Page 24 of 65 FirstFirst ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ... LastLast
Results 576 to 600 of 1614
  1. #576
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You said, "...most ice loss is from calving, not melt...."

    From: https://link.springer.com/article/10...641-017-0070-1

    "In combination, the breakaway of icebergs (calving) and submarine melting at marine-terminating glaciers account for between one third and one half of the mass annually discharged from the Greenland Ice Sheet into the ocean."
    The moron in the video, who you defended, used a chart that ignored a third to half of all melt in his argument that this is all alarmism, and your objection is I said most? Now that you know that his whole argument includes 1/2 to 2/3th the total melting do you reject his argument?

  2. #577
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    7,063
    Guys, check out this Energy expert who can clear up all of these arguments:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...sburgh-1461337

  3. #578
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,376
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    Agreed. Their lobbyist will be mother fuckers to overcome. Ban lobbying is a great place to start along with meaningful term limits (2) to get all the bought and paid for politicians out.
    The horse and buggy industry had plenty of lobbying power too. They still died after Ford made the automobile affordable. Time marches on.

  4. #579
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    champlain valley
    Posts
    4,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    Would you guys stop acting like the Los Angeles Solar plant is an answer for anywhere but LA, Vegas, and Arizona? Jesus it's surrounded by mountains followed by a fucking DESERT. So it's sunny, wide open to development, and out of sight. Wonderful.

    Now try scaling that power need by a factor of 3 for the NYC Metro area with literally zero open space to cover with solar panels that isn't already in heavy use by agriculture or Nature preserves. Think of your solar wealth equivalent to our potable water wealth.
    there is a shit ton of real estate fifty miles from Manhattan to put solar panels

    here in the champlain valley you can't go ten feet without tripping on a solar panel farm

  5. #580
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,376
    Quote Originally Posted by DBdude View Post
    there is a shit ton of real estate fifty miles from Manhattan to put solar panels

    here in the champlain valley you can't go ten feet without tripping on a solar panel farm
    In aggregate what square footage would you put that at? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's nowhere near the available space in a fucking DESERT. You ever been to the Mojave? There is fuck all between Barstow and Needles (150 miles) other than rocks and sand. There's also all that pesky "not ideal for solar" weather difference too between the two locations.

  6. #581
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    champlain valley
    Posts
    4,741
    it doesn't matter. the country that has the highest solar use is germany. eight percent of their total consumption is solar

    that it has to be sunny all the time for solar to be efficient is stupid

  7. #582
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    3,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    In aggregate what square footage would you put that at? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's nowhere near the available space in a fucking DESERT. You ever been to the Mojave? There is fuck all between Barstow and Needles (150 miles) other than rocks and sand. There's also all that pesky "not ideal for solar" weather difference too between the two locations.
    You've convinced me.

    We should give up on solar... it's a dead-end.

  8. #583
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,376
    Dude. Germany got flattened in WWII. Go there and find the shit ton of leaky drafty wood single family homes we have. The climate also (with exceptions, like this year) doesn't call for AC being run 24/7 for months on end. Their per capita kW/hr consumption of electricity is miniscule compared to ours... and really? 8%?? that leaves 92% to....

  9. #584
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,376
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    You've convinced me.

    We should give up on solar... it's a dead-end.
    Don't be a dick. It's not a zero sum game. I'm saying that solar is a good start, but it's not the fucking answer yet.

  10. #585
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    3,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    Don't be a dick. It's not a zero sum game. I'm saying that solar is a good start, but it's not the fucking answer.
    I'm not sure anyone was claiming it was "the fucking answer."


  11. #586
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,376
    Puhleeez. Read through this thread. The SOLAR IS THE ANSWER vibe is strong, yet IMHO (and yes like you I'm allowed to have one) is silly.

    The way I see it the only way for us to go Nationally, not even globally, carbon free is through Fusion and that's a ways out.

    You sound like a guy who bought a Hybrid thinking it would help the planet.

  12. #587
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    This is probably your biggest lie yet.

    Much of the market value of fossil fuel companies is based on their vast holdings of oil, gas and coal reserves. If we move away from fossil fuels, these reserves are worthless and the value of these companies disappears.

    These companies also have billions of dollars of fossil fuel infrastructure (wells, pipelines, tankers, refineries, gas stations, etc) that become stranded assets if we move to clean energy. I think they care more about this than the tech needed to go clean.

    Follow the money and you see why people like Ron Johnson lie and try to confuse.

    Listening to the scientists and getting off of fossil fuels is an existential threat to fossil fuel companies. They are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening, even if it means allowing the climate to tip into chaos.

    When they tell us how awful it will be to go to zero emissions, remember that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Who do you think funds the deniers?

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change
    So you think the main reason we don't have a plan to reach 100% clean renewable energy is because of oil and gas' political influence? If that's the case why are renewables receiving more in gov't subsidies than oil and gas? https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/0...on-tax-breaks/

    The reason is cost. You read these feel good headlines about the low costs of new renewable plants without any perspective of how those costs can't be directly translated a 100% clean renewable system.

    And its not like the oil and gas companies don't have investments in the renewable industry. I'm sure they'd love to hang on to their oil and gas cash cow, but its not like they will be dead in a 100% renewable world.

  13. #588
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    3,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    <snip>
    You sound like a guy who bought a Hybrid thinking it would help the planet.
    A swing and a miss.

    But if it helps, go ahead and continue to think that.

