myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 329, 330, 331 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3538

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hawaii as a whole gets 12.2% of its power from non fossil sources, according to the DOE. I guess Exxon uses their own experts like Gybe.
Honolulu holds down the numbers, because Big Island gets 40% of its power from alt sources.
Kaui has rewired its system to get 50% from solar alone once it is all on line.
The number I used earlier for Maui was from the newspaper. I can't find a reference online for Maui island on its own.

Maybe it is because they are the most liberal state.
All those treehuggers.
Maybe not.
Kansas is perhaps the most conservative state. They get 19% of their electricity from alt sources.DOE.

Everybody likes alternate energy except Gybe.
He says it will never amount to anything.....
He also says Exxon will never hike prices unless it is really,really necessary.
He got the energy number wrong too, but he wasn't lying he was mistaken.


Last edited by keycocker on Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3538

PostPosted: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Double post
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2895

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
I have a real estate development in which 100% of the power comes from solar and wind.
I live in Maui where about 30% of the power comes from those sources, heading for 50% in less than half the time that was predicted.

keycocker wrote:
Hawaii as a whole gets 12.2% of its power from non fossil sources, according to the DOE. I guess Exxon uses their own experts like Gybe........He got the energy number wrong too, but he wasn't lying he was mistaken.

I repeat, less than 5% of power in Hawaii comes from wind and solar.......not 30%. Some people with superficial knowledge of the energy business can confuse electricity generation with total power usage.

In 2012, Hawaii imported 93% of the energy it consumed and, in 2013, the state had the highest electricity prices in the nation.
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=HI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14627

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
Hawaii imports over 90% of its energy needs...

That conjures up the image of a BIG extension cord to the mainland. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2895

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naah.....just big, smelly tankers full of crude, petroleum products and LNG. Hawaii is the most petroleum dependent state in the US. Of course they should pursue alternate sources, it's an obvious thing to do from both an economic and sustainability standpoint. But throwing out silly numbers like 30% of current power needs come from wind and solar.......rising quickly to 50%.......isn't helpful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2768

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Fick-shun wrote:
That conjures up the image of a BIG extension cord to the mainland. Smile

So, now we know Mikey's not an electrical engineer and probably not mechanical.

Oh, wait.

Mikey was making a funny.


mrgybe wrote:
Naah.....just big, smelly tankers full of crude, petroleum products and LNG. Hawaii is the most petroleum dependent state in the US.

Gosh... did Mr. G take Mikey seriously? Could it be? Is it possible?

Does Mr. G have no sense of the absurd?

(Wait for it, wait... wait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .)
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 6032

PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Hawaiian Islands offer a very different picture from all the other states in the union because they are located appoximately 2500 miles out into the Pacific Ocean. Moreover, the state consists of many different islands that have very different states of development and population concentrations. I think that when it comes to energy needs, the requirements must be quite varied in nature.

Between the percentages that keycocker and mrgybe have noted, one wonders what the actual numbers are, especially if one considers the differing needs in modern society. What fossil fuels does the state use to generate its electricity, and how does that work out by county? Also, I think that it's only fair to separate out fuels that are used for autos, trucks and other transportation needs, since the state is technologically dependent on predominantly gasoline and diesel just like other states in the union. Of course, that's changing with the introduction of totally electric powered vehicles, but I seriously doubt that the numbers show that Hawaii is much different than other states in that respect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5578

PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just in case you actually are interested in science. This guy has been monitoring climate in Greenland for years, with many climate stations. Might just scare you silly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyddF_JUbtQ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14627

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Washington Post Global Warming Lies
Saturday, September 17th 2011,
50 international climate experts break ranks to defy global warming cult and denounce [AGW] as junk science.

From http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8355

All 5 official data sets show global cooling since 2002 while a third of all stations sustain a long term cooling trend for their entire history.



Indeed, so infuriated over the blatant [Washington Post] lies is Nobel Prize winning physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever, that last week he resigned in disgust from the American Physics Society for their part in sustaining the now utterly debunked AGW propaganda. He notes, "It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years."

Professor Giaever and the rank and file of scientists are increasingly aware that the [97%] ‘consensus’ Cohen and his collaborators alludes to is little more than 77 of 10,000 scientists polled.

Surge in Government Climate Experts Going Skeptic

Observe the increasing number of experts who actually worked for the IPCC as contributors / editors / reviewers now turning against global warming junk science. (Hat Tip: The Galileo Movement).

Below is a list of just 50 former IPCC experts whose voices [prejudiced ears]refuse to hear:

1. Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don't cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."

3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."

5. Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

7. Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers."

8. Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: "Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."

11. Dr Peter Dietze: "Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."

12. Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA's James] Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980's. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."

15. Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

17. Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."

18. Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

21. Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."

22. Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"

23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."

24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."

25. Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."

27. Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

28. Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."

29. Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

30. Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."

31. Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."

32. Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."

33. Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."

34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."

35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."

36. Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."

37. Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."

38. Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."

39. Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."

40. Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."

41. Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"

42. Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."

43. Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."

44. Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."

45. Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."

46. Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."

48. Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5578

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A posting by Isobars that was coherent--he can't have written it. Of course not, it comes from a dummy front for the Heartland Institute--the folks that brought you the news that tobacco is good for you. Pretty good propaganda piece, Goebbels would be proud of it. Note two things:

1. The average temperature increase between 1979 and 2010 is about +0.6. It is not an accident that the Heartland folks truncated the already truncated data set. They also don't present the data before 1979.

2. The data through out this truncated part of the data set is very chaotic. Could that be because short term phenomena are present as noise? Would good scientists use a running average to isolate trend from noise?

I could go on, but it is pretty transparent. Can you find the Exxon money in it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 329, 330, 331 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 330 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group