global warming is freezing my balls off

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by nkyphatcat:
well well.

Now watch the apes change their argument from "the world isn't getting warming" to "it isn't warming fast enough to matter anyways".

You mean like changing global warming to climate change when predictions did not come close? Funny and hypocritical is it not?

 

[LordEgg_rivals16573]

I want it to get warmer. Life is better. The world is better. And losing DC to the tide is a bonus.

 

[Phantom]

Originally posted by LordEgg:
I want it to get warmer. Life is better. The world is better. And losing DC to the tide is a bonus.

Yep. I go out in the yard every morning and empty a can of hairspray into the air to help things along.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
You mean like changing global warming to climate change when predictions did not come close? Funny and hypocritical is it not?

No one changed anything. Warming is the phenomena, and climate change is the effect of the phenomena. It's not really that complicated.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Desperado_1955:

Yep. I go out in the yard every morning and empty a can of hairspray into the air to help things along.

You could speed up your cancer quite a bit by just breathing the hair spray

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by Desperado_1955:

Originally posted by LordEgg:
I want it to get warmer. Life is better. The world is better. And losing DC to the tide is a bonus.

Yep. I go out in the yard every morning and empty a can of hairspray into the air to help things along.

I was actually thinking the same thing about Florida and the rest of the Gulf Coast...no one would really miss those areas at all. Really do nothing for our greater society.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

You mean like changing global warming to climate change when predictions did not come close? Funny and hypocritical is it not?

No one changed anything. Warming is the phenomena, and climate change is the effect of the phenomena. It's not really that complicated.

The wording was changed as soon as the warming slowed down to a crawl or as some have actually stated stopped. All the alarmist had to change it to keep the scare alive.

 

[fatguy87]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
The wording was changed as soon as the warming slowed down to a crawl or as some have actually stated stopped. All the alarmist had to change it to keep the scare alive.

When did this change occur? I'm wondering because "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change[/URL]," an important paper in climate science, was published in 1956. Is 1954 is a good estimate?



This post was edited on 1/17 10:24 PM by fatguy87

 

[warrior-cat]

The narrative pushed by Al Gore and many others was Global warming. As soon as the the warming slowed (15 years long) even though co2 percentages were rising it became climate change. They are two seperate things btw. Then when the temperatures were not meeting predictions, the scramble began to find out where the heat went. Knowing it had slowed or stopped, those pushing the agenda once again saw a need to change their stance and say it went into the ocean. Cimate change helps keep the agenda alive by using any or all anomalies in play. The cry from those buying into man being the major cause then said 15 years of a slow down or stoppage is not enough time on the scale to mean it isn't so. But now, with one year having a .06 increase, alarmist change the parameters saying once again how this proves their point. If 15 years is not enough, how much more does one year not factor in.

 

[-LEK-]

science deniers

This post was edited on 1/18 10:01 AM by -LEK-

 

[ktbug]

2014 was the warmest year on record.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

Originally posted by ktbug:
2014 was the warmest year on record.

yeah...but 'sea ice'... followed by...

 

[Bill Derington]

38% sure 2014 was the warmest year on record, by .02 degree c, the margin for error is .1 degree c.

If you can't see that there's a whole lot of misdirection in all of this, I don't know what to tell you. Do you realize how much money would be lost if temps do t continue to rise? It's to the point People don't even care anymore. It has basically created a blank check for those that can get their hands on it.

 

[EastKYWildcat]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
38% sure 2014 was the warmest year on record, by .02 degree c, the margin for error is .1 degree c.

If you can't see that there's a whole lot of misdirection in all of this, I don't know what to tell you. Do you realize how much money would be lost if temps do t continue to rise? It's to the point People don't even care anymore. It has basically created a blank check for those that can get their hands on it.

Where does this narrative originate? I've been trying to figure out where the "big science has money invested in this agenda, don't believe the overwhelming data" line comes from.

 

[EastKYWildcat]

Just so everyone knows, the scientific consensus is that a runaway greenhouse effect is unlikely to be caused by humans, but that the climate is certainly changing due to human activity and that many ecosystems are likely to be devastated. You just won't see Earth become Venus.. that would require a retarded amount of volcanic activity.

 

[UKserialkiller]

Originally posted by JasonSpear:

that this thread turned serious.

You willing to stab somebody?

