Be happy red! You know everything and no-one else knows anything. Keep kneeling in front of the government masters who tell you what to think and what you need. Keep paying them more and more taxes to assuage your trumped up fears. Keep applauding the loss of freedom and liberty. More government! More control! More Agenda 21!
Long live the government!
By the way...how are those climate models working for you? Incapable of getting the climate predictions right for 18 years... At what point will you concede that the alarmists are, well...wrong? Wrong on temps. Wrong on hurricanes. Wrong on droughts. Wrong on floods. Wrong on the amplification effects of CO2. Wrong on shrinking food production. Wrong on climate refugees. Wrong on ocean 'acidification'. Wrong on coral bleaching. Wrong on rate of ocean rise. Wrong on Arctic ice. Wrong on Antarctic glacier calving. Lying about tree rings. Lying about temperature database manipulation. Wrong about Kilimanjaro. Wrong about Himalayan glaciers. Wrong about sinking islands. Wrong about heat waves. Wrong about less snow.
But you can continue to believe it as a good soldier, red. You are the perfect 'party' person!
Go easy on red. He doesn't know when someone is telling him the truth and he doesn't know when someone is telling him a lie. He doesn't want to dig into whether he is being told the truth or a lie, either. And he hates it when someone puts facts in front of his nose. In the end he just doesn't care whether he knows the truth or not. He will pick the data he likes and then will try eight ways from Sunday to justify it...right or wrong.
Ignorance is bliss for a large part of the population. Red personifies ignorance and lives in bliss. He's happy. Wrong a lot, but happy.
Someone wanted to buy ~80,000 shares and they weren't willing to pay a penny over 7.60 a share... So the price was reduced for the big buyer.
I hate to see this kind of concern for the big money, but it happens all the time. I just wish I can be the big money guy some day
So how do you interpret her statement, anyway? Do we still feel strongly about the continuance of the dividend? Is NMM affected in the same way and will feel short term pain? Are we best to stay the course? