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 ... 363, 364, 365 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FYI, those bloody wind farms in the UK are producing 16% of the national grid right now. Nuclear is at 23.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred, as I pointed out before, some of our nuclear power plants are now offline, either for repairs, or they have reached the end of their alloted working lives, so the normal output is down. Our local atom-box is one of them. (Though I kayaked up the estuary and past it the other day in a snow flurry, and wispy steam was spurting out of its various orifices -as out of mine in the rasping polar air mass, though I hasten to add , not mushroom shaped.)

Windfarms are currently producing 16% because we are in a windy spell, but a couple of weeks ago, in a freezing windless spell when demand was at a peak, the windmills were producing a mere 1.6% of our needs. Ironically, they were consuming nearly as much energy as they were producing because in light wind very cold conditions they need to draw power from the grid, to keep their cog-wheels turning slowly, to avoid seizure damage.

We are very virtuous in our advanced, save the planet, societies, and I'm sure we have a protective moral shield against all those polluting Chinese and Indian,(and Uncle Tom Cobley and all) coal fired power stations which are opening at several a week or so. They are not going to export their nasty polluted air to us, are they!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Incidentally, while I feel like sprouting, (third morning cup of tea, and all that), that atom-box is in the mouth of a large river estuary and port, which serves a huge petro-chemical and steel works complex. Giant ore ships and tankers anchor a few miles out to sea awaiting their turn to dock.

Sea kayaking highlights like little else, just how small and insignificant our human egos really are. It's that slowness and low down vulnerability to the open sea and winds which bring it home, when alone, out at sea.

Not the same though in the port complex, but just as thought provoking. I sat at the stern of a giant ore ship (at least 90,000 tons or so) unloading at the dock side. It was nearly empty and the high sheer vertical 'cliff sides' of its hull, stretching in an inch perfect smooth straight line a quarter of a mile ahead, and the crashing and banging of the overhead crane buckets deep within its bowels, confirmed how insignificant I really am.

Even those with the vision to design and create such a giant would be dwarfed by their own creations if sitting in a tiny man powered kayak. I wondered how it would feel in such a loaded monster, out in the ocean in a force ten hurricane storm. Too dangerous for me. I think those giant, often ill treated and banged about monsters, are probably more vulnerable than smaller well found ships. It's not exactly unknown for them to come to grief in storms, is it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Points well taken GT. Speaking of insignificant. Check out Hubbles latest photo put into a video. It's of a small section of our neighbor Andromeda.

http://www.space.com/28171-hubble-s-andromeda-galaxy-image-shows-over-100-million-stars-video.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You will also be aware of the discovery of an earth like minature solar system. with five orbiting rocky planets. Their star, Kepler 444, is 117 light years away, and the formation of this system pre dates our sun and solar system by at least 6.5 billion years, which puts its formation not far distant (relatively speaking) from the Big Bang. (Makes our 4.5 billion year old earth a newcomer on the block.)

Dr. Tiago Campale of Birmingham University research dept. said, 'We now know that earth sized planets have formed throughout the universe, which would provide scope for the existence of ancient life in our galaxy.'

(Before they destroyed themselves with their over developed technology. - my addition Wink - sorry, couldn't resist!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Despite the fact that scientists and non-scientists see the world differently, the propaganda efforts by big carbon seem to be failing:

Quote:
WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.

In a finding that could have implications for the 2016 presidential campaign, the poll also found that two-thirds of Americans said they were more likely to vote for political candidates who campaign on fighting climate change. They were less likely to vote for candidates who questioned or denied the science that determined that humans caused global warming.

Among Republicans, 48 percent say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports fighting climate change, a result that Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University and an author of the survey, called “the most powerful finding” in the poll. Many Republican candidates question the science of climate change or do not publicly address the issue.


