Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #647810 > unrolled thread

Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 19:01 -0500
    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 22:08 -0400
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-30 11:46 -0500
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 16:31 -0400
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-30 19:38 -0500
    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 10:12 -0700
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-30 13:00 -0500
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 17:10 -0400
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 09:41 -0700
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-31 12:03 -0500
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:21 -0400
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-31 17:09 -0500
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 18:34 -0400
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 00:09 -0700
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-08-31 21:57 +0000
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 18:21 -0400
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 00:20 +0000
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 22:27 -0400
                  Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 05:23 +0000
                    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:10 -0400
                      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 22:43 +0000
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 08:39 -0700
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-01 12:30 -0500
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 18:29 +0000
                  Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 18:03 -0400
                    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 22:44 +0000
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-01 18:22 +0000
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:57 -0400
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 22:48 -0700
                  Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-02 17:25 +0000
                    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 13:27 -0700
                      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-02 20:33 +0000
                        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 11:12 -0700
                          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-09-05 21:15 +0000
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 18:30 -0500
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-01 19:16 -0500
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 16:43 -0400
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 09:52 -0700
          Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:13 -0400
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-31 17:19 -0500
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 20:10 -0400
                Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 08:44 -0700
                  Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:48 -0400
                    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 15:32 -0700
                      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-01 16:55 -0700
                      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 21:30 -0400
            Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 08:37 -0700
              Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:41 -0400
    Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 13:49 -0700
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-30 14:30 -0700
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 20:58 -0400
      Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 10:24 -0700
        Re: Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017 "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-01 10:44 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#647810 — Top Climate Scientist Says Global Cooling Starts in 2017

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down


Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s 
Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been 
vastly exaggerated in error.

The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in 
applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions 
widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world 
temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a ‘mini ice 
age’ by 2030.

He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have been 
included in the ‘standard models’ and this has led to inflated 
mathematical – and therefore temperature – predictions.

He said: "There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon 
dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the 
UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts.

"Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the 
IPCC says it is.

"CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20% of the global 
warming in the last few decades”.

He said the other problem was the predictions had no reflection on 
changes that have actually been recorded and never saw the current 
18-year temperature stagnation we are now in.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he said.

“Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven 
by factors outside our control.

"As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing 
carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide 
they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars 
a day worldwide, wasted."

Although he is convinced he is right, he fears it will not be taken on 
board by world governments.

“These findings here are unlikely to be popular with the establishment. 
The political obstacles are massive,” he said.

Dr Evans says historic global warming has been down to solar activity - 
a process called  “albedo modulation” - the waxing and waning of 
reflected radiation from the Sun.

Between 2017 and 2021 he estimates a cooling of about 0.3C before the 
mini ice age in the 2030s.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#647826

On 8/29/2017 8:01 PM, Serg io wrote:
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s 
> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been 
> vastly exaggerated in error.

Ahem. Not exactly "in error" given the proposed trillion dollar per year 
"energy tax" to "cure" global warming. Dr. Evans is tongue in cheek.

> The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in 
> applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions 
> widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world 
> temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a ‘mini ice 
> age’ by 2030.

Climate is really way too complex to Really predict warming and "ice 
ages". Nobody really knows what causes them. For all we know atomic 
testing causes warming or covering Texas with solar cells could trigger 
a "mini ice age".

> He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have been 
> included in the ‘standard models’ and this has led to inflated 
> mathematical – and therefore temperature – predictions.

Purposely inflated models to take advantage of the late Nile-like 
statistics giving a longer temperature rise that those un acquainted 
with such statistics might suppose. Scare tactics. 100 computer climate 
models ALL of them show great warming. ALL of the totally wrong as time 
went on.

> He said: "There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon 
> dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the 
> UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts.

Of course not. IPCC is a POLITICAL body not a scientific one. ALL their 
"predictions" are "adjusted" to show increased warming. Even when 
contributing scientists word predictions conservatively, IPCC panel 
simply cuts their part out of the final report. Politics at it's worst.

> "Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the 
> IPCC says it is.

Agree. NASA paper (which itself is likely quite inflated) demonstrated 
it's no more than 15-20%. And these are the pro-WARMING guys!

> "CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20% of the global 
> warming in the last few decades”.

Right from NASA paper on Greenhouse effects. Truth. Denied by all the 
fraudsters.

> He said the other problem was the predictions had no reflection on 
> changes that have actually been recorded and never saw the current 
> 18-year temperature stagnation we are now in.

And that's not the ONLY problem. There is the "adjustment" of past GISS 
data with no explanation. There are the massaging of current temperature 
data by closing stations that consistently read low and installing new 
stations in Urban heat Islands and other improper spots to fake results.
Mouse painting.

> “The model architecture was wrong,” he said.

And data is fake.

> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven 
> by factors outside our control.


As I've said all along. Note: 1940-1970 CO2 went UP global temperatures 
went DOWN! Note Last 17 or so years. CO2 going UP sharply and 
Temperatures are FLAT! Cauality? Obviously a lie.

> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing 
> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide 
> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars 
> a day worldwide, wasted."

And not only does that money NOT got o solve REAL problems of 
pollutions, Ozone and the rest, but solar panes create massive nasty 
pollution especially in the construction of batteries. And Windmills 
chop endangered birds and nobody knows if screwing with solar absorption 
on  large scale might actually CAUSE climate change!


> Although he is convinced he is right, he fears it will not be taken on 
> board by world governments.

A trillion dollars a year to be handed out to the Third World? (Go read 
the climate meeting accords!) Governments going to resist truth? DUH!

> “These findings here are unlikely to be popular with the establishment. 
> The political obstacles are massive,” he said.

A politician that isn't for more taxes? I don't think so.

> Dr Evans says historic global warming has been down to solar activity - 
> a process called  “albedo modulation” - the waxing and waning of 
> reflected radiation from the Sun.

This is true.

> Between 2017 and 2021 he estimates a cooling of about 0.3C before the 
> mini ice age in the 2030s.

Actually GISS measurements show a current (last 20 years) global warming 
of 0.005 c a year. OF course data is probably "adjusted" but Ice age 
prediction is probably not a good idea.

IF you want to find something that actually correlates with Global 
Temperature, TRY THIS ONE:

http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/SolarActivity.gif

(of course this one is totally ignored as "fake" "fraud" and 
"Ignorant".)  Why go for science when lies will do?

In other words usual fake news lies and tactics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647877

On 8/29/2017 9:08 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/29/2017 8:01 PM, Serg io wrote:
>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s 
>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have 
>> been vastly exaggerated in error.
> 
> Ahem. Not exactly "in error" given the proposed trillion dollar per year 
> "energy tax" to "cure" global warming. Dr. Evans is tongue in cheek.

>> The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in 
>> applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions 
>> widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world 
>> temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a ‘mini ice 
>> age’ by 2030.
> 
> Climate is really way too complex to Really predict warming and "ice 
> ages". Nobody really knows what causes them. For all we know atomic 
> testing causes warming or covering Texas with solar cells could trigger 
> a "mini ice age".

>> He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have 
>> been included in the ‘standard models’ and this has led to inflated 
>> mathematical – and therefore temperature – predictions.
> 
> Purposely inflated models to take advantage of the late Nile-like 
> statistics giving a longer temperature rise that those un acquainted 
> with such statistics might suppose. Scare tactics. 100 computer climate 
> models ALL of them show great warming. ALL of the totally wrong as time 
> went on.
> 
>> He said: "There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon 
>> dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as 
>> the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts.

> Of course not. IPCC is a POLITICAL body not a scientific one. ALL their 
> "predictions" are "adjusted" to show increased warming. Even when 
> contributing scientists word predictions conservatively, IPCC panel 
> simply cuts their part out of the final report. Politics at it's worst.
> 
>> "Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the 
>> IPCC says it is.
> 
> Agree. NASA paper (which itself is likely quite inflated) demonstrated 
> it's no more than 15-20%. And these are the pro-WARMING guys!

>> "CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20% of the global 
>> warming in the last few decades”.
> 
> Right from NASA paper on Greenhouse effects. Truth. Denied by all the 
> fraudsters.
> 
>> He said the other problem was the predictions had no reflection on 
>> changes that have actually been recorded and never saw the current 
>> 18-year temperature stagnation we are now in.
> 
> And that's not the ONLY problem. There is the "adjustment" of past GISS 
> data with no explanation. There are the massaging of current temperature 
> data by closing stations that consistently read low and installing new 
> stations in Urban heat Islands and other improper spots to fake results.
> Mouse painting.
> 
>> “The model architecture was wrong,” he said.
> 
> And data is fake.
> 
>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely 
>> driven by factors outside our control.
> 
> 
> As I've said all along. Note: 1940-1970 CO2 went UP global temperatures 
> went DOWN! Note Last 17 or so years. CO2 going UP sharply and 
> Temperatures are FLAT! Cauality? Obviously a lie.
> 
>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing 
>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide 
>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion 
>> dollars a day worldwide, wasted."
> 
> And not only does that money NOT got o solve REAL problems of 
> pollutions, Ozone and the rest, but solar panes create massive nasty 
> pollution especially in the construction of batteries. And Windmills 
> chop endangered birds and nobody knows if screwing with solar absorption 
> on  large scale might actually CAUSE climate change!
> 

>> Although he is convinced he is right, he fears it will not be taken on 
>> board by world governments.
> 
> A trillion dollars a year to be handed out to the Third World? (Go read 
> the climate meeting accords!) Governments going to resist truth? DUH!
> 
>> “These findings here are unlikely to be popular with the 
>> establishment. The political obstacles are massive,” he said.
> 
> A politician that isn't for more taxes? I don't think so.
> 
>> Dr Evans says historic global warming has been down to solar activity 
>> - a process called  “albedo modulation” - the waxing and waning of 
>> reflected radiation from the Sun.
> 
> This is true.
> 
>> Between 2017 and 2021 he estimates a cooling of about 0.3C before the 
>> mini ice age in the 2030s.
> 
> Actually GISS measurements show a current (last 20 years) global warming 
> of 0.005 c a year. OF course data is probably "adjusted" but Ice age 
> prediction is probably not a good idea.
> 
> IF you want to find something that actually correlates with Global 
> Temperature, TRY THIS ONE:
> 
> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/SolarActivity.gif

wow, I did a google on 'sunspot cycle length' and 'temp anom', and got 
lots of hits,

One has a r^2  91% coorolation between the two.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/sunspot-cycle-and-the-global-temperature-change-anomaly/


so, the new era of Global Cooling is upon us.


