Page 21 of 65 FirstFirst ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 525 of 1610
  1. #501
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin View Post
    eh, maybe not....

    Ice sheet is losing mass overall not gaining. Video is obviously from a moron and not a scientist. Yes most ice loss is from calving not “melt” so therefore melt doesn’t exceed new snowfall. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

    The ice sheet is steadily retreating in the south. This is undeniable. Loss is about 57 cubic miles per year. Not currently significant but this is going to increase and probably exponentially.

  2. #502
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    304
    Yeah, we're fucked.

  3. #503
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Ice sheet is losing mass overall not gaining. Video is obviously from a moron and not a scientist. Yes most ice loss is from calving not “melt” so therefore melt doesn’t exceed new snowfall.

    The ice sheet is steadily retreating in the south. This is undeniable. Loss is about 57 cubic miles per year. Not currently significant but this is going to increase and probably exponentially.
    Do you have a link to the ice melt loss from calving vs melting? I searched around and couldn't find anything.

    The video in question is pushing back on the climate hysteria we see from the media. It in no way questions the fact that the ice sheet has been losing size (although it did make small gains in 2017 and 2018).

  4. #504
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    304
    https://link.springer.com/article/10...641-017-0070-1

    Should be open-source.

    Benn, D.I., Cowton, T., Todd, J. et al. Curr Clim Change Rep (2017) 3: 282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-017-0070-1

  5. #505
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    under the hogback shadow
    Posts
    2,722
    Cross post from Carpathian in the Vail Imperialism thread. Seems more appropriate here....
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...38#post5727438

    Quote Originally Posted by carpathian View Post
    This guy has interesting take.

    "Why do banks still invest in Florida if it's going to be under water?"


  6. #506
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Elkhound Odin View Post
    Cross post from Carpathian in the Vail Imperialism thread. Seems more appropriate here....
    https://www.tetongravity.com/forums/...38#post5727438
    Because the banks never make mistakes. 2008 never happened. What utter bullshit. Do you want to take your information on global warming from scientists or from banks who only care about short term profits and are going to pawn off risky loans on someone else anyway?

  7. #507
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    on the banks of Fish Creek
    Posts
    1,263
    Profit.....

  8. #508
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,802

  9. #509
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    It looks like people are finally waking up to the fact that renewables are doomed. Nukes are the only option for those that want zero carbon emissions. Short twitter thread on the state of renewables: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/...45073667969025

    New Michael Moore backed documentary coming out on renewables: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-humans.html







  10. #510
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    14,724
    Pretty nice weather last couple days.
    watch out for snakes

  11. #511
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    EWA
    Posts
    14,549
    Quote Originally Posted by SB View Post
    Pretty nice weather last couple days.
    Rained like Seattle here today - it was glorious! Sometimes I really miss the rain.
    Kindness is a bridge between all people

    Dunkin’ Donuts Worker Dances With Customer Who Has Autism

  12. #512
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    It looks like people are finally waking up to the fact that renewables are doomed. Nukes are the only option for those that want zero carbon emissions. Short twitter thread on the state of renewables: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/...45073667969025

    New Michael Moore backed documentary coming out on renewables: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-humans.html






    We aren't taking the bait to start fighting about solutions, thus allowing doubt to grow so we don't agree to get off fossil fuels.

    The answer is to get off fossil fuels. Period.

  13. #513
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,841
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    It looks like people are finally waking up to the fact that renewables are doomed. Nukes are the only option for those that want zero carbon emissions. Short twitter thread on the state of renewables: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/...45073667969025

    New Michael Moore backed documentary coming out on renewables: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-humans.html




    The tech's not completely sorted yet so it NEVER will be!!1!11

    what bullshit

  14. #514
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    The tech's not completely sorted yet so it NEVER will be!!1!11

    what bullshit
    The biggest problem with renewables isn't a technological problem. It's a natural problem. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows (solar, wind), you have to spread them over enormous areas, thus resulting in huge economic and environmental costs.

  15. #515
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    We aren't taking the bait to start fighting about solutions, thus allowing doubt to grow so we don't agree to get off fossil fuels.

    The answer is to get off fossil fuels. Period.
    So are you in favor of nuclear?

    Or would you rather waste trillions of dollars on an ideological non solution?

    Or how about go back to pre modern living?

