Al Gore

[snagged in outlet 3]

10 minutes ago, Terrierman said:

I for one have always been a believer that markets eventually find the truth. 

Unfettered markets, but not when they are subsidized.  

[Terrierman]

18 minutes ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

Unfettered markets, but not when they are subsidized.  

True.  This is a pretty good recent look at the energy markets.  Wind is for sure subsidized but according to the article, still lower cost than other sources taking out the effects of subsidies. 

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/03/16/how-much-do-renewables-actually-depend-on-tax-breaks/

[MOPanfisher]

28 minutes ago, Deadstream said:

  I think it's been a long, cold winter and cabin fever is running rampant.  Lets fish.

Poor Dutch is still thinking, geez fellers I just made a wee little joke.  Hopefully he is thinking that while fishing, and I bet he is.  Well except for the thinking about this thread part.

[Terrierman]

As soon as I can drive again I'll be more like Dutch.

[Devan S.]

1 hour ago, fishinwrench said:

Well I guess it depends on which accountant gives the report.  Because the one I read clearly showed that on average a wind turbine generator does not last long enough to pay for itself, and to allow the ones building, installing them to make a profit.   

Apparently studies are bias (shocker hu?).   So with differing results being posted let's shift gears on our debate and decide which one we can all agree to listen to....then we can proceed.

The windmill is just driving a generator....identical to how hydroelectric, coal, natural gas, nuclear derive their power. The only difference is the medium used to derive the potential energy difference. Hydroelectric uses pressure differential of water, fossil fuels use BTU, nuclear uses heat from fission reaction. Most of these heat water, generate steam which is pressurized to turn turbines to turn the generator. 

Based on this logic alone if windmill life sucks to the point that it doesn't pay for itself but has zero input costs. Then wouldn't fossil fuels and nuclear power all have the same issues with life expectancy but also have a high input costs(they also have a significantly more support structure to maintain as well)

MY guess is sub-par components(magnet wire, bearings), incorrect design of blades or gearing to get the speed needed to generate power, terrible maintenance, and/or bad journalism to push an agenda. Most of this isn't rocket science by any stretch of the imagination. 
 

[Devan S.]

3 hours ago, MoCarp said:

Dude the warmest year shown in ice cores is 8000 years ago..,why?

so we are warming again and our c02 is up 100ppm from 300ppm

thats 100 pennies vs a pile of one million!

the debate is IF man is the cause.

the hole in the ozone was found to wax and wane due to the seasons and after 20 years it seems it isn’t healed, blaming it on global warming now or some sea life the whales are not eating ( save the whales 🐳) most of these issues IMHO are cyclic, every few hundred thousand years the earths magnetic field weakens and flips, it’s going on now, interestingly the area of depleted ozone is not North America or Europe but Antarctica and near a funky place called the south Atlantic anomaly check that out.

Seems someone is still spraying their pits with CFC right guard and using all those ozone killers but it’s not the western world.  

Two guys discovered the ozone hole in 1985 NASA backed them up.,,cool, but seems heat and UV sunlight makes ozone, wait what? And that only in the Antarctic winter does it get cold enough for this CFC interaction to happen.

Check this out, be a bytch if global warming saves the earth or worse we end up stopping it and die from a huge ozone hole..

ever since I was in grade school we have jumped from one environmental apocalypse to another. I went to university to be a scientist..I still study because that what I like.

.Like most of the left, they think we are drones who march lockstep to Rush Limbaugh and Trump. We neocons are unable to grasp the issues like the elite, lowering one’s carbon footprint, driving E-cars going vegan, vaping marijuana wax is what the cool kids are doing

well seems the leftists buy their kids educators...and deplorables are weak minded? Now to even question is screamed at. And opposition neocon speech is removed from social media platforms to project the agenda 

http://www.theozonehole.com/askthescientist.htm

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/06/sorry-earth-the-ozone-layer-isnt-healing-itself-after-all/

up 100 ppm over half a decade....problem is its not a linear rise we gain steam every decade and not doing anything is only going to exacerbate the problem(assuming of course you think its a problem). Still yet you view it as an absolute number yet it doesn't take a million PPM to be dangerous and you know that but it doesn't fit your narrative. 

Fossil fuel burning doesn't create just CO2 but other by products that in the 400ppm become deadly. The fact of the matter science has proven that these increase global atmospheric temperatures, it was laid out to you scientifically a dozen pages ago but you continue to stick your head in the sand and say but, but, but I've been through dozens of apocalypses before and nothing happened so humans can't be the cause of this. 

Scientifically we also know CFC's contributed to depletion of the ozone. Again its fact based in chemistry. Sure its a small localized spot and under certain conditions but it was still enough to change something. The fact that you continue to use other countries still pollute as rational is mind boggling. Many country's don't let women vote, still enslave minorities, crap in the streets, burn tires, and dump chemicals into water ways. I guess we should follow suit too right?

Some of us also went to university and got degrees in science and engineering and work in relevant fields and get to see things first hand. We can see facts and data and discuss them without random political tangents.

You harp about lowering your carbon footprint but there is tons of work going on all throughout the world by scientist and engineers to increase efficiency in cars, trains, planes, ships, household appliances, HVAC,  powered electronics, and small engines all the while reducing harmful emissions. This isn't all about going out and buying an electric cars, going off grid, zero emissions, wind farms, or solar panels. Those are the flashy things being done sure but a lot of this work is about progressive improvements of 2, 3, 4% spread out over millions/billions of units worldwide to make marked measurable difference. You honestly take part in it almost daily.
 

[MoCarp]

1 minute ago, Devan S. said:

 

Here is a climate graph over the last 400k years, many times over those times (interglacial) the earth was far warmer than today, we cannot say what caused global warming in those epochs other than burning fossil fuels wasn’t a factor..., it just can’t be ruled out that this time isn’t natural, even if we stop carbon adding to our atmosphere the warming / ice age cycle will not be stopped, till we understand climate on a longer term scale, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can change or stop it. Do your research and quit taking bill nye’s word for it

 

[Al Agnew]

The argument that the climate has changed in the past and will always change, and that it has been warmer at various times in the past as well as colder, doesn't hold water as an argument that the present warming is not substantially human-caused.  Here's the analogy I came up with:

You are walking down the street, and see an elderly man lying in the gutter, dead.  Do you think, "Well, old men die of natural causes all the time, so some natural cause must have killed him."  Or do you notice the bullet hole in his head and think that MIGHT have been what killed him?

Yes, climate has changed and the earth has been warmer before the industrial revolution or the appearance on the scene of Homo sapiens.  So what?  We are smart enough at this point to notice if some natural process was causing the warming we see now.  And we aren't seeing anything significant EXCEPT the human actions that the science tells us can cause climate change.  Not just fossil fuel burning, though stop and think about it...we are burning ancient sunlight.  Carbon that took millions of years to get itself sequestered in the ground, and we are taking it out and in a period of a couple of centuries we will have put most that millions of years of carbon sequestration back up into the atmosphere.  But we are also clearing vast amounts of tropical rainforests that take that carbon back out of the atmosphere (much of it by burning it again).  To think that some natural processes are the cause of climate change THIS time is to ignore the bullet hole in the guy's head.

And keep in mind when you start talking about much warmer periods and much colder periods in the past, that those periods coincided with ecological conditions FAR different from what we have grown accustomed to and that have made it easier for us to thrive, along with the present natural world.  The other problem with the current climate change is the rate at which it is occurring.  Slow, gradual climate change allows organisms and ecosystems to adapt, but if it happens too fast, the world's ecosystems crash.  And it has happened quickly in the past, due to things like asteroid impacts and vastly increased volcanic activity...and when that has happened, mass extinctions occurred.  You DON'T want that to happen.

I have a nephew who is in the scientific field of ecology, and who has spent a lot of time studying the ecology of tropical mountains.  On the slopes of these mountains in Central America, there are different types of ecology for various altitudes...organisms thriving at one altitude while above and below them, the climatic conditions are different and they can't survive.  These zones have been rapidly changing, with the comfort zone of a given set of organisms moving up the mountain, faster than the plants can colonize.  So whole zones are dying off because their living zone moved higher.  The animals can move, but the plants they depend upon can't and die out, and then some of the animals die out as well.

We are seeing stuff like this in all kinds of places.  It isn't just temperature data, there are all these changing conditions that are just as visible and just as supportive of a fast rate of climate change.  The fact is, nobody can predict everything that might happen.  In effect, we are engaged in a massive, world wide experiment and we don't know what all the results will be.  But even if humans adapt to the worst of it, the living world around us may not.  In 50 years our children or grandchildren will be living in a different world, one most likely where much of what we enjoy (those of us who like to hunt and fish and hang around in wild country) will be radically altered.

[Devan S.]

32 minutes ago, MoCarp said:

Here is a climate graph over the last 400k years, many times over those times (interglacial) the earth was far warmer than today, we cannot say what caused global warming in those epochs other than burning fossil fuels wasn’t a factor..., it just can’t be ruled out that this time isn’t natural, even if we stop carbon adding to our atmosphere the warming / ice age cycle will not be stopped, till we understand climate on a longer term scale, we are kidding ourselves if we think we can change or stop it. Do your research and quit taking bill nye’s word for it

 

My science is flawed yet you pull a graph without a numerical basis on the Y axis just "hotter and colder". Of which the scaling is marginal at best which is why 2 peaks of +5F line up on the first grid line but the +9F is over the second grid line. 

By the way.....here is a line from your own source. Though we should do whatever we can to eliminate polution and take care of our environment, the chart shows that Global warming and cooling will go on with or without mankind's involvement
 

What you don't know is if the highs will be higher or the lows will be lower or what sustained level we are causing vs. what was available before. 

Also by the way......this chart is right above the one you posted on your stellar source.

 

You know what that shows tons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere has a causation with increase in global temperatures. Which is exactly were talking about reducing. Once again no numerical axis.

Also here is the other chart below the one you posted which should align with the other I posted since they overlap time periods but once again no numerical axis to correlate the data between the graphs. That at best is a reason to question the data.

 

[MoCarp]

Both your graphs show the same much warmer interglacial than now with the trend line down, yes co2 is up but since only the last 100 or so Years has many pooped out these “ global warming gasses” so what caused the warming in the past? No one was there to log data to see just how fast it warmed but with data we can get it was pretty quick and by scientists who agree it was significantly warmer than today, yet that fact is ignored and data is cherry picked...we are missing something yet unknown. Science is ongoing just a few hundred years ago men weren burned at the stake for suggesting the earth revolves around the sun, 500 years from now they will look back and laugh like we do at how people killed evil cats to battle the plague