> 
> (of course this one is totally ignored as "fake" "fraud" and 
> "Ignorant".)  Why go for science when lies will do?
> 
> In other words usual fake news lies and tactics.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647903

On 8/30/2017 12:46 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 8/29/2017 9:08 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/29/2017 8:01 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s 
>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have 
>>> been vastly exaggerated in error.
>>
>> Ahem. Not exactly "in error" given the proposed trillion dollar per 
>> year "energy tax" to "cure" global warming. Dr. Evans is tongue in cheek.
> 
>>> The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in 
>>> applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions 
>>> widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world 
>>> temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a ‘mini ice 
>>> age’ by 2030.
>>
>> Climate is really way too complex to Really predict warming and "ice 
>> ages". Nobody really knows what causes them. For all we know atomic 
>> testing causes warming or covering Texas with solar cells could 
>> trigger a "mini ice age".
> 
>>> He says fundamental flaws in how future temperatures may rise have 
>>> been included in the ‘standard models’ and this has led to inflated 
>>> mathematical – and therefore temperature – predictions.
>>
>> Purposely inflated models to take advantage of the late Nile-like 
>> statistics giving a longer temperature rise that those un acquainted 
>> with such statistics might suppose. Scare tactics. 100 computer 
>> climate models ALL of them show great warming. ALL of the totally 
>> wrong as time went on.
>>
>>> He said: "There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon 
>>> dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as 
>>> the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts.
> 
>> Of course not. IPCC is a POLITICAL body not a scientific one. ALL 
>> their "predictions" are "adjusted" to show increased warming. Even 
>> when contributing scientists word predictions conservatively, IPCC 
>> panel simply cuts their part out of the final report. Politics at it's 
>> worst.
>>
>>> "Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the 
>>> IPCC says it is.
>>
>> Agree. NASA paper (which itself is likely quite inflated) demonstrated 
>> it's no more than 15-20%. And these are the pro-WARMING guys!
> 
>>> "CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20% of the 
>>> global warming in the last few decades”.
>>
>> Right from NASA paper on Greenhouse effects. Truth. Denied by all the 
>> fraudsters.
>>
>>> He said the other problem was the predictions had no reflection on 
>>> changes that have actually been recorded and never saw the current 
>>> 18-year temperature stagnation we are now in.
>>
>> And that's not the ONLY problem. There is the "adjustment" of past 
>> GISS data with no explanation. There are the massaging of current 
>> temperature data by closing stations that consistently read low and 
>> installing new stations in Urban heat Islands and other improper spots 
>> to fake results.
>> Mouse painting.
>>
>>> “The model architecture was wrong,” he said.
>>
>> And data is fake.
>>
>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely 
>>> driven by factors outside our control.
>>
>>
>> As I've said all along. Note: 1940-1970 CO2 went UP global 
>> temperatures went DOWN! Note Last 17 or so years. CO2 going UP sharply 
>> and Temperatures are FLAT! Cauality? Obviously a lie.
>>
>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at 
>>> reducing carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon 
>>> dioxide they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four 
>>> billion dollars a day worldwide, wasted."
>>
>> And not only does that money NOT got o solve REAL problems of 
>> pollutions, Ozone and the rest, but solar panes create massive nasty 
>> pollution especially in the construction of batteries. And Windmills 
>> chop endangered birds and nobody knows if screwing with solar 
>> absorption on  large scale might actually CAUSE climate change!
>>
> 
>>> Although he is convinced he is right, he fears it will not be taken 
>>> on board by world governments.
>>
>> A trillion dollars a year to be handed out to the Third World? (Go 
>> read the climate meeting accords!) Governments going to resist truth? 
>> DUH!
>>
>>> “These findings here are unlikely to be popular with the 
>>> establishment. The political obstacles are massive,” he said.
>>
>> A politician that isn't for more taxes? I don't think so.
>>
>>> Dr Evans says historic global warming has been down to solar activity 
>>> - a process called  “albedo modulation” - the waxing and waning of 
>>> reflected radiation from the Sun.
>>
>> This is true.
>>
>>> Between 2017 and 2021 he estimates a cooling of about 0.3C before the 
>>> mini ice age in the 2030s.
>>
>> Actually GISS measurements show a current (last 20 years) global 
>> warming of 0.005 c a year. OF course data is probably "adjusted" but 
>> Ice age prediction is probably not a good idea.
>>
>> IF you want to find something that actually correlates with Global 
>> Temperature, TRY THIS ONE:
>>
>> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/SolarActivity.gif
> 
> wow, I did a google on 'sunspot cycle length' and 'temp anom', and got 
> lots of hits,
> 
> One has a r^2  91% coorolation between the two.
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/sunspot-cycle-and-the-global-temperature-change-anomaly/ 
> 
> 
> 
> so, the new era of Global Cooling is upon us.