  16. #516
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,841
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The biggest problem with renewables isn't a technological problem. It's a natural problem. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows (solar, wind), you have to spread them over enormous areas, thus resulting in huge economic and environmental costs.
    JFC the area needed isn't even big, never mind "enormous". Learn something: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-mu...power-the-u-s/ There are already significantly more efficient panels readily available than there were when those estimates were made, so the area currently (ha) required is significantly smaller than the article says. And much more efficient panels are in the pipeline and not far off.

    The problems are transmission and storage. These problems are being worked on by very smart people. Progress will inevitably be made.

    Build me a nuke that can supply power for these costs: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/los...ts-kwh/558018/

    Hint: You can't come anywhere near close.

  17. #517
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    in a frozen jungle
    Posts
    2,140
    Is Ron just a denier here for gear swap?
    Scientists now have decisive molecular evidence that humans and chimpanzees once had a common momma and that this lineage had previously split from monkeys.

  18. #518
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,841
    All I know is he's a moran.

  19. #519
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,140
    "One of the biggest challenges facing energy systems based entirely on clean, zero-emission wind, water and solar power is to match supply and demand with near-perfect reliability at reasonable cost. Our work shows that this can be accomplished, in almost all countries of the world, with established technologies.” Jacobson was even more upbeat: “Based on these results, I can more confidently state that there is no technical or economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100% clean renewable energy with a stable electric grid at low cost.”

    https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08...ewable-energy/

  20. #520
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    "One of the biggest challenges facing energy systems based entirely on clean, zero-emission wind, water and solar power is to match supply and demand with near-perfect reliability at reasonable cost. Our work shows that this can be accomplished, in almost all countries of the world, with established technologies.” Jacobson was even more upbeat: “Based on these results, I can more confidently state that there is no technical or economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100% clean renewable energy with a stable electric grid at low cost.”

    https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08...ewable-energy/
    Whoop, whoop!
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

  21. #521
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,760
    In the first place I don't believe anything about global warming from someone who says renewables when what they mean non-carbon. Nuclear is non carbon, but not renewable. Ethanol is renewable but not non carbon. If you can't get that right I can't take you seriously.

    In the second place, the technology exists today for a zero carbon economy. The technology also exists for us all to have flying cars (but not autonomous flying cars) but we don't have them. The issues are cost, politics, and the willingness of all of us to drastically change our lives and to have far more government control of our lives than we have now.

  22. #522
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    14,724
    Quote Originally Posted by KQ View Post
    Rained like Seattle here today - it was glorious! Sometimes I really miss the rain.
    I love a good rain storm, especially this time of year when it is dry.

    Just not too much rain.
    watch out for snakes

  23. #523
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    So are you in favor of nuclear?

    Or would you rather waste trillions of dollars on an ideological non solution?

    Or how about go back to pre modern living?
    What's the dumbfuck senator from Wisconsin doing here?

  24. #524
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    JFC the area needed isn't even big, never mind "enormous". Learn something: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-mu...power-the-u-s/ There are already significantly more efficient panels readily available than there were when those estimates were made, so the area currently (ha) required is significantly smaller than the article says. And much more efficient panels are in the pipeline and not far off.

    The problems are transmission and storage. These problems are being worked on by very smart people. Progress will inevitably be made.

    Build me a nuke that can supply power for these costs: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/los...ts-kwh/558018/

    Hint: You can't come anywhere near close.
    You don't have to look far to find problems with that analysis (just check the comments). You are looking at closer to a land equivalent closer to the size of California. I would call that enormous.

    The storage and transmission problems are so immense that you cannot count on progress to solve them. They may be unsolvable. You cannot just go ahead haphazardly spending on solar and wind with the hopes that the constraints will be solved in time. Just take a look at Germany, flat carbon emissions since 2009 despite $600 billion spent on renewables, and a 50% rise in electricity prices.

    Many solar costs are ignored - subsidies, the need to replace every 20-30 years, disposal costs, etc. The environmental costs are rarely considered. These solar plants are located in deserts and need water for cooling. Chemical use (dust suppressants, dialectic fluids, herbicides) can end up contaminating groundwater. The mining operations needed to produce the panels and batteries are massive, and there might not even be enough rare earth minerals available to make everything required.

    So after we spend all this money on a system that is currently unfeasible and unpalatable to the people and politicians, we have to count on the rest of the world to do the same. It's insane.

  25. #525
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,841
    Nope.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •