Gary posted "the truly scary part of global warming regulations is this Spring the government has been deciding on enacting the Climate Security Act, or the Lieberman-Warner Bill. Per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would contain mandatory provisions in the name of climate change that would impose a $1.2 trillion global warming tax ($4,000/ person)."
Don't insult our intelligence, Gary.
All kinds of wacky tax proposals have come along, and nothing as radical as something like this would EVER get passed.
No you don't understand. We got people mandating and suing to do everything under the Sun in CA. When they get done here they are moving toward the middle of the country. That makes you next in line. I would love to laugh Ahnold out of CA. Let him take all his wacko cronies from San Francisco and Hollywood with him. They just won't leave. They are like the plague. They want to regulate EVERYTHING about our lives. They want to control YOUR home temperature. Remember the move to force all new homes to have thermostats that could be controlled from a central location? You think they would not cut off your AC in a second and tell you to get on a bus and go keep cool at the Mall? That is the kind of thinking going on and you are a part of it. It is what they decide is good for the majority rather than the individual.
All kinds of wacky tax proposals have come along, and nothing as radical as something like this would EVER get passed.
Unless those 2 senators were just joking, then I will have to assume they are wacky. And if they are typical then most Congressmen are wacky. This wackiness in Washington must be the lack of oxygen, due to all the CO2 being spewed by their limousines and the black Suburbans?
Yes, and we never will. You are trying to use the old shell game of asking someone to prove a negative. Kind of like the following scenario:
You know, I've been thinking that the on going climate changes are being caused by the excessive use of air conditioning in AZ. At this point I am not sure this is the cause but it definitely needs to be looked into. I certainly do not think that anyone has proven that this is not the cause. Until we know for sure I think it would be best if we just stopped using AC in AZ.
By saying, "I rest my case" you mean you agree with my last post, where I said:
I learn plenty. In fact, if you have been following this thread since I came here, you will find out that I have gone from "the debate is over" to "we need to know more." That's not inflexibility of stance, my friend. Facts don't confuse me at all.
If so, then we are completely in agreement. Thanks !!!
Gary says, "That is the kind of thinking going on and you are a part of it. "
Hey, Hey, now, let's not get wacky 'round here.
I'm not a "part" of anything like that, and I respectfully resent being pigeonholed in that manner.
First of all, I know enough about air conditioning and utility systems to know that something like "central control" could not technologically happen without costing trillions of dollars. So that crap won't ever happen in the USA.
It would cost less to put solar panels on every building in the USA.
Let's worry/talk about stuff that might REALLY happen, not "far out" things which are not possible.
First of all, I know enough about air conditioning and utility systems to know that something like "central control" could not technologically happen without costing trillions of dollars. So that crap won't ever happen in the USA.
Just this year I got a letter from my electric utility company (Kansas City area) offering to come out and install a brand new state of the art thermostat in my home. All completely free of charge. In return all I had to do was to allow them to be free to control the temp in my house, and possibly cut service entirely on very heavy use days. This would be done via the new "free" thermostat they wanted to install.
All the postings I could find are on the right-wing "New World Order" websites. Those who fear "Big Brother" in a major, "stockpiling canned goods" kind of way.
Houdini1, what is the name of your utility company? I'd like to visit their website and get details of their system.
I don't know about the thermostat, but they offer a similar energy offset plan here via Idaho Power. The commercial users get even bigger benefits from signing up than residential customers iirc.
If AC hadn't been invented, all the Detroit Iron would still be made in Detroit.
We have a few of y'all who are talking past the rest of us if you get my drift. I've a good mind to clean out the last bunch of posts that are essentially personal comments directed more to each other than the topic, but my AC is already on full blast and I'm afraid it'll get shut down if I make the effort.
So ... chill - we don't want to discourage any newbies from joining in the discussion. :shades:
I know enough about air conditioning and utility systems to know that something like "central control" could not technologically happen without costing trillions of dollars. So that crap won't ever happen in the USA.
Evidently you don't. We installed a $30 device on every house in our Arctic villages that would read the electric meter and phone in the results to the Utility. It put a person out of a job and cost a whole lot less. That same device can be tied to the Thermostat and control your AC or heat, and/or just shut you down for those rolling blackouts.
