The Global Warming Thread

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 4:18 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:That's me, fragile and thin-skinned.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:02 pm

Power... you can make energy with it... but that's it.

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:16 pm

Rip wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Seriously, Rip.

Rip wrote:The clean energy failures don't have anything to do with energy production. Oil and gas failed because of costly extraction that isn't viable on market change.
Mortoned. The issue for SUNE isn't core profitability, it's that the costs of debt fueled expansion exceeds immediate cash flow. Extraction of solar and wind is competitive after construction. Bankruptcy will clear up the financial balance sheets. Much like when the railroads were built.

Oil and gas DID pursue expensive to extract reserves that are now uncompetitive with lower oil prices. As usual, Rip has the economics ass backwards.
Thus costly extraction that isn't viable in the current market. That isn't backwards, I was spot on.

On SUNE you sound like at the CLECs investors that kept saying "but we have a positive EBITA", having a positive cash flow when you throw out a crapload of your business costs does not a healthy investment make. Those CLECs failed as these solar companies are/will. In the case of the telcoms the investors and bondholders lost pretty much everything they invested. The big difference is the solar power firms are taking tax dollars down with them.

CLECs failed because Michael Powell became the FCC chairman, changed the rules of the Telecom Act of 1996 to favor incumbent telcos, made negative public comments about CLECs which dried up their financing almost overnight. It is a perfect example of a regulatory systematic destruction of an industry by someone in power who is beholden to entrenched competitors. It had nothing to do with actual free market competition. He's also the same scumbag who is the head of the NCTA lobbying group trying to get rid of net neutrality.

Want to try again?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:24 pm

Blackadar wrote:Want to try again?

Good luck navigating the shifting sands of Rip.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:48 pm

Blackadar wrote:
Rip wrote:
Zarathud wrote:Seriously, Rip.

Rip wrote:The clean energy failures don't have anything to do with energy production. Oil and gas failed because of costly extraction that isn't viable on market change.
Mortoned. The issue for SUNE isn't core profitability, it's that the costs of debt fueled expansion exceeds immediate cash flow. Extraction of solar and wind is competitive after construction. Bankruptcy will clear up the financial balance sheets. Much like when the railroads were built.

Oil and gas DID pursue expensive to extract reserves that are now uncompetitive with lower oil prices. As usual, Rip has the economics ass backwards.
Thus costly extraction that isn't viable in the current market. That isn't backwards, I was spot on.

On SUNE you sound like at the CLECs investors that kept saying "but we have a positive EBITA", having a positive cash flow when you throw out a crapload of your business costs does not a healthy investment make. Those CLECs failed as these solar companies are/will. In the case of the telcoms the investors and bondholders lost pretty much everything they invested. The big difference is the solar power firms are taking tax dollars down with them.
CLECs failed because Michael Powell became the FCC chairman, changed the rules of the Telecom Act of 1996 to favor incumbent telcos, made negative public comments about CLECs which dried up their financing almost overnight. It is a perfect example of a regulatory systematic destruction of an industry by someone in power who is beholden to entrenched competitors. It had nothing to do with actual free market competition. He's also the same scumbag who is the head of the NCTA lobbying group trying to get rid of net neutrality.

Want to try again?

No they were doomed well before Powell took over.

Read Telebomb.

http://www.amazon.com/Telebomb-500-Bill ... 0814408338

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon May 16, 2016 9:33 pm

This is starting to feel like a broken record, but...another record broken. April was the 7th consecutive month of all-time high temperatures.

It makes three months in a row that the monthly record has been broken by the largest margin ever, and seven months in a row that are at least 1C above the 1951-80 mean for that month. When the string of record-smashing months started in February, scientists began talking about a “climate emergency”.

Figures released by Nasa over the weekend show the global temperature of land and sea was 1.11C warmer in April than the average temperature for April during the period 1951-1980.

It all but assures that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, and probably by the largest margin ever.

Spring has been unusually cool in New England, and I know parts of MI had snow showers yesterday. Which ties into a report a few weeks ago that global warming has made the weather more pleasant in most of the US -- we're getting the mild winters without the brutal summers...so far...which fosters complacency.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu May 19, 2016 12:13 am

Not sure if it has been mentioned anywhere, but Trump assures us that the minimum he's going to do is renegotiate the Paris agreement. He may go another way, according to him.

So...there's that.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Thu May 19, 2016 2:07 am

Make America cool again?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:07 pm

Climate Change, now killing soldiers at Ft Hood:

Five soldiers were killed and four were missing after an Army troop carrier was washed from a low-water crossing and overturned Thursday in a rain-swollen creek at Fort Hood, the Texas Army post said.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 6:58 pm

'Hot, wet and wild' 2016 weather as US has warmest June

America's warm, wild and costly weather broke another record with the hottest June, federal meteorologists say. And if that's not enough, they calculated that 2016 is flirting with the U.S. record for most billion-dollar weather disasters.