I very much doubt it. Before there was all the big political push to 
"save humanity from baking alive" by taxing energy to eliminate CO2, the 
same bunch of clowns were going on and on about the "coming ice age" and 
how we needed a huge energy tax to save us all from freezing! But then 
as temperatures started to rise instead of fall, they all turned on a 
dime and started the "global warming" scare (also to justify a huge 
energy tax).  These days they've gone with "climate change" so that no 
matter which way it goes, the tax is still needed.

Never confuse science with politics.

>>
>> (of course this one is totally ignored as "fake" "fraud" and 
>> "Ignorant".)  Why go for science when lies will do?
>>
>> In other words usual fake news lies and tactics.
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647946

On 8/30/2017 3:31 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/30/2017 12:46 PM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 8/29/2017 9:08 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 8/29/2017 8:01 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
>>>>

>>>> Dr Evans says historic global warming has been down to solar 
>>>> activity - a process called  “albedo modulation” - the waxing and 
>>>> waning of reflected radiation from the Sun.
>>>
>>> This is true.
>>>
>>>> Between 2017 and 2021 he estimates a cooling of about 0.3C before 
>>>> the mini ice age in the 2030s.
>>>
>>> Actually GISS measurements show a current (last 20 years) global 
>>> warming of 0.005 c a year. OF course data is probably "adjusted" but 
>>> Ice age prediction is probably not a good idea.
>>>
>>> IF you want to find something that actually correlates with Global 
>>> Temperature, TRY THIS ONE:
>>>
>>> http://www.mrk-inc.com/Docs/bspam2/SolarActivity.gif
>>
>> wow, I did a google on 'sunspot cycle length' and 'temp anom', and got 
>> lots of hits,
>>
>> One has a r^2  91% coorolation between the two.
>>
>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/sunspot-cycle-and-the-global-temperature-change-anomaly/ 
>>
>>
>>
>> so, the new era of Global Cooling is upon us.
> 
> I very much doubt it. Before there was all the big political push to 
> "save humanity from baking alive" by taxing energy to eliminate CO2, the 
> same bunch of clowns were going on and on about the "coming ice age" and 
> how we needed a huge energy tax to save us all from freezing! But then 
> as temperatures started to rise instead of fall, they all turned on a 
> dime and started the "global warming" scare (also to justify a huge 
> energy tax).  These days they've gone with "climate change" so that no 
> matter which way it goes, the tax is still needed.
> 
> Never confuse science with politics.

As I read that, I thought of all the methane, CH4, CO, CO2 directly 
generated by Washington politicians--- perhaps that is a reason they 
don't like to stay in big rooms together. Explosive situation, and yet 
they are still full of ____ .

> 
>>>
>>> (of course this one is totally ignored as "fake" "fraud" and 
>>> "Ignorant".)  Why go for science when lies will do?
>>>
>>> In other words usual fake news lies and tactics.
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647879

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
> 
> 
> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s 
> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been 
> vastly exaggerated in error.
> 
[]
> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven 
> by factors outside our control.
> 
> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing 
> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide 
> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars 
> a day worldwide, wasted."

False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.

We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.

Simple physics.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647883

On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>
>>
>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>
> []
>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>> by factors outside our control.
>>
>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>> a day worldwide, wasted."
> 
> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
> 
> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
> 
> Simple physics.
>    Ed
> 

lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed 
website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]

then you have to replace it all.

  Mostly the packaging of the solar panels degrade with time, as well as 
the sealing of the cells from moisture.

http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/modules/degradation-and-failure-modes

it is the same with windfarms.  The first farm at southpoint in Hawaii, 
was overwhelmed with maintantance costs, which shut it down 20 years ago,

we  need a good openly published failure mode analysis of solar farms, 
and wind farms, (probably out there already)

also we need the total cost of ownership.


https://www.computerworld.com/article/3058270/sustainable-it/study-solar-panels-dont-last-forever-and-degradation-varies-wildly.html

I had 2 solar panels for a while, after 5 years the seals let in 
moisture and the panel failed, had to toss them out.

he is probably right on his conclusion when you take in all the factors, 
the mfgr chemicals used, gases far worse than CO2, maintance and 
replacement costs, but he needs to provide the detail.

oh, I am not pro oil at all, just stating facts, I have designed HW/SW 
for gizmoes that are outside, and keeping water/moisture out for over 30 
years is not really possable. you can seal it really well using best of 
todays standards,  and 5 years down the road it will gook great, but not 
10, or 15.  changeing air pressure pushes in water, and temperature 
extreams causes materials to expand contract. conformal coat the boards, 
sure, but plastics break down with time...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647909

On 8/30/2017 2:00 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>
>> []
>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>
>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>
>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>
>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>
>> Simple physics.
>>    Ed
>>
> 
> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed 
> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
> 
> then you have to replace it all.
> 
>   Mostly the packaging of the solar panels degrade with time, as well as 
> the sealing of the cells from moisture.
> 
> http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/
> http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/modules/degradation-and-failure-modes
> 
> it is the same with windfarms.  The first farm at southpoint in Hawaii, 
> was overwhelmed with maintantance costs, which shut it down 20 years ago,
> 
> we  need a good openly published failure mode analysis of solar farms, 
> and wind farms, (probably out there already)
> 
> also we need the total cost of ownership.

Greens don't do Quantity. (Idea men)


> https://www.computerworld.com/article/3058270/sustainable-it/study-solar-panels-dont-last-forever-and-degradation-varies-wildly.html 
> 
> 
> I had 2 solar panels for a while, after 5 years the seals let in 
> moisture and the panel failed, had to toss them out.

Exactly my experience. Note even the glass covers got all cloudy after a 
couple years cutting output.

> he is probably right on his conclusion when you take in all the factors, 
> the mfgr chemicals used, gases far worse than CO2, maintance and 
> replacement costs, but he needs to provide the detail.

The IDEA is the thing. Greens give you the idea and then you can hire 
engineers and physicists to work out the details and we are all saved!

> oh, I am not pro oil at all, just stating facts, I have designed HW/SW 
> for gizmoes that are outside, and keeping water/moisture out for over 30 
> years is not really possable. you can seal it really well using best of 
> todays standards,  and 5 years down the road it will gook great, but not 
> 10, or 15.  changeing air pressure pushes in water, and temperature 
> extreams causes materials to expand contract. conformal coat the boards, 
> sure, but plastics break down with time...

Greens don't do reality. LOTS of problems including even glass getting 
cloudy. There is LOTS Of UV out there (not helped in the least by Ozone 
layer destruction) And everybody knows that dumping megatons of 
combustion products into the air we breath (as well as megatons of 
plastic into the ocean that is the start of food chain) is a bad idea. 
But wishes and fantasies solve nothing and worse confuse those who have 
no understanding and even worse waste money on useless ideas while real 
problems go attended.

But as is obvious, it takes science to solve some of these problems and 
when poiltics takes over science, well as a friend of mine used to say:
"When a set of logical circumstances comes to an illogical conclusion, 
you can be SURE politics is involved"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648021

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
> >> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
> >>
> >>
> >> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
> >> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
> >> vastly exaggerated in error.
> >>
> > []
> >> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
> >> by factors outside our control.
> >>
> >> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
> >> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
> >> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
> >> a day worldwide, wasted."
> > 
> > False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
> > and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
> > They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
> > 
> > We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
> > that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
> > last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
> > compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
> > 
> > Simple physics.
> >    Ed
> > 
> 
> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed 
> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
> 
> then you have to replace it all.
> 
Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
arrived by Dr David Evans.

Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.

So even with high maintenance costs, if they can delay or
prevent resources wars, then they are not, as Dr Evans said,
"wasted."

That's all.
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648023

On 8/31/2017 11:41 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>
>>> []
>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>
>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>
>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>
>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>
>>> Simple physics.
>>>     Ed
>>>
>>
>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>
>> then you have to replace it all.
>>
> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
> arrived by Dr David Evans.
> 
> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
> 
> So even with high maintenance costs, if they can delay or
> prevent resources wars, then they are not, as Dr Evans said,
> "wasted."
> 
> That's all.
> ed
> 

another item not fully developed is ocean tidal currents, there are a 
few test systems out there, tidal turbines they are called.   seems 
corrosion and fouling are drawback, environmental impact too.

but water is 784 times denser than air, (sealevel)

these links have some stuff, for starters, do not know of any full time 
systems owned by a utility, (not mature tech yet)

http://energybc.ca/tidal.html

http://www.tidalenergyltd.com/?page_id=650
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/

http://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/tidal-power-pros-cons/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648066

On 8/31/2017 1:03 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 11:41 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have 
>>>>> been
>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>
>>>> []
>>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely 
>>>>> driven
>>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>>
>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion 
>>>>> dollars
>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>
>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>>
>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>>
>>>> Simple physics.
>>>>     Ed
>>>>
>>>
>>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>>
>>> then you have to replace it all.
>>>
>> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
>> arrived by Dr David Evans.
>>
>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>
>> So even with high maintenance costs, if they can delay or
>> prevent resources wars, then they are not, as Dr Evans said,
>> "wasted."
>>
>> That's all.
>> ed
>>
> 
> another item not fully developed is ocean tidal currents, there are a 
> few test systems out there, tidal turbines they are called.   seems 
> corrosion and fouling are drawback, environmental impact too.
> 
> but water is 784 times denser than air, (sealevel)
> 
> these links have some stuff, for starters, do not know of any full time 
> systems owned by a utility, (not mature tech yet)
> 
> http://energybc.ca/tidal.html
> 
> http://www.tidalenergyltd.com/?page_id=650
> http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/
> 
> http://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/tidal-power-pros-cons/ 
> 
> 
HInt Sergio. All mechanical ideas (except for the perpetual motion 
engines in Pakistan) have been tried and found wanting years if not 
centuries ago. Windmills for tulips, Tidal energy and so on. The ONLY 
one that has been quite viable is hydroelectric energy. Wow! That's IT! 
Dam a river and run electric generators with the water stored behind the 
dam! THIS IS GENIUS! All PROBLEMS SOLVED. I wonder why governments are 
not subsidizing this totally renewable energy idea instead of windmills 
to grow tulips?

Point is simple. UNTIL secrets are released on "free energy" all these 
variety of methods are just fingers in the dike. I'm pretty sure Banjo 
is nearly ready to reveal all "free energy" secrets if everyone in the 
West promises not to steal his ideas and take credit for them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648070

On 8/31/2017 4:21 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 1:03 PM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 8/31/2017 11:41 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have 
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>>
>>>>> []
>>>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely 
>>>>>> driven
>>>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at 
>>>>>> reducing
>>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion 
>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>>
>>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple physics.
>>>>>     Ed
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>>>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>>>
>>>> then you have to replace it all.
>>>>
>>> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
>>> arrived by Dr David Evans.
>>>
>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>
>>> So even with high maintenance costs, if they can delay or
>>> prevent resources wars, then they are not, as Dr Evans said,
>>> "wasted."
>>>
>>> That's all.
>>> ed
>>>
>>
>> another item not fully developed is ocean tidal currents, there are a 
>> few test systems out there, tidal turbines they are called.   seems 
>> corrosion and fouling are drawback, environmental impact too.
>>
>> but water is 784 times denser than air, (sealevel)
>>
>> these links have some stuff, for starters, do not know of any full 
>> time systems owned by a utility, (not mature tech yet)
>>
>> http://energybc.ca/tidal.html
>>
>> http://www.tidalenergyltd.com/?page_id=650
>> http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/
>>
>> http://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/tidal-power-pros-cons/ 
>>
>>
> HInt Sergio. All mechanical ideas (except for the perpetual motion 
> engines in Pakistan) have been tried and found wanting years if not 
> centuries ago. Windmills for tulips, Tidal energy and so on. The ONLY 
> one that has been quite viable is hydroelectric energy. Wow! That's IT! 
> Dam a river and run electric generators with the water stored behind the 
> dam! THIS IS GENIUS! All PROBLEMS SOLVED. I wonder why governments are 
> not subsidizing this totally renewable energy idea instead of windmills 
> to grow tulips?
> 
> Point is simple. UNTIL secrets are released on "free energy" all these 
> variety of methods are just fingers in the dike. I'm pretty sure Banjo 
> is nearly ready to reveal all "free energy" secrets if everyone in the 
> West promises not to steal his ideas and take credit for them.


Energy storage, just pump water uphill into the reservors, no need for 
expensive HUGE banks of TESLA batteries with their overseas in India, 
pesky warrenty department peoples.

Tesla brainwashes washington for R&D, the saps pay, without doing the 
homework.  Like Obummer and Solyndra, $$$ 80,000,000,000 GONE ! poof!




what happened over here, USA,  was the river water is getting used up by 
cities, so the flow is very low,  and those cities downstream, get 
reprocessed sewer water from cities upstream.   Totally 100% true.

Is that river going through your town only less than 2 or 3 foot deep ? 
Is it moving slowly ?   Has it been through another city ?   guess what 
it is mostly !!!!  and true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648076

On 8/31/2017 6:09 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 4:21 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 8/31/2017 1:03 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2017 11:41 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions 
>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> []
>>>>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely 
>>>>>>> driven
>>>>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at 
>>>>>>> reducing
>>>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion 
>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple physics.
>>>>>>     Ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>>>>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>>>>
>>>>> then you have to replace it all.
>>>>>
>>>> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
>>>> arrived by Dr David Evans.
>>>>
>>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>>
>>>> So even with high maintenance costs, if they can delay or
>>>> prevent resources wars, then they are not, as Dr Evans said,
>>>> "wasted."
>>>>
>>>> That's all.
>>>> ed
>>>>
>>>
>>> another item not fully developed is ocean tidal currents, there are a 
>>> few test systems out there, tidal turbines they are called.   seems 
>>> corrosion and fouling are drawback, environmental impact too.
>>>
>>> but water is 784 times denser than air, (sealevel)
>>>
>>> these links have some stuff, for starters, do not know of any full 
>>> time systems owned by a utility, (not mature tech yet)
>>>
>>> http://energybc.ca/tidal.html
>>>
>>> http://www.tidalenergyltd.com/?page_id=650
>>> http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/
>>>
>>> http://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/tidal-power-pros-cons/ 
>>>
>>>
>> HInt Sergio. All mechanical ideas (except for the perpetual motion 
>> engines in Pakistan) have been tried and found wanting years if not 
>> centuries ago. Windmills for tulips, Tidal energy and so on. The ONLY 
>> one that has been quite viable is hydroelectric energy. Wow! That's 
>> IT! Dam a river and run electric generators with the water stored 
>> behind the dam! THIS IS GENIUS! All PROBLEMS SOLVED. I wonder why 
>> governments are not subsidizing this totally renewable energy idea 
>> instead of windmills to grow tulips?
>>
>> Point is simple. UNTIL secrets are released on "free energy" all these 
>> variety of methods are just fingers in the dike. I'm pretty sure Banjo 
>> is nearly ready to reveal all "free energy" secrets if everyone in the 
>> West promises not to steal his ideas and take credit for them.
> 
> 
> Energy storage, just pump water uphill into the reservors, no need for 
> expensive HUGE banks of TESLA batteries with their overseas in India, 
> pesky warrenty department peoples.

Even better, just let it rain and rivers and creeks carry the water to 
your lake! I smell Nobel! No pumps needed!

> Tesla brainwashes washington for R&D, the saps pay, without doing the 
> homework.  Like Obummer and Solyndra, $$$ 80,000,000,000 GONE ! poof! 

Greens term that "renewable money".

> what happened over here, USA,  was the river water is getting used up by 
> cities, so the flow is very low,  and those cities downstream, get 
> reprocessed sewer water from cities upstream.   Totally 100% true.

Around here there are fish (carp) that seem to thrive on the green 
sludge at the bottom of the river. People fish for them, but it is 
considered bad form to eat them.

> Is that river going through your town only less than 2 or 3 foot deep ? 
> Is it moving slowly ?   Has it been through another city ?   guess what 
> it is mostly !!!!  and true.

Yeah, I heard that since many large cities are along rivers, the water 
in rivers ends up going through X number of people before it goes to the 
sea. Recycle is good, no?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648305

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 7:21:26 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 1:03 PM, Serg io wrote:
> > On 8/31/2017 11:41 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
> >>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down 
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
> >>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have 
> >>>>> been
> >>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
> >>>>>
> >>>> []
> >>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely 
> >>>>> driven
> >>>>> by factors outside our control.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
> >>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
> >>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion 
> >>>>> dollars
> >>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
> >>>>
> >>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
> >>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
> >>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
> >>>>
> >>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
> >>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
> >>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
> >>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
> >>>>
> >>>> Simple physics.
> >>>>     Ed
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
> >>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
> >>>
> >>> then you have to replace it all.
> >>>
> >> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
> >> arrived by Dr David Evans.
> >>
> >> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
> >> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
> >> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
> >>
> >> So even with high maintenance costs, if they can delay or
> >> prevent resources wars, then they are not, as Dr Evans said,
> >> "wasted."
> >>
> >> That's all.
> >> ed
> >>
> > 
> > another item not fully developed is ocean tidal currents, there are a 
> > few test systems out there, tidal turbines they are called.   seems 
> > corrosion and fouling are drawback, environmental impact too.
> > 
> > but water is 784 times denser than air, (sealevel)
> > 
> > these links have some stuff, for starters, do not know of any full time 
> > systems owned by a utility, (not mature tech yet)
> > 
> > http://energybc.ca/tidal.html
> > 
> > http://www.tidalenergyltd.com/?page_id=650
> > http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/
> > 
> > http://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/tidal-power-pros-cons/ 
> > 
> > 
> HInt Sergio. All mechanical ideas (except for the perpetual motion 
> engines in Pakistan) have been tried and found wanting years if not 
> centuries ago. Windmills for tulips, Tidal energy and so on. The ONLY 
> one that has been quite viable is hydroelectric energy. Wow! That's IT! 
> Dam a river and run electric generators with the water stored behind the 
> dam! THIS IS GENIUS! All PROBLEMS SOLVED. I wonder why governments are 
> not subsidizing this totally renewable energy idea instead of windmills 
> to grow tulips?
> 
> Point is simple. UNTIL secrets are released on "free energy" all these 
> variety of methods are just fingers in the dike. I'm pretty sure Banjo 
> is nearly ready to reveal all "free energy" secrets if everyone in the 
> West promises not to steal his ideas and take credit for them.

The point is to convert all energies into hydrogen and put them into a global
Hydrogen Transmission Network of steel pipes lined with polymer, buffer storage
for hydrogen, control system. It will have many sources and sinks and grow
organically with demand. The problem with renewable sources is the erratic
nature of their supply. With the HTN method that will be smoothed out. The
energy goes into the network at any point and comes out from others. The
transmission of energy problem is solved. Hydrogen can also be the fuel for
motion. 

If the whole world agrees on this then it will be a much better place.

htnresearch.oom deals with this patented invention.