You seem to think that AC is not a big polluter. AC is probably the biggest user of electricity in many parts of the USA. During the Summer I spend more on AC than I do on gas for my car at $4.50 per gallon. So get your bus pass up to date so you can go hang out in a designated cool spot. You do have those right? Many seniors on fixed income in CA have not had the money for AC for years now. Welcome to 1984 just a few years late.
I'm not a "part" of anything like that,
I think you are. You have Cheered everything the EPA and CARB have put into place. Probably because it did not impact you in AZ as it has those of US in CA.
SAN FRANCISCO — The conceit in the 1960s show “The Outer Limits” was that outside forces had taken control of your television set.
Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.
The proposed rules are contained in a document circulated by the California Energy Commission, which for more than three decades has set state energy efficiency standards for home appliances, like water heaters, air conditioners and refrigerators. The changes would allow utilities to adjust customers’ preset temperatures when the price of electricity is soaring. Customers could override the utilities’ suggested temperatures. But in emergencies, the utilities could override customers’ wishes.
It has a lot of safety controls, and allows the home owner to override any adjustments made by the utility company.
In certain areas of the country, this would work. Not in Phoenix or Vegas though - people in those hot areas aren't going to warm their homes up for the sake of conserving energy for the masses.
Not in Phoenix or Vegas though - people in those hot areas aren't going to warm their homes up for the sake of conserving energy for the masses.
Did you read the article in the NYT? It gave the consumer the right to over ride the Utility unless the Utility deemed it necessary to take control. If the state passes that law why would it be any different in Phoenix than Palm Springs?
I do not think you are seeing how far the CA legislators are going to use less energy to reduce the carbon footprint. They are suing the auto manufacturers. They are after the utilities to use less energy and mandating renewable. Cost is no object and yours and my comfort are of no concern.
CA has become the state that rules the masses with a few dictators. I mean legislators. Ahnold found out that GW was a money maker and he was behind it 100%. What a [non-permissible content removed].
"...They would get laughed out of town around here..."
So did the anti-tobacco crowd...20 years ago. Now smokers are the only group (except for Christians and Republicans) who you can openly despise. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
It'll all be worked out. Let's not go getting our wahntees in a pod.
You poor guys in Cali might suffer this fate, but due to climate restrictions, this will never, ever pass in AZ. People in AZ gotta have it, and the utility companies are not hurting for power. They are building more renewable every day.
If Cali will let those solar power plants get installed, things like this would never be necessary.
Don't try to confuse others as to my statement and in so doing try to make me look bad.
I doubt anyone here is confused and I would never try to make anyone look bad. However, saying that you know you're right and are unswayed by any arguments does sound a lot like "the debate is over."
but due to climate restrictions, this will never, ever pass in AZ. People in AZ gotta have it, and the utility companies are not hurting for power.
If coal generation becomes a big GW target, do you think you will have enough power? I believe AZ is home to the largest coal fired generation plant in the country. Now say the utilities in CA bid up the price on power being generated in the AZ desert to where the people of AZ cannot compete. AZ may have enough water and power today. Tomorrow anything is possible with the direction these GW kooks are headed. If your electric doubled would it put a dent in your budget to cool your home? Or how about if it tripled? These are all possibilities with the legislation being considered. If heating oil for those in the NE can triple in two years. Electricity could do the same. I happen to know people here in San Diego that cannot afford to run their AC even when it gets over 100 degrees. You may be rich enough to absorb the cost. I would bet there are many in Phoenix right today that cannot afford to run their AC.
When I lived in Havasu in the early 1980s I remember getting a couple electric bills in the $280 range. I just about croaked. It has to be higher now.
Don't ever think your comfort is of ANY concern to ANY politician. ONLY on election day. They will come get you in a limo to vote.
That reminds me - my last electric bill (all electric house here) was a bit less than $17.
They need to install "call home" meters here - the reader missed 1,000 kilowatts when it was last read. The next bill will push $300 but I'll take the float on the power for a month. I tested out a card swipe pre-pay electric meter in Anchorage but that was a pain. Might be good for a landlord to foist on tenants though, as long as you could guarantee that the heat would stay on.
In climate news:
"The Earth went through a prolonged phase of extremely high temperatures during the Eocene, in which even the poles were ice-free.
However, there has always been some doubt about the temperatures of the tropics during this period. Most paleo-climate records show that the tropics had mean annual temperatures of 28 to 33 °C, which is not much warmer than today.
Recently, however, better calibrated data have suggested that ocean temperatures could have soared as high as 41 °C.
If the tropics were indeed this hot, it would solve a huge problem faced by existing climate models, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
The more evidence they find the less convinced the scientists are of what will happen.
I never hear much about the fact that not many years ago the ocean was in the CA desert. Or at least something left large quantities of sea shells down around El Centro. We dug a lot of them out of the sandstone down there near Plaster City.
>When science is supplanted by politics then we should all worry
I agree with this. Will check on the greenland ice sheet
>Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change
Yes, this is spot on the question we are debating. That they want to assess a risk doesn't mean they either want to minimize or maximize such a risk.
"I guess I'm still partial to solar since you don't have to be tied to the grid in most locations to run your house. "
I am looking for a balanced energy mixed. Solar in the sunny climates to handle the AC needs. Wind will work in some areas, but I am not sure that 20% will be possible by 2030 as the DOE suggests http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report A more reasonable goal might be 10% until the grid operators get experience integrating wind into the normal base load.
"If people think solar and wind farms are visual eyesores, wait until we have high tension power lines going everywhere."
The struggle against the power lines has been going on for decades here in the plains. Minnesota is putting themselves into a bit of a pickle by not allowing transmissions lines into their state. They do not want electricity from coal power plants (CO2). They have mandated about 25% renewable energy but we will not be able to supply it without the transmission lines from where the wind is to where the customers are located.
People forget that coal, as bad as it is from a CO2 standpoint, is really our only option from a base load standpoint. Natural gas is great for peaking plants - low staffing and quick startup. But with high natural gas prices they are not the best base load plant.
Hydro is subject to climate change. As an example (Missouri River reservoirs): "The six main stem power plants generated a record low 286 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity in June, only 33 percent of normal because of lower pool levels and reduced releases from the dams. Total energy production for 2008 is forecasted to be 4.9 billion kWh, compared to the average of 10 billion kWh." https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/pa/news/shownews.asp?rn=08-012
Solar, wind and biomass will likely remain below 25% for the next 10 plus years.
It will be very interesting to see how the shift to electric cars will alter the amount of CO2 generated. If the car is recharged from the grid, will that really reduce CO2? People will need to start to add solar cells to their roof top to see a net reduction in CO2.
Minnesota is putting themselves into a bit of a pickle by not allowing transmissions lines into their state.
When I was living on my MN farm in the late 1970s there was a battle over high voltage lines going across the state. They made them detour around a nature preserve. Many farmers complained of headaches and cows not producing milk in areas the high voltage lines crossed. It seems to me they were 800,000 volts DC. Distribution is what is holding up wind farm expansion in San Diego right now. Environmental groups and Indian tribes have band together to fight it on public lands. I say build a big COAL generator downtown San Diego by the bay. Make for a real nice tourist attraction.
I can see our cities being full of these cars down the road.
According to my calculations it will take $8.64 to charge the battery at my current electric rate. This does not take into account the 65 cents per gallon road tax that must be applied. Going on the proposed 1.25 cents per mile we are looking at approximately 9.9 cents per mile. The Prius at today's $4.25 RUG costs about 8.8 cents per mile. Even in CA when available you can get a Prius for about $32k. The iMEV is going on sale in Japan for $37,395. I think they will have to do a lot better than that have our cities full of them. Though to me they are better looking than the Prius. Just not as practical.
Mitsubishi i-MIEV price quote for one bought in the U.S. erroneously at around $38,000. I have a hard time believing Mitsubishi will actually try and even ask $28,000 for it's new international all-EV. Now it seems quite possible. Although I do like the idea of one of these, I need a longer range per charge-up than 100 miles. And I will pay $20,000 for one, maybe a titch more, but not $28,000 and certainly not $38,000. Yikes and spikes! Who here thinks Uncle Sam will throw in $8,000-$18,000 of incentive cash for us to buy one of these groundbreakers? And reduce our dependence on foreign oil, eh?