  14. #589
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by mcphee View Post
    So, basically, your whole argument against renewable energy is that trying is the first step towards failure?
    My argument is the tech isn't there. For the amount of money we are talking about this not something you can just try with the hope of figuring it out on the way. Look at Germany for an example.

    I also consider the environmental impact of solar and wind which seem entirely ignored. People seem to equate them as some spectacularly environmentally friendly tech.

    Even if we were to try to achieve 100% clean renewables, it would make virtually no difference to the global warming issue. You still need Russia, China, India, and the rest of the 3rd world to do the same. Which won't happen. It will only happen if the tech reaches a point where the economics make sense.

  15. #590
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,196
    "while americans are denying climate change, russia is already planning for it."


  16. #591
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    The moron in the video, who you defended, used a chart that ignored a third to half of all melt in his argument that this is all alarmism, and your objection is I said most? Now that you know that his whole argument includes 1/2 to 2/3th the total melting do you reject his argument?
    All the hysteria articles that the video is pushing back at, are about the melt, not the calving. Why wouldn't the video be about melt? It is dishonest propaganda from the media to publish those articles, which is the whole point of the video. The only thing that matters is if the icecap gained or lost mass over the year. Everything else is meaningless.

    Just like how the media ran headlines on the major news outlets about record breaking temperatures on Greenland last month. Well, turns out it the measurement was wrong: https://www.thelocal.dk/20190808/dan...nd-heat-record

    But you don't see any headlines about that.

  17. #592
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by DBdude View Post
    it doesn't matter. the country that has the highest solar use is germany. eight percent of their total consumption is solar

    that it has to be sunny all the time for solar to be efficient is stupid
    How is that working out for Germany?

  18. #593
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,808
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    So you think the main reason we don't have a plan to reach 100% clean renewable energy is because of oil and gas' political influence? If that's the case why are renewables receiving more in gov't subsidies than oil and gas? https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/0...on-tax-breaks/

    The reason is cost. You read these feel good headlines about the low costs of new renewable plants without any perspective of how those costs can't be directly translated a 100% clean renewable system.

    And its not like the oil and gas companies don't have investments in the renewable industry. I'm sure they'd love to hang on to their oil and gas cash cow, but its not like they will be dead in a 100% renewable world.
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/energ...rgy/index.html
    Yet, unlike their European rivals, American juggernauts ExxonMobil (XOM) and Chevron (CVX) have not yet made large-scale investments in solar, wind, electric cars or energy storage. Their more cautious approach raises their risk of being left behind if the energy revolution arrives faster than they anticipate.


    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKCN1NH004
    Big Oil spent 1 percent on green energy in 2018


    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...utious-for-now
    Companies accustomed to the huge profit surges that fossil fuels provide may have trouble adjusting to the rhythms of renewables.

  19. #594
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,376
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    How is that working out for Germany?
    Maybe they should be more like Iceland and focus on Geothermal.

  20. #595
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    5,825
    The idea that our oil companies are invested in green is laughable. Actually vested in green energy is just flat out crazy talk and RJ knows it. They are the same guys putting words in the trolls mouths.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  21. #596
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,859
    They brought in a higher-level ron, the first one wasn't getting much traction.

  22. #597
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,768
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    All the hysteria articles that the video is pushing back at, are about the melt, not the calving. Why wouldn't the video be about melt? It is dishonest propaganda from the media to publish those articles, which is the whole point of the video. The only thing that matters is if the icecap gained or lost mass over the year. Everything else is meaningless.

    Just like how the media ran headlines on the major news outlets about record breaking temperatures on Greenland last month. Well, turns out it the measurement was wrong: https://www.thelocal.dk/20190808/dan...nd-heat-record

    But you don't see any headlines about that.
    so when the media publish something you don't like it's propaganda, but when a mainstream news medium, which is what The Local is, publishes something you like it's truth. And by the way, the correction didn't change Danish Meteorological Society's estimate of ice melt, something the article also said but which you seem to have ignored.

  23. #598
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141
    Solar alone is not the answer. We need a mix of energy sources and in many areas large scale wind will be a much much bigger piece of the puzzle than solar. There is also offshore wind among many other options.

    For example, the plan to get Montana to 100% wind water solar includes:
    2.8% residential rooftop solar
    2.1% commercial and govt rooftop solar
    22% solar plants
    10% concentrating solar plants
    35% wind
    9% geothermal
    19.2% hydro

    This would create nearly 20,000 careers (jobs that last 40 years).
    It would save 139 deaths a year from air pollution
    Land use would be 0.04% footprint area and 0.22% spacing area.

    I talked about LA's solar as an example of low cost renewable energy. Extrapolating from that that solar is the only answer is madness.

    RJ no doubt is a paid denier. What cracks me up about that is wtf is a paid denier doing on a ski forum? Like it makes a difference if he is able to spread doubt on here? I bet TGR is where they send jong denier trolls to get started. He's not ready for the real denier work.

  24. #599
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    so when the media publish something you don't like it's propaganda, but when a mainstream news medium, which is what The Local is, publishes something you like it's truth. And by the way, the correction didn't change Danish Meteorological Society's estimate of ice melt, something the article also said but which you seem to have ignored.
    It's propaganda when the sole purpose is to promote an agenda. Like was the case with the reporting on the record day in Greenland melt, during a summer that has seen melting within the range of normal. This happens over and over when it comes to climate change. You see it with every hurricane, forest fire, drought, etc despite the fact that their climate holy grail, the IPCC, can find no connection of these extreme weather events with global warming.

  25. #600
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,196
    ^How are they determining the residential %?

Posting Permissions

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