Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (2702)	9/25/2011 3:20:36 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

"try telling me how freezing to death cuz the solar cells or wind mill doesn't offer up enuf cranking to heat up the house when it's 15 below outside." Huh? Is this your imitation of Rick Perry in the last debate? Let's imagine Chicago in the winter with no fossil fuels and only wind, hydro and solar for energy. Now let's throw in Detroit, Minneapolis, Buffalo, Cleveland, Boston, Pittsburgh, NYC, Madison, Denver, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Fort Wayne and every other densely populated city that is susceptible to below extended temperatures well below freezing. We hear about people dying during cold spells even with fossil fuels. Now let's switch to summertime....how many times have we heard of people dying in the cities during power outtages in hot spells? solar and wind are great for low density population centers. And I absolutely support putting in as much solar and wind power sources as possible, but they just don't scale in densely populated areas. You have to be able to understand this. TT: Were there problems with wind-power plants needing to be shut down for high winds or icing blades, and also did nuclear plants have any problems? wind turbines break down on a pretty regular basis. They are expensive to maintain and they never deliver the wattage that is on the label because of the downtime. Drive by any wind farm and you will see a very high percentage of turbines standing still. You don't need a freeze to shut a turbine down, they do it all on their own.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (2702)	9/25/2011 10:44:14 AM
From: Sdgla	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

You will burn wood ? I'm beginning to see your thought process. Your just like Obama. Pay no attention to what you say or write rat. Only to what you do. You chat up wind coming to the rescue as if thats the solution when in reality the only solution is utilization of all resources. How do you feel about coal wharfy ? Oil ok with you as well ? How about burning cow pie pellets ? You mention Perry... and toss in wind coming to the rescue as if Perry held some illusion that wind only works for spreading wild fires. How many nuclear power plants have been permitted under Obama... as you pasted he has called for more of them. The debate is about your green agenda groupies fighting the development of all resources tied to your tightly held illusions re your afore posted end of days scenario wharf. Its early and we had a beautiful rain storm blow through here in socal last night... so I dug up so grist for your mill : Position: Global warming will have few negative consequences Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "The rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes." (May 2007)[69] "On average, a 300-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to yield increases of 15% for CAM crops, 49% for C3 cereals, 20% for C4 cereals, 24% for fruits and melons, 44% for legumes, 48% for roots and tubers and 37% for vegetables."[69] [There was not] "a single coherent area within the SCPDSI maps that 'showed a statistically significant trend over the 1901-2002 period,' once again demonstrating that one of the major calamitous predictions of the world’s climate alarmists (that more dramatic droughts accompany global warming) is found to be totally unsupported by real-world data over a vast area of North America."[69] Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming." (2003)[70] "If strong positive feedbacks existed, the Earth would likely exhibit a radically unstable climate, significantly different from what has characterized the planet over the eons... Ramanathan & Collins, by the use of their own natural experiments, have shown how the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans totally nullifies the greenhouse effect of water vapor there, with high clouds dramatically increasing from close to 0% coverage at sea surface temperatures of 26°C to fully 30% coverage at 29°C... And in describing the implications of this strong negative feedback mechanism, Ramanathan & Collins state that ‘it would take more than an order-of-magnitude increase in atmospheric CO2 to increase the maximum sea surface temperature by a few degrees.'"[71] The warming of the last hundred years is seen to be basically a recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, which was a several-hundred-year period of significantly cooler temperatures than those of the present that persisted until the end of the nineteenth century."[71] Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia: "Scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter." (October 16, 2003)[72] "One way to project the future with confidence is to look to history, when it was warmer... There is very strong evidence that the integrated warming – that’s temperature times time – was much greater for millennia after the end of the recent ice age around 10,800 years ago... In those millennia – which are only the blink of a geologist’s eye ago – trees used to grow where there is now only barren tundra. When they died, they were preserved in the acidic bogginess, so we can tell exactly when they were alive with carbon dating. It’s very clear that the forest in Eurasia used to extend all the way to the Arctic Ocean during that warm period... The Arctic Ocean was likely to have been largely ice-free during the summer during much of this time – from 6,000 to 8,000 years ago – as noted by the University of Stockholm’s Martin Jacobsson in a 2010 edition of the scientific journal Quaternary Science Reviews. The Geological Survey of Norway found something similar in 2008. Not only did Greenland’s ice survive – so did the polar bear."[73] Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, resigned from the American Physical Society over it's stance that warming is "incontrovertible", and that "significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.", issuing the statement: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period." [74] [75] [76]