On the lowered hydro levels, I recall when we were in Pierre, SD, in 2005, Lake Oahe's levels were continuously dropping. This is a huge lake, a Pierre boating and fishing favorite at the north edge of the city. Its boat ramps were no longer taking you out to deep enough water to drop your boat in. 30% hydro generated production is not far off from the truth as far as this lake anyway.
More fingers seem to be pointed at the service lines to the dairy farms, many of which have been around since the 30's, instead of the high tension lines. And stray voltage is a big issue in the cities too. (NY Times).
David Evans, one of Australia's preeminent global warming proponents, has seen the light. He now realizes there is no evidence supporting the notion that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None!. As we have been pointing out here, global warming precedes increases in atmospheric CO2 levels and the troposphere simply does not display the signature of CO2 induced global warming.
When will the media tell the truth about Al Gore and his gigantic SCAM? He is a Charlatan and should be exposed to the World as one.
Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Neither "the media" nor AlGore are lying about anything.
Al Gore believes it. The media believes the scientists who publish the GW data.
No one is pulling anything over anyone else's eyes.
Your opinion of the charlatanistic nature of AlGore is shared by very few other people.
He might indeed be shown someday to be the Devil you think he is - but right now, there is not enough evidence to convince anyone that you are correct. His only crime in my opinion is being a hypocrite and not living what he preaches.
If we come to the day when every scientist says the warming trend has nothing to do with man's activities, THEN you will have a beef if people keep believing it.
Your opinion of the charlatanistic nature of AlGore is shared by very few other people.
Evidently the scientist that wrote that article believes Al Gore was dishonest. Gore used information he knew was not accurate in his movie. A movie that many schools forced our children to watch. A movie that has been slammed by most of the scientific community for its inaccuracies. To me his alarmist activities are NO different than yelling fire in a theater. That is against the law. His being a hypocrite means little to me. That is the environmentalist normal lifestyle in Washington DC and Hollywood circles. That does not cause us economic harm as some of the crap that is proposed in the USA and the rest of the World.
If we come to the day when every scientist says the warming trend has nothing to do with man's activities, THEN you will have a beef if people keep believing it.
Similarly - if a few or some scientists believe UFO's are space-aliens then we should make world-wide changes, spending billlions and billions of dollars on research? Until every last one doesn't believe, then you and I and our government need to take action?
Neither "the media" nor AlGore are lying about anything.
Al Gore believes it.
When you present scientific theories you clearly need to present them as hypothesis or theory, and not as fact. The fact is that Al Gore and the media, have presented anthropogenic GW as fact. It is the modern day equivalent of claiming there is intelligent life on Mars (19th century) because you could see the canals and rivers through the 19th century telescopes.
kernick says, "The fact is that Al Gore and the media, have presented anthropogenic GW as fact."
Yes, and as long as they BELIEVE that fact, there is nothing wrong with having that opinion.
Unless something happened overnight that I missed, so far it has not been proven one way or another whether man has played a substantial part in the warming trend.
Until it is PROVEN incorrect, their opinion is as good as any, no?
kernick says, " if a few or some scientists believe UFO's are space-aliens then we should make world-wide changes, spending billlions and billions of dollars on research?"
Dissimilar examples.
There is solid (whether believed by all or not) scientific evidence supporting the GW phenomenon. That arctic ice is not melting itself my friend.
MOSCOW (AP) — Russian scientists are evacuating a research station built on an Arctic ice floe because global warming has melted the ice to a fraction of its original size, a spokesman said.
The North Pole-35 station, where 21 researchers and two dogs live in huts, will be taken off the floe in the western Arctic Ocean this week instead of in late August as originally planned, said Sergei Balyasnikov of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St. Petersburg.
The research crew landed in early September on the 1.2- by 2.5-mile floe near the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago. During its westward drift of more than 1,550 miles, the floe shrank to just 1,000 by 2,000 feet.