I explain it in the video film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648069

Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>> >> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>> >> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>> >> vastly exaggerated in error.
>> >>
>> > []
>> >> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>> >> by factors outside our control.
>> >>
>> >> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>> >> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>> >> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>> >> a day worldwide, wasted."
>> > 
>> > False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>> > and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>> > They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>> > 
>> > We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>> > that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>> > last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>> > compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>> > 
>> > Simple physics.
>> >    Ed
>> > 
>> 
>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed 
>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>> 
>> then you have to replace it all.
>> 
> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
> arrived by Dr David Evans.
> 
> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.

Which global war was that?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648073

On 8/31/2017 5:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>
>>>> []
>>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>>
>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>
>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>>
>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>>
>>>> Simple physics.
>>>>     Ed
>>>>
>>>
>>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>>
>>> then you have to replace it all.
>>>
>> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
>> arrived by Dr David Evans.
>>
>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
> 
> Which global war was that?
> 
> 
That would be WWIII, Jim.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648096

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 5:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>>
>>>>> []
>>>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>>>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>>
>>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple physics.
>>>>>     Ed
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>>>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>>>
>>>> then you have to replace it all.
>>>>
>>> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
>>> arrived by Dr David Evans.
>>>
>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>> 
>> Which global war was that?
>> 
>> 
> That would be WWIII, Jim.

Do you understand the concept of tense and the meaning of the word "was",
useless, babbling troll?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648099

On 8/31/2017 8:20 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2017 5:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>>>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> []
>>>>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>>>>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>>>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple physics.
>>>>>>      Ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>>>>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>>>>
>>>>> then you have to replace it all.
>>>>>
>>>> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
>>>> arrived by Dr David Evans.
>>>>
>>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>
>>> Which global war was that?
>>>
>>>
>> That would be WWIII, Jim.
> 
> Do you understand the concept of tense and the meaning of the word "was",
> useless, babbling troll?

Dear candidate for the "worst Alzheimer's symptoms of 2017" prize:

This is an honorable mention but not really of Senile level quality. 
It's great you don't get "getting into another global" war is in the 
future and not in the past and you see a problem in that the last war 
you draft dodged was WWII, but that nonsense certainly does not come to 
expert level of Bert, Archie and Banjo. All have produced magnificent 
fantasies and misunderstandings of facts that will really make the 
judges job tough this year.

Sorry, Jim but you are a loser. Better luck next year. Maybe by then 
your symptoms will be worse.

PS, Chimp WE certainly understand the tense of "was" but since the word 
was used by you and not the OP, it's clear that it's meaning is not 
going to be making any sense to anyone else. The meaning of the Original 
Post is perfectly clear to anyone not in the contest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648104

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2017 8:20 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2017 5:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>>>>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>>>>>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>>>>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simple physics.
>>>>>>>      Ed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>>>>>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then you have to replace it all.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
>>>>> arrived by Dr David Evans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>>
>>>> Which global war was that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That would be WWIII, Jim.
>> 
>> Do you understand the concept of tense and the meaning of the word "was",
>> useless, babbling troll?
> 
> Dear candidate for the "worst Alzheimer's symptoms of 2017" prize:

You may fuck off and die ad hominem spewing, asshole troll.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648187

On 9/1/2017 1:23 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 8/31/2017 8:20 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/31/2017 5:57 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:06:38 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/30/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 8:02:35 PM UTC-4, Serg io wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s
>>>>>>>>> Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been
>>>>>>>>> vastly exaggerated in error.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>> “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven
>>>>>>>>> by factors outside our control.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "As such, the wind farms and solar panels are not just bad at reducing
>>>>>>>>> carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide
>>>>>>>>> they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars
>>>>>>>>> a day worldwide, wasted."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> False conclusion.  There are other reasons for wind farms
>>>>>>>> and solar panels that are totally unrelated to climate change.
>>>>>>>> They are called renewable energy sources for a reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We may disagree on the absolute total, but it is clear
>>>>>>>> that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Even if fossils fuels
>>>>>>>> last a couple more millennia, this is still a finite amount
>>>>>>>> compared to the billion years energy available from the sun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simple physics.
>>>>>>>>       Ed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lifetime of solar panels and wind farms is 30 years max.  (on a fed
>>>>>>> website)   [many degrade out at 5 -10 years]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then you have to replace it all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not disagreeing with you. I was disagreeing with the conclusion
>>>>>> arrived by Dr David Evans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure the early generations of all these systems are high maintenance.
>>>>>> But better having to repair/replace renewable resources than
>>>>>> getting into another global war over finite non-renewable resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which global war was that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That would be WWIII, Jim.
>>>
>>> Do you understand the concept of tense and the meaning of the word "was",
>>> useless, babbling troll?
>>
>> Dear candidate for the "worst Alzheimer's symptoms of 2017" prize:
> 
> You may fuck off and die ad hominem spewing, asshole troll.
> 
Says the guy who can't figure out the difference between "is", "was" and 
"will be".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web