 

[Bill Derington]

Eastky, it's not a narrative, doesn't it seem odd to you that it gets parroted out that 2014 was the hottest year on record, yet the 38% sure part is left out as well as the margin for error? what else with those possibilities of being wrong is quoted as fact? That's an honest question, because I can't think of any.

There is massive amounts of money being dumped into the green campaign, what happens to that money if warming was to stop?

It's all about money, the keystone pipine has as much to do with the environment as my morning cup of coffee. There's pipelines all over the country, but warren Buffett owns the rails that are trNsporting the oil now. The oils gonna get where it needs to be one way or the other, which sounds safer, a stationary pipeline, or rail cars moving through populated areas? Green energy is the same way, people are gonna use energy, but give the. A guilty conscience Nd they'll pay more for it.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
I don't know what to tell you. Do you realize how much money would be lost if temps do t continue to rise? I

I don't know the answer to that, but I would be willing to bet the amount of money lost by Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Console Energy, TransCanada, Duke Energy and the rest of the fossill fuel industry, if Global Warming science was accepted, would be one hell of alot more than what's on the line for Tesla, First Solar and the rest of the green energy industry if it isn't.

 

[wkycatfan_rivals376690]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:

It's all about money,

This. X2.

 

[Bill Derington]

Defense, people are not gonna quit driving cars. Green energy is hitting electric utilities HARD, more than oil companies. And they pass those costs right down to customers.

What does a climate scientist produce? Think about it, without gloom and doom how much grant money dries up, how much has been made on solar and windmills, why isn't hydro considered green?

 

[jwheat]

Originally posted by funKYcat75:
Go look up June 28, 2012 through about July 7. I'll wait.







(Idiot)

Just about everyone of my plants, legal and illegal, died during this time frame. Remember it well.


2014 was the warmest year on reccord since like 1880

 

[BigBlueDave_rivals76951]

What happened in, like, 1880?

All the carbon remnants from Sherman's March to the Sea?

 

[EastKYWildcat]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Eastky, it's not a narrative, doesn't it seem odd to you that it gets parroted out that 2014 was the hottest year on record, yet the 38% sure part is left out as well as the margin for error? what else with those possibilities of being wrong is quoted as fact? That's an honest question, because I can't think of any.

There is massive amounts of money being dumped into the green campaign, what happens to that money if warming was to stop?

It's all about money, the keystone pipine has as much to do with the environment as my morning cup of coffee. There's pipelines all over the country, but warren Buffett owns the rails that are trNsporting the oil now. The oils gonna get where it needs to be one way or the other, which sounds safer, a stationary pipeline, or rail cars moving through populated areas? Green energy is the same way, people are gonna use energy, but give the. A guilty conscience Nd they'll pay more for it.

I'm not necessarily against the pipeline, and that's a separate issue. The statistical uncertainty makes it hard to say it's the absolute hottest year, but that's splitting hairs when we can unequivocally say that 13 of the 14 hottest years ever measured have occurred in the 21st century. I mean we're reduced to arguing whether it is the hottest or second hottest year ever.

The overwhelming consensus of scientific literature is that humans are the cause of global warming and the climate is changing as a result. No offense, but when I get sick I listen to doctors and when there is a scientific phenomena in need of explanation I listen to scientists... not people who simply get their kicks debating pointless political drama. They never asked this to be made into a political issue beyond enacting policy to combat global warming.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Green energy is hitting electric utilities HARD, more than oil companies.

First, why is it an issue that alternative sources of energy capture market share from archaic energy utilities that prospered from quasi-monopolistic economic environments for decades? This is akin to feeling sympathetic for the Frankfort Plant Board when they lose customers to the Dish network. Our public utilities need competition to enhance their stale energy-as-commodity models.

Second, green energy isn't hitting electric utilities hard. Utility companies are now forced to bear more of the total economic cost of generating energy from polluting fossil fuels (which they partially pass along to the customer as any rate change must be approved by public utility commissions). This has caused a greater shift to natural gas powered turbines as the enhancement of old coal fired plants or the construction of new, compliant coal fired plants are more expensive.

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Think about it, without gloom and doom how much grant money dries up, how much has been made on solar and windmills?

It's a HELLUVA lost less than oil/gas/coal money. The market capitalization of the fossil fuel industry is about 200x that of renewables. Privately funded research has the ability to dwarf public subsidized grants. In general, private sector R&D investment in energy is about double that of the public sector according to the National Science Foundation.

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Why isn't hydro considered green?