My second comment is one of bemusement with mrgybe's jihad to open up the ANWR and disparage Obama at every opportunity. Of course he scoffs instead of explains--perhaps he would have to kill us if he told us all that he knows. It is clear he doesn't know squat about politics on the national level--nor do the amateurs that he so passionately supports. Here are the killer lines from an op ed piece by Dana Milbank that is readily available:

Quote:
it’s hard to deny Obama a victory lap now that Americans are optimistic about the economy after six years of misery. This isn’t necessarily the result of his policies — but neither were the six years in the doldrums his fault. This president, like all presidents, gets the blame when the economy is weak and the credit when it is strong.

As a general rule, the party of the incumbent president will win an election if the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index is above 100. The index was at 92.6 in December, up from 44.9 in 2008 and 71.5 in 2012.

Barring the unforeseen, the index will soon rise above 100 and remain there for the rest of Obama’s term. His opponents may not think it fair, but the return of the American consumer’s long-suppressed optimism will keep a swagger in the presidential step.


So Obama opens up the Atlantic offshore to leasing, and all the Koch-ites of the world can do is complain that he didn't also open up ANWR. The Congress gets set to send Obama a bill on the pipeline that he will veto--without either lining up the votes to override that veto, or the strategic insight to figure out how to cut a deal. And you think that the proposal for designating ANWR as wilderness is not a trial balloon sent up by Obama for the terms of a potential deal?

Yes, ships are big--and Tea Baggers are stupid. Next question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac posted:
Quote:
An overwhelming majority of the American public, including half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the nonpartisan environmental research group Resources for the Future.

This might be a meaningful poll if what is meant by "government action to curb global warming" and "fighting climate change" were defined in detail along with the potential costs.

How can anyone respond intelligently to a poll like this without more information?

Oh, I know, many polls are designed to achieve a desired response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
meaningful poll ... How can anyone respond intelligently to a poll like this without more information?

Oh, I know, many polls are designed to achieve a desired response.

As I've said before ... here's how polls work:
1. The government and/or the media claim red is green ... over and over and over and over.
2. Pollsters ask the public what color "red" is.
3. "Green".

The whole process is a big, transparent circle jerk.

Even more important is that a republic, expressly including the USA, is supposed to be run by its elected leaders, not mob (poll) rule. The fallacies in that are that 1) the whole Democratic Party and half the GOP don't understand that and 2) the nation currently HAS no leader worthy of the name.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ignorance can be astonishing. There are techniques for polling that provide meaningful results. There are also techniques, commonly called "push polling", that seek sympathetic messages. Neither Isobars nor NW has any idea of the nature of the poll--but they are both willing to deny the possibilities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Fair and balanced condensations from The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism: Exaggerated, worst-case claims result in bad policy and they ignore a wealth of encouraging data.
By Bjorn Lomborg, WSJ, Feb 2

Carbon emissions are rising, but many climate-change alarmists claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores IPCC data that show we’re seeing 90% less temperature rise than expected.

[This] one-sided focus on worst-case stories is a poor foundation for sound policies. Arctic sea ice is melting faster than the models expected. But models also predicted that Antarctic sea ice would decrease, yet it is increasing. Sea levels are rising, but more slowly.

We are often being told that we’re seeing more and more droughts. Not true.

"Hurricanes ever worse” is bull. Adjusted for population and wealth, hurricane damage during the period 1900-2013 decreased slightly.

Landfalling typhoons ... we’re told that things are worse than ever, but the facts don’t support this.

Global disaster threat is less about cutting carbon emissions than it is about pulling [them] out of poverty.

Death rates from floods, extreme temperatures, droughts and storms have dropped 97% over the last century.

GW is a reality and a problem, but is not worse than we thought. The narrative that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse is unhelpful alarmism.

Despite endless successions of climate summits, carbon emissions continue to rise, especially in rapidly developing countries like India, China and many African nations.

Alarmism has encouraged the pursuit of a one-sided climate policy of trying to cut carbon emissions by subsidizing wind farms and solar panels ... 0.4% of global energy production. Even optimistic assumptions project these energy forms will provide a minuscule 2.2% of the world’s energy by 2040.

For at least the next two decades, solar and wind energy are simply expensive, feel-good measures that will have an imperceptible climate impact.
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 ... 363, 364, 365 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 364 of 573

 
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