The month's average temperature in the Lower 48 states was 71.8 degrees, 3.3 degrees above normal, surpassing the Dust Bowl record set in 1933 by a couple tenths of a degree, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Thursday. Every state in the nation was warmer than normal in June, with Utah and Arizona having their hottest Junes.

"2016 has been hot, wet and wild for the contiguous U.S.," NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch said Thursday.

The nation had its third hottest first half of the year. June's record heat is from a combination of natural variability and long-term global warming, Crouch said. Records go back to 1895.

But there's been a wet and wild aspect of the year, too. So far, NOAA calculates that there have been eight billion-dollar weather disasters in the first half of this year, not counting the West Virginia flooding, which is still being calculated. They've been a combination of severe storms with tornadoes and heavy rains and downpours that cause damaging flooding. Seven of those have hit Texas.

NOAA calculates billion-dollar disasters , adjusting for inflation, to show trends in the most extreme and damaging weather. Since 1980, the U.S. has averaged five billion-dollar disasters a year, but in the last five years the country has averaged nearly 11 a year. There were eight in 2015. The record is 16 different billion-dollar disasters in 2011.

"The main lesson is that it shows us how vulnerable we are to climate change," Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler said in an email. "People frequently think that, 'Oh, we'll just adapt to climate change.' But we're learning that it's going to be a lot harder than people realize to do that. How do you adapt to the amount of rain that West Virginia got?"

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:21 pm

By 2030, Glacier may be like the subdivisions and malls in my area. All named for the things that are no longer there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... ark_(U.S.)

There are at least 35 named glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.). In 1850, the area now comprising the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today. Since the ice ages stopped 10,000 years ago, there have been many slight climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back. The glaciers are currently being studied to see the effect of global warming[1] It is estimated that if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030.[2]

Is it common through out the US to name a cluster development after the wildlife it kills?

Blue Heron Meadows
Fox Hills
Pinewood

It always makes me sad to see subdivisions named after wilderness habitats that are no longer sustained.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:28 pm

LordMortis wrote:
Is it common through out the US to name a cluster development after the wildlife it kills?

Blue Heron Meadows
Fox Hills
Pinewood

It always makes me sad to see subdivisions named after wilderness habitats that are no longer sustained.

One fall day me and a friend went skeet shooting on a hill overlooking a field, where we'd shot skeet many times before. In the year since we were last there, an apartment complex had arisen at the top of the hill. Of course we kept a respectable distance and shot in the opposite direction from the buildings, but a local constable soon appeared to shoo us away. There could be no more target practice near Hunters Ridge Apartments.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:54 pm

On the good news side - SCIENCE!

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have engineered a potentially game-changing solar cell that cheaply and efficiently converts atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into usable hydrocarbon fuel, using only sunlight for energy.

The finding is reported in the July 29 issue of Science and was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. A provisional patent application has been filed.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:51 pm

Pyperkub wrote:On the good news side - SCIENCE!

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have engineered a potentially game-changing solar cell that cheaply and efficiently converts atmospheric carbon dioxide directly into usable hydrocarbon fuel, using only sunlight for energy.

The finding is reported in the July 29 issue of Science and was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy. A provisional patent application has been filed.

Something newsworthy from my former college that doesn't involve the words "shooting" or "rape"? How...surprising!

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:30 pm

Heh.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:32 am

Conspiracy!

Malificent · Post by **Malificent** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:02 pm

Very illustrative:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_tempe ... meline.png

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:14 pm

Missing the Ice Age are we?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:16 pm

Rip wrote:Missing the Ice Age are we?

People that read the title text aren't.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:37 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Rip wrote:Missing the Ice Age are we?
People that read the title text aren't.

Also missing NA Pokemon species re-introduction...

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:58 pm

Nice job of making the bottom look like a steep incline by distorting the date scaling.

Misleading graph 101.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:06 pm

Except it doesn't. The distance between 1900-2000 and 2000-2100 is 59 px in both cases. And, it appears, the previous 500 years, well before the rapid upswing.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:16 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Except it doesn't. The distance between 1900-2000 and 2000-2100 is 59 px in both cases. And, it appears, the previous 500 years, well before the rapid upswing.

Wake me in 2100 if it is up to +2.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:20 pm

Assuming you're not underwater there in Louisiana, will do.

And by wake, I assume you mean unfreeze and reanimate your cryo-frozen corpse.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:23 pm

Rip wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:Except it doesn't. The distance between 1900-2000 and 2000-2100 is 59 px in both cases. And, it appears, the previous 500 years, well before the rapid upswing.
Wake me in 2100 if it is up to +2.

Bam! And he Rips another.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:33 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Assuming you're not underwater there in Louisiana, will do.

And by wake, I assume you mean unfreeze and reanimate your cryo-frozen corpse.

Meh, 6 metres is nothing.

No I fully intend to still be alive, no cryo needed. It's only another 84 years. If Hillary can make it another 4 years surely I can make it another 84.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:36 pm

If you're gonna tie your health to Clinton's and she drops dead in the next 4 years, does that mean what I think it means?