It is considered renewable and partially green, but it's more environmental detrimental due to the massive displacement of watersheds and the downstream effects of damming. Plus you usually have to relocate families/communities, and hydro projects are extremely capital intensive during the construction phase. The extended payback period of hydro projects requiring massive upfront costs introduces a sh*t ton of risk to already conservative investors of major utility holding companies. We will see more DG hydro in the future involving small scale projects.

This post was edited on 1/20 2:33 PM by Mime-Is-Money

 

[Bill Derington]

Mime, it's not a problem if they capture market share because they're more affordable, wind and solar is not anywhere near more affordable, close to a $100 a megawatt for wind, not to mention the lack of reliability. It's all shell game, and we're paying for it.

What does a climatologist make mime? Would there be more money available in times of chaos or hohum everything's fine? And why would nasa come out and say 2014 was the hottest year when they aren't even certain it is? That makes absolutely no sense, what about the last hottest year, is even close to be a certainty.

The emerging market of green energy demands temps increase, because if they aren't why are we spending ridiculous amounts of money on it, right?
AEP is spending upwards of 500 million to build a hydro Installation in Smithland ky, that will produce 79 MW's, 79 freaking MW's for half a billion dollars!?!?

i don't buy all the gloom and doom, there's too much money at stake, anywhere there's large amounts of money, there's fraud at some level. From my experience anytime something is being forced, and anyone who opposes is automatically drowned out, theres something that's being hidden.

I don't mean you personally mime.

 

[EastKYWildcat]

By that logic Bill, do you suspect something is being hidden by every overwhelming scientific consensus? Voices are "drowned out" anytime 98% of data points to a single conclusion.

 

[Bill Derington]

Spare me the 98% crap, those same scientists just trotted out that 2014 was the hottest year as a fact, even though they're only 38% sure and the margin of error is +/-.1 Celsius and it was the hottest year by .02 Celsius. It doesn't pass the smell test to anyone being honest about that doesn't have a rooting interest.

We're being told Miami oceanfront will be underwater if we don't do something IMMEDIATELY about climate change, yet there building things hand over fist down there right now, does that make any sense at all, honestly?

It's always something environmental when something is built, here in Paducah they were building a river port, wel just so happens the only place in the whole friggin Ohio river system a certain pot bellied mussel lived lo and behold was right there. For a small fee of 250,000 a new colony could be built a littl ways down the river. It's like that all over the damn country and its ridiculous, the same thing happened at Calvert city, but Mitch McConnell happened to swoop in right before the election and clear that up.

We should be stewards of the environment, but we've let this thing get to the point of absurdity.

I

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Defense, people are not gonna quit driving cars. Green energy is hitting electric utilities HARD, more than oil companies. And they pass those costs right down to customers.
******************************************
True but right now you see what's happening to the integrated companies as well as the drillers with the oil glut. They are losing billions. Sure utilities have to pass on their costs as they are regulated monopolies but as consumers we have to pay for what we get. If we want a cleaner environment and less co2 it comes with a price, though I don't think the price is nearly as high as some would have us believe. But utilities purchase the coal from coal companies that are now competing against nat gas and alternatives.


What does a climate scientist produce? Think about it, without gloom and doom how much grant money dries up, how much has been made on solar and windmills, why isn't hydro considered green?
****************************************
The grant money argument is a red herring. Many Climatologist around the globe don't even know what a grant is. Grants primarily go to institutions not to individual scientists. The lead climatologists at NOAA and NASA don't make extra bonuses by taking the positions they take, and even if they did it's backed by hard data.

I always considered hydro green energy after all it is a renewable and no different than wind IMO. The thing is most hydro sources have been exploited to the max so it's not in the news. Has TVA added any hydro plants in the last 2 or 3 decades? If they could I'm sure they would because it is by far the cheapest source of power.

This post was edited on 1/20 7:46 PM by Deeeefense

 

[EastKYWildcat]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Spare me the 98% crap, those same scientists just trotted out that 2014 was the hottest year as a fact, even though they're only 38% sure and the margin of error is +/-.1 Celsius and it was the hottest year by .02 Celsius. It doesn't pass the smell test to anyone being honest about that doesn't have a rooting interest.

We're being told Miami oceanfront will be underwater if we don't do something IMMEDIATELY about climate change, yet there building things hand over fist down there right now, does that make any sense at all, honestly?

