CO2.
Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2, because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there, water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through, were it not for CO2.
These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

Dr. Spencer R. Weart [2a] and Dr. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert [2b] explain it much better, than I can.

“A Saturated Gassy Argument” ➥ https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...assy-argument/
and

“Part II: What Ångström didn’t know” ➥ https://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...gument-part-ii

[1a] “Ueber die Bedeutumg des Wasserdarnpfes u m d der Kohlemsaure be$ der Absorpt$om deroErdatmosphare” ~ by von Knut Ångström [German]
➥ https://www.realclimate.org/images/Angstrom.pdf

"The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide"
As explained by David Archibald [2d] ➥ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/...arbon-dioxide/

[1b] The 1901 Monthly Weather Review, article commenting on Ångström’s work [English]
➥ https://www.realclimate.org/images/M...romComment.pdf

[2a] Spencer R. Weart ➥ https://history.aip.org/climate/author.htm
[2b] Raymond T. Pierrehumbert ➥ https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/
[2c] Lennart Bengtsson ➥ https://mpimet.mpg.de/en/staff/exter...nart-bengtsson
[2d] David Archibald ➥ https://www.heartland.org/about-us/w...avid-archibald
(B.S., Geology, Queensland University (1979), No other credentials, yet claims to be a "climate scientist")


Please be substantive – sniping, insults, and tedious repetition should just be culled, as should the perpetrators.

Ok then by the way I read most of the graphs the logarithmic curve says a doubling of co2 should give us an approximate .4°C increase in temperature to this point . Wrt the 280ppm baseline .
That completely invalidates the origional IPCC the world will burn up argument.
Now explain how the departure from long term average is 0.00°C

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This argument overlooks the fact increased profits for the petrochemical industry results in more jobs and higher value of investment income including everyone’s 401k. And that increased value far exceeds the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

True, increased prices of petroleum may tend to increase employment opportunities to some extent. But how significant this effect will be is difficult to determine. In highly automated production, an increase in product price does not necessarily cause significant increase in labor requirements. As an example, a refinery may require a minimum manning number regardless of volume throughput and profit margin. It may be possible for a plant that has been running at say 50% capacity to increase to 80% or say from 20% profit margin to 30% without much increase in personnel due to automation. Without detailed info on production vs. labor needs, any increase in employment cannot be determined. In effect, the industry might be able to pocket higher profits without offering much return in higher employment.


In any market, an ideal price range vs. true value to consumers can be established. Example, gasoline at $1/liter, may be affordable to most people and they are able to scale their consumption according tothat price. And producers would have sufficient profit margin. Increase it to $2 and producers skim off much higher profit per liter. But individual consumers and the society in general suffer drastic reduction in their economics.



A destructive large shift in personal and societal economics occurs. People are forced to sacrifice other purchases to accommodate essential travel, home heating, and general price increases on essentials. People still have the same distances for essential travel, and have no opportunity to reduce consumption. Everybody cannot for instance afford to purchase a very costly electric car. And an electric car may not be capable of meeting their travel needs regardless of cost. Oil producers benefit at the detriment of the society. And of course governments take more money from consumers in increased taxation. But consumers receive no benefit. It all adds up in reduction in quality of life, and increased poverty, and transfer of more wealth and power to government and large producers.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=newhaul;3585947
Now explain how the departure from long term average is 0.00°C[/QUOTE]

La Nina

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/produc...ensodisc.shtml

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This argument overlooks the fact increased profits for the petrochemical industry results in more jobs and higher value of investment income including everyone’s 401k. And that increased value far exceeds the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

Proof of that? Recent experience suggests that such externally-driven windfalls enrich a relative few, and that any ripple effects (more hiring, equipment purchases, returns on 401ks) are modest.

Now, an increase in gas price because of a carbon tax would definitely benefit more people, long-term. Longer than the lifespan of most CFers though.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Proof of that? Recent experience suggests that such externally-driven windfalls enrich a relative few, and that any ripple effects (more hiring, equipment purchases, returns on 401ks) are modest.

Now, an increase in gas price because of a carbon tax would definitely benefit more people, long-term. Longer than the lifespan of most CFers though.

That you buy into the concept that there is a benefit to increasing any tax is adorable. Naivé but adorable.