"The evacuation is ahead of schedule because of global warming," Balyasnikov said.
Yes, and as long as they BELIEVE that fact, there is nothing wrong with having that opinion.
NO! When you have an opinion you present it as an opinion. You don't have an opinion or theory, and say that is the way it is. It is misrepresentation to state something IS fact - in science that means it can mathematically be proven; when you only BELIEVE it is fact!
There is solid (whether believed by all or not) scientific evidence supporting the GW phenomenon.
There are also radar-recordings, hundreds of trained military and ex-military pilot sightings, many astronaut sightings, and of course the hidden government wreckage of UFO's ( ).
That arctic ice is not melting itself my friend.
And how is that proof that the cause is man-made? when we have data that that has happened before - before man was around?
“Clearly, we’re seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year,” said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.
"The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.
“The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that’s a significant increase,” he said.
"If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand."
Comments
You know in what context I meant when I said "I know I'm right."
Don't try to confuse others as to my statement and in so doing try to make me look bad.
They certainly CAN BE.
What we need to know is if these "naturally occurring events" can be EXACERBATED by human activity.
As yet, we do not for sure know the answer to that question.
That's why "the debate is NOT over."
Don't insult our intelligence, Gary.
All kinds of wacky tax proposals have come along, and nothing as radical as something like this would EVER get passed.
Don't lose a retirement nap over it.
No you don't understand. We got people mandating and suing to do everything under the Sun in CA. When they get done here they are moving toward the middle of the country. That makes you next in line. I would love to laugh Ahnold out of CA. Let him take all his wacko cronies from San Francisco and Hollywood with him. They just won't leave. They are like the plague. They want to regulate EVERYTHING about our lives. They want to control YOUR home temperature. Remember the move to force all new homes to have thermostats that could be controlled from a central location? You think they would not cut off your AC in a second and tell you to get on a bus and go keep cool at the Mall? That is the kind of thinking going on and you are a part of it. It is what they decide is good for the majority rather than the individual.
I rest my case.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Unless those 2 senators were just joking, then I will have to assume they are wacky. And if they are typical then most Congressmen are wacky. This wackiness in Washington must be the lack of oxygen, due to all the CO2 being spewed by their limousines and the black Suburbans?
You know, I've been thinking that the on going climate changes are being caused by the excessive use of air conditioning in AZ. At this point I am not sure this is the cause but it definitely needs to be looked into. I certainly do not think that anyone has proven that this is not the cause. Until we know for sure I think it would be best if we just stopped using AC in AZ.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I learn plenty. In fact, if you have been following this thread since I came here, you will find out that I have gone from "the debate is over" to "we need to know more."
That's not inflexibility of stance, my friend. Facts don't confuse me at all.
If so, then we are completely in agreement. Thanks !!!
Hey, Hey, now, let's not get wacky 'round here.
I'm not a "part" of anything like that, and I respectfully resent being pigeonholed in that manner.
First of all, I know enough about air conditioning and utility systems to know that something like "central control" could not technologically happen without costing trillions of dollars. So that crap won't ever happen in the USA.
It would cost less to put solar panels on every building in the USA.
Let's worry/talk about stuff that might REALLY happen, not "far out" things which are not possible.
Just this year I got a letter from my electric utility company (Kansas City area) offering to come out and install a brand new state of the art thermostat in my home. All completely free of charge. In return all I had to do was to allow them to be free to control the temp in my house, and possibly cut service entirely on very heavy use days. This would be done via the new "free" thermostat they wanted to install.
Still sound far fetched?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
This would be "you CONSENTING" to allow a centralized control.
Gary was talking about MANDATING it and FORCING people to allow central control.
THAT is what would NEVER HAPPEN. At least not in Phoenix.
So, yes, still far-fetched.
Houdini1, what is the name of your utility company? I'd like to visit their website and get details of their system.
kcpl.com/residential/acc.html
If this does not work I can email a link to you if you have a carspace email address.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If AC hadn't been invented, all the Detroit Iron would still be made in Detroit.
We have a few of y'all who are talking past the rest of us if you get my drift. I've a good mind to clean out the last bunch of posts that are essentially personal comments directed more to each other than the topic, but my AC is already on full blast and I'm afraid it'll get shut down if I make the effort.
So ... chill - we don't want to discourage any newbies from joining in the discussion. :shades:
Evidently you don't. We installed a $30 device on every house in our Arctic villages that would read the electric meter and phone in the results to the Utility. It put a person out of a job and cost a whole lot less. That same device can be tied to the Thermostat and control your AC or heat, and/or just shut you down for those rolling blackouts.
You seem to think that AC is not a big polluter. AC is probably the biggest user of electricity in many parts of the USA. During the Summer I spend more on AC than I do on gas for my car at $4.50 per gallon. So get your bus pass up to date so you can go hang out in a designated cool spot. You do have those right? Many seniors on fixed income in CA have not had the money for AC for years now. Welcome to 1984 just a few years late.
I'm not a "part" of anything like that,
I think you are. You have Cheered everything the EPA and CARB have put into place. Probably because it did not impact you in AZ as it has those of US in CA.
OK
SAN FRANCISCO — The conceit in the 1960s show “The Outer Limits” was that outside forces had taken control of your television set.
Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.
The proposed rules are contained in a document circulated by the California Energy Commission, which for more than three decades has set state energy efficiency standards for home appliances, like water heaters, air conditioners and refrigerators. The changes would allow utilities to adjust customers’ preset temperatures when the price of electricity is soaring. Customers could override the utilities’ suggested temperatures. But in emergencies, the utilities could override customers’ wishes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11control.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=American+Think- er&oref=slogin
Here is a good description of a program in Ohio doing the same thing
It has a lot of safety controls, and allows the home owner to override any adjustments made by the utility company.
In certain areas of the country, this would work. Not in Phoenix or Vegas though - people in those hot areas aren't going to warm their homes up for the sake of conserving energy for the masses.
Did you read the article in the NYT? It gave the consumer the right to over ride the Utility unless the Utility deemed it necessary to take control. If the state passes that law why would it be any different in Phoenix than Palm Springs?
I do not think you are seeing how far the CA legislators are going to use less energy to reduce the carbon footprint. They are suing the auto manufacturers. They are after the utilities to use less energy and mandating renewable. Cost is no object and yours and my comfort are of no concern.
So did the anti-tobacco crowd...20 years ago. Now smokers are the only group (except for Christians and Republicans) who you can openly despise. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
You poor guys in Cali might suffer this fate, but due to climate restrictions, this will never, ever pass in AZ. People in AZ gotta have it, and the utility companies are not hurting for power. They are building more renewable every day.
If Cali will let those solar power plants get installed, things like this would never be necessary.
I doubt anyone here is confused and I would never try to make anyone look bad. However, saying that you know you're right and are unswayed by any arguments does sound a lot like "the debate is over."
If coal generation becomes a big GW target, do you think you will have enough power? I believe AZ is home to the largest coal fired generation plant in the country. Now say the utilities in CA bid up the price on power being generated in the AZ desert to where the people of AZ cannot compete. AZ may have enough water and power today. Tomorrow anything is possible with the direction these GW kooks are headed. If your electric doubled would it put a dent in your budget to cool your home? Or how about if it tripled? These are all possibilities with the legislation being considered. If heating oil for those in the NE can triple in two years. Electricity could do the same. I happen to know people here in San Diego that cannot afford to run their AC even when it gets over 100 degrees. You may be rich enough to absorb the cost. I would bet there are many in Phoenix right today that cannot afford to run their AC.
When I lived in Havasu in the early 1980s I remember getting a couple electric bills in the $280 range. I just about croaked. It has to be higher now.
Don't ever think your comfort is of ANY concern to ANY politician. ONLY on election day. They will come get you in a limo to vote.
They need to install "call home" meters here - the reader missed 1,000 kilowatts when it was last read.
In climate news:
"The Earth went through a prolonged phase of extremely high temperatures during the Eocene, in which even the poles were ice-free.
However, there has always been some doubt about the temperatures of the tropics during this period. Most paleo-climate records show that the tropics had mean annual temperatures of 28 to 33 °C, which is not much warmer than today.
Recently, however, better calibrated data have suggested that ocean temperatures could have soared as high as 41 °C.
If the tropics were indeed this hot, it would solve a huge problem faced by existing climate models, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
Missing fossils could warn of extreme climate to come (New Scientist)
I never hear much about the fact that not many years ago the ocean was in the CA desert. Or at least something left large quantities of sea shells down around El Centro. We dug a lot of them out of the sandstone down there near Plaster City.
Q&A: T. Boone Pickens
Oil Tycoon Sounds Off On Energy Independence
Fri. Jul 18, 2008
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20080718_4628.php
http://www.pickensplan.com/
I agree with this. Will check on the greenland ice sheet
>Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change
Yes, this is spot on the question we are debating. That they want to assess a risk doesn't mean they either want to minimize or maximize such a risk.
Sorry I don't understand what "galivanting".
I found one definition such as "To roam around in search of pleasure".
I don't think you would use this meaning towards me without knowing what I am doing
>Or did you walk to China?
Do I look like a tree hugger to you ? What is your point ?
I am looking for a balanced energy mixed. Solar in the sunny climates to handle the AC needs. Wind will work in some areas, but I am not sure that 20% will be possible by 2030 as the DOE suggests
http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Report
A more reasonable goal might be 10% until the grid operators get experience integrating wind into the normal base load.
"If people think solar and wind farms are visual eyesores, wait until we have high tension power lines going everywhere."
The struggle against the power lines has been going on for decades here in the plains. Minnesota is putting themselves into a bit of a pickle by not allowing transmissions lines into their state. They do not want electricity from coal power plants (CO2). They have mandated about 25% renewable energy but we will not be able to supply it without the transmission lines from where the wind is to where the customers are located.
People forget that coal, as bad as it is from a CO2 standpoint, is really our only option from a base load standpoint. Natural gas is great for peaking plants - low staffing and quick startup. But with high natural gas prices they are not the best base load plant.
Hydro is subject to climate change. As an example (Missouri River reservoirs):
"The six main stem power plants generated a record low 286 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity in June, only 33 percent of normal because of lower pool levels and reduced releases from the dams. Total energy production for 2008 is forecasted to be 4.9 billion kWh, compared to the average of 10 billion kWh."
https://www.nwd.usace.army.mil/pa/news/shownews.asp?rn=08-012
Solar, wind and biomass will likely remain below 25% for the next 10 plus years.
It will be very interesting to see how the shift to electric cars will alter the amount of CO2 generated. If the car is recharged from the grid, will that really reduce CO2? People will need to start to add solar cells to their roof top to see a net reduction in CO2.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/mitsubishi-i-miev-electric-car-launch-ja- - pan-2009.php
I can see our cities being full of these cars down the road.
When I was living on my MN farm in the late 1970s there was a battle over high voltage lines going across the state. They made them detour around a nature preserve. Many farmers complained of headaches and cows not producing milk in areas the high voltage lines crossed. It seems to me they were 800,000 volts DC. Distribution is what is holding up wind farm expansion in San Diego right now. Environmental groups and Indian tribes have band together to fight it on public lands. I say build a big COAL generator downtown San Diego by the bay. Make for a real nice tourist attraction.
According to my calculations it will take $8.64 to charge the battery at my current electric rate. This does not take into account the 65 cents per gallon road tax that must be applied. Going on the proposed 1.25 cents per mile we are looking at approximately 9.9 cents per mile. The Prius at today's $4.25 RUG costs about 8.8 cents per mile. Even in CA when available you can get a Prius for about $32k. The iMEV is going on sale in Japan for $37,395. I think they will have to do a lot better than that have our cities full of them. Though to me they are better looking than the Prius. Just not as practical.
On the lowered hydro levels, I recall when we were in Pierre, SD, in 2005, Lake Oahe's levels were continuously dropping. This is a huge lake, a Pierre boating and fishing favorite at the north edge of the city. Its boat ramps were no longer taking you out to deep enough water to drop your boat in. 30% hydro generated production is not far off from the truth as far as this lake anyway.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Stray voltage is an issue - Idaho Power has had a couple of suits over it from dairy farmers too.