It's always something environmental when something is built, here in Paducah they were building a river port, wel just so happens the only place in the whole friggin Ohio river system a certain pot bellied mussel lived lo and behold was right there. For a small fee of 250,000 a new colony could be built a littl ways down the river. It's like that all over the damn country and its ridiculous, the same thing happened at Calvert city, but Mitch McConnell happened to swoop in right before the election and clear that up.

We should be stewards of the environment, but we've let this thing get to the point of absurdity.

I

It's literally 98% of the papers taking a position on the subject
agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global
warming.

Here is the analysis that you are hanging your hat on. It is different than the analysis NASA and NOAA conducted and that is fine. NASA and NOAA both found that it was certainly the hottest year on record and BEST didn't. However, even the BEST study says that ocean surface temperatures absolutely rose last year, without question. NASA didn't lie to you when they said they found 2014 was the hottest year on record.

Further, it's a huge jump to then say that because there is some uncertainty about whether this was the hottest or second hottest year on record that global warming is a scam promoted by monied interests, especially when so many energy companies stand to lose profits by the implementation of policy designed to combat global warming. The monied interests are coming from the "deny all global warming" camp.

 

[Chuckinden]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
38% sure 2014 was the warmest year on record, by .02 degree c, the margin for error is .1 degree c.

If you can't see that there's a whole lot of misdirection in all of this, I don't know what to tell you. Do you realize how much money would be lost if temps do t continue to rise? It's to the point People don't even care anymore. It has basically created a blank check for those that can get their hands on it.

You gotta link for that info. I don't see where this one says anything about being only 38% sure.

LINK

 

[EastKYWildcat]

Originally posted by Chuckinden:

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
38% sure 2014 was the warmest year on record, by .02 degree c, the margin for error is .1 degree c.

If you can't see that there's a whole lot of misdirection in all of this, I don't know what to tell you. Do you realize how much money would be lost if temps do t continue to rise? It's to the point People don't even care anymore. It has basically created a blank check for those that can get their hands on it.

You gotta link for that info. I don't see where this one says anything about being only 38% sure.

Yeah, I'm not sure where he got that either. 0.1 degrees C would be a HUGE uncertainty. I've seen 0.05 degrees C

 

[EastKYWildcat]

The denying of such a resounding consensus reminds me of the mental gymnastics Louisville fans specialize in. Despite every bit of data indicating Kentucky is the greatest program of all-time, they'll invent whatever conspiracy they want to discount cold hard facts.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Mime, it's not a problem if they capture market share because they're more affordable, wind and solar is not anywhere near more affordable, close to a $100 a megawatt for wind

That's a bunch of false. First Wind is rolling out projects for levelized costs of $60/MWh which is on par with, or below, installing new coal capacity. New natural gas capacity is about half of that, ergo the monumental shift to gas turbines over the last 10 years.

Solar companies are selling PPAs to residential consumers for as low a 8 cents per kwh, with the average around 17c. This is absolutely cheaper than Tier 2 and Tier 3 retail prices in half of the US which are sometimes north of 20c. That's why solar is grabbing market share. Plus both commercial and residential solar customers can lock in extremely low (1%) to zero rate escalators (below expected inflation) when agreeing to 20 year+ contracts. A great deal when you consider conventional energy prices have risen 50% in the last 10 years alone, and are expected to increase 5% per year over the next two decades.

Hell, wind PPA rates are as low as 2.5c per kwh.

In short, yes, in many parts of the US, solar and wind are absolutely viable options and on par with higher tier rates from conventional power sources. Renewables will continue to push closer to total grid parity as larger players, and our smart energy infrastructure, continue to scale.

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
not to mention the lack of reliability.

Intermittence issues are being answered with storage. Utility storage costs for solar using batteries are about 22c per kWh, down from ~ 50c/kWh 10 years ago, and is expected to be 5c per kWh by 2030 (on par with pumped water storage costs).

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
It's all shell game, and we're paying for it.

That doesn't make any sense. But if we're talking cost, we're also paying for the total costs of continuing with conventional energy/fuel sources through increased health and environmental problems and energy security issues.

Originally posted by Bill Derington:

What does a climatologist make mime? Would there be more money available in times of chaos or hohum everything's fine?

There would be MUCH more money for scientists to confirm the hopes of the fossil fuel industries that the extraction, processing and combustion of oil/gas/coal have little to impact on our climate. Work for a conservative think tank, get funded by Chevron and the Koch Foundation then retire at 55. Climatologists funded by public grants don't make dick.