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:49 am

Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Assuming you're not underwater there in Louisiana, will do.

And by wake, I assume you mean unfreeze and reanimate your cryo-frozen corpse.
Meh, 6 metres is nothing.

No I fully intend to still be alive, no cryo needed. It's only another 84 years. If Hillary can make it another 4 years surely I can make it another 84.

6 meters puts a large portion of the South under water (Including Louisiana). Hey wait a minute maybe global warming isn't such a bad thing after all!

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:13 am

Scraper wrote:
Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:Assuming you're not underwater there in Louisiana, will do.

And by wake, I assume you mean unfreeze and reanimate your cryo-frozen corpse.
Meh, 6 metres is nothing.

No I fully intend to still be alive, no cryo needed. It's only another 84 years. If Hillary can make it another 4 years surely I can make it another 84.
6 meters puts a large portion of the South under water (Including Louisiana). Hey wait a minute maybe global warming isn't such a bad thing after all!

Sorry.

Rank State High Low Mean
48. Louisiana 535 feet -8 feet 100 feet

http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/s ... n_mean.htm

http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/s ... n_mean.htm

6 meters doesn't put ANY state underwater.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:17 am

Rip wrote:
6 meters doesn't put ANY state underwater.

Right. It merely devastates them beyond recovery.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:36 am

Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
6 meters doesn't put ANY state underwater.

Right. It merely devastates them beyond recovery.

Puts me on the ocean front. No matter southern Louisiana has been disappearing for a long time no matter what sea level does.

Scraper · Post by **Scraper** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:41 am

Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
6 meters doesn't put ANY state underwater.

Right. It merely devastates them beyond recovery.
Puts me on the ocean front. No matter southern Louisiana has been disappearing for a long time no matter what sea level does.

So you have gone from denying global warming, to accepting it and saying it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you personally. That's very Republican of you.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:55 am

Scraper wrote:
Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:
Rip wrote:
6 meters doesn't put ANY state underwater.

Right. It merely devastates them beyond recovery.
Puts me on the ocean front. No matter southern Louisiana has been disappearing for a long time no matter what sea level does.
So you have gone from denying global warming, to accepting it and saying it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you personally. That's very Republican of you.

I didn't say it doesn't matter.

A lot of things matter.

It is all a matter of what priorities a person places on them.

Toe · Post by **Toe** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:18 am

Scraper wrote: So you have gone from denying global warming, to accepting it and saying it doesn't matter because it doesn't affect you personally. That's very Republican of you.

You need more spin on it though, like...Think of all the jobs it will create. Real estate values will increase. New opportunities for off-shore drilling. We can even name it something cute like they did "trickle down" economics, maybe "surge in" economics?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:04 pm

I was thinking "flood of opportunity".

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:18 pm

A rising tide lifts all boats?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:25 pm

Rip wrote:I didn't say it doesn't matter.

A lot of things matter.

It is all a matter of what priorities a person places on them.

So you can understand when it is an issue that has an effect on every human and the entire ecosystem of the only planet we can live on...some people might think it is way up the list of priorities towards the top of the list?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:48 pm

malchior wrote:
Rip wrote:I didn't say it doesn't matter.

A lot of things matter.

It is all a matter of what priorities a person places on them.
So you can understand when it is an issue that has an effect on every human and the entire ecosystem of the only planet we can live on...some people might think it is way up the list of priorities towards the top of the list?

Surprisingly I can understand many things I disagree with.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:30 pm

Rip wrote:Surprisingly I can understand many things I disagree with.

I'm curious--and I'm not trying to make a veiled insult or any such thing--about what it would take to persuade a climate change denier like you to alter your views.

I believe significant and rapid climate change is occurring and driven by man-made causes because that's the overwhelming consensus of experts who know about these things. I'm not a scientist and I can't gather or test the data myself, but I trust the scientific consensus because this is its purview. There is no reasonable modern scenario by which the overwhelming international scientific consensus is driven by a big conspiratorial lie.

I also know that resistance to inconvenient truths in the past (e.g. opposition to research around smoking, asbestos, pollution, lead, pesticides, etc) looked exactly like the resistance we're seeing to climate change right now: conspiracy-accusing, funded by industries that have a lot to lose from scientific critique, and ultimately debunked and discarded. There are plenty of examples of rejection of science being driven by a big conspiratorial lie.

Now, if the consensus changed and actual scientists began to argue that climate change was not occurring or was not driven by human causes, I would follow them that way with great relief. I would be very interested in how the new interpretations were developing, and if it seemed like real science I would accept it. I have no ideological commitment to climate change holding me back from that.

So, Rip: what would it take? Would anything change your mind? Is there any scenario that would cause you to reassess your rejection of the overwhelming scientific consensus?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:26 pm

What I enjoy is when regular, everyday people with no connection to industry that might benefit from denial still deny, seemingly out of stubborn contrariness.

It's like a certain percentage of the human race is genetically mandated to stick out from the herd, reducing them from thinking individuals (or even herd mentality) into genetically programmed automatons controlled by their biology.

It's weird.