Bunch of info here:
Cows are dying, and farmers think they know why
More fingers seem to be pointed at the service lines to the dairy farms, many of which have been around since the 30's, instead of the high tension lines. And stray voltage is a big issue in the cities too. (NY Times).
Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Neither "the media" nor AlGore are lying about anything.
Al Gore believes it. The media believes the scientists who publish the GW data.
No one is pulling anything over anyone else's eyes.
Your opinion of the charlatanistic nature of AlGore is shared by very few other people.
He might indeed be shown someday to be the Devil you think he is - but right now, there is not enough evidence to convince anyone that you are correct. His only crime in my opinion is being a hypocrite and not living what he preaches.
If we come to the day when every scientist says the warming trend has nothing to do with man's activities, THEN you will have a beef if people keep believing it.
Until then, relax.
Evidently the scientist that wrote that article believes Al Gore was dishonest. Gore used information he knew was not accurate in his movie. A movie that many schools forced our children to watch. A movie that has been slammed by most of the scientific community for its inaccuracies. To me his alarmist activities are NO different than yelling fire in a theater. That is against the law. His being a hypocrite means little to me. That is the environmentalist normal lifestyle in Washington DC and Hollywood circles. That does not cause us economic harm as some of the crap that is proposed in the USA and the rest of the World.
Similarly - if a few or some scientists believe UFO's are space-aliens then we should make world-wide changes, spending billlions and billions of dollars on research? Until every last one doesn't believe, then you and I and our government need to take action?
Al Gore believes it.
When you present scientific theories you clearly need to present them as hypothesis or theory, and not as fact. The fact is that Al Gore and the media, have presented anthropogenic GW as fact. It is the modern day equivalent of claiming there is intelligent life on Mars (19th century) because you could see the canals and rivers through the 19th century telescopes.
Yes, and as long as they BELIEVE that fact, there is nothing wrong with having that opinion.
Unless something happened overnight that I missed, so far it has not been proven one way or another whether man has played a substantial part in the warming trend.
Until it is PROVEN incorrect, their opinion is as good as any, no?
Dissimilar examples.
There is solid (whether believed by all or not) scientific evidence supporting the GW phenomenon. That arctic ice is not melting itself my friend.
So far, no one has a piece of a UFO spaceship.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Oh, REALLY? Then you should tell these Russian scientists that their huts are NOT REALLY floating away like they think they are.
Russian Running from the melting ice
Russian researchers flee melting Arctic ice floe
Jul 14, 2008
MOSCOW (AP) — Russian scientists are evacuating a research station built on an Arctic ice floe because global warming has melted the ice to a fraction of its original size, a spokesman said.
The North Pole-35 station, where 21 researchers and two dogs live in huts, will be taken off the floe in the western Arctic Ocean this week instead of in late August as originally planned, said Sergei Balyasnikov of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St. Petersburg.
The research crew landed in early September on the 1.2- by 2.5-mile floe near the Severnaya Zemlya archipelago. During its westward drift of more than 1,550 miles, the floe shrank to just 1,000 by 2,000 feet.
"The evacuation is ahead of schedule because of global warming," Balyasnikov said.
NO! When you have an opinion you present it as an opinion. You don't have an opinion or theory, and say that is the way it is.
It is misrepresentation to state something IS fact - in science that means it can mathematically be proven; when you only BELIEVE it is fact!
There you go again, asking someone to prove a negative. You know better than that. Let's see you PROVE that there is no Tooth Fairy. Waiting......
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
There are also radar-recordings, hundreds of trained military and ex-military pilot sightings, many astronaut sightings, and of course the hidden government wreckage of UFO's (
That arctic ice is not melting itself my friend.
And how is that proof that the cause is man-made? when we have data that that has happened before - before man was around?
"The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.
“The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that’s a significant increase,” he said.
"If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand."
Link
link title
link title
link title
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
There is evidence FOR global warming and there is evidence AGAINST global warming.
That's why it's not a settled issued.
That's why it needs to be studied until we determine if man is a substantial causal factor.