Originally posted by Bill Derington:

The emerging market of green energy demands temps increase, because if they aren't why are we spending ridiculous amounts of money on it, right?

Wrong, green energy markets thrive on the push for total energy security by national and state governments, the increasing rates of conventional energy sources with quantifiable health and environmental costs, and continued economies of scale. That's why it's attracting capital. Not as much as investment per year as fossil fuel development, but is growing at greater rate than fossil fuels.

Originally posted by Bill Derington:

AEP is spending upwards of 500 million to build a hydro Installation in Smithland ky, that will produce 79 MW's, 79 freaking MW's for half a billion dollars!?!?

I highly doubt that. Midsize hydropower installation costs are $2-4M/MW. I'm guessing it's about $250M. You have a link? But, as I mentioned before, the upfront costs of large scale hydro plants are by far the biggest portion of the levelized price.

Originally posted by Bill Derington:

here's too much money at stake, anywhere there's large amounts of money, there's fraud at some level.

Agreed. How do you think the fossil fuel industries, which dwarf the renewable sectors, are handling the thought of losing out on trillions? Diversification into renewables and investment in disinformation would be my first guesses.

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
From my experience anytime something is being forced, and anyone who opposes is automatically drowned out, theres something that's being hidden.

You don't think there are non-market forces behind fossil fuels? Global subsidization of oil/gas/coal is about 7x that of renewables.




This post was edited on 1/20 9:10 PM by Mime-Is-Money

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

^another example of cheap renewables

 

[Bill Derington]

Mime, I see the price per mw for wind everyday my man, it's not $60 a megawatt, its 95 -100 whether you need it or not. In other words, if the wind power we buy is producing 1200 mw' or 12 we have to use it. That sounds great and all, but those 75 degree days when load is low is when it usually is, coal plants must be idled or load lowered, it's extremely hard on them to fluctuate like that. It's hard to explain, but with ambient temp swings, it becomes hard to recover the necessary load, because wind is so unreliable. The problem that's arising now is the load at night, it's getting so low, it's hard to get turndown, it's complicated and it's hard to explain in type.

Defense, where would TVA build another hydro plant? It would be next to impossible to do it now. My point on hydro was all the hydro tva has now idoes not fall under green energy, which is dumb.

 

[Bill Derington]

Link

38%

 

[Bill Derington]

Mime, here's the link for the smith land, it's about halfway down.

Smithland hydro

 

[EastKYWildcat]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Link

Can you find a link to the comments from Gavin Schmidt that they site? I cannot find them anywhere. The dailymail article they site does not provide a source for the comments.

 

[Bill Derington]

Eastern ky, I'm tired, I wanna watch the cats play. I work where I can see first hand the asinine crap that goes on with electrical system of the country. I see the price per mega watt continuously through the day. Mime, where you live it may be cheaper, but I can assure wind is the highest by far of all, solar isn't even on the chart. Coal averages 25-35 a mw, natural gas combined cycle about the same, simple cycle natural gas is about 45-65 a mw, nuclear is about 5-10, hydro is approx 4 a mw.

The problem with natural gas is the price can be very volatile, it's cheap now, but next year it could be out the roof. My main point is there's only so much cost the public can absorb, and a lot of it is unnecessary, and all it would take is one long cold snap, we were close last year, to a trip at alarms plant or natural gas low pressure to a serious problem. Take that however you like.

 

[EastKYWildcat]

Originally posted by Bill Derington:
Eastern ky, I'm tired, I wanna watch the cats play. I work where I can see first hand the asinine crap that goes on with electrical system of the country. I see the price per mega watt continuously through the day. Mime, where you live it may be cheaper, but I can assure wind is the highest by far of all, solar isn't even on the chart. Coal averages 25-35 a mw, natural gas combined cycle about the same, simple cycle natural gas is about 45-65 a mw, nuclear is about 5-10, hydro is approx 4 a mw.

The problem with natural gas is the price can be very volatile, it's cheap now, but next year it could be out the roof. My main point is there's only so much cost the public can absorb, and a lot of it is unnecessary, and all it would take is one long cold snap, we were close last year, to a trip at alarms plant or natural gas low pressure to a serious problem. Take that however you like.

That's fine, I just don't want you to get duped into believing things that seem to be claimed without a source. You all know much more than me about the current viability of energy sources, but the is a separate issue from the fact that global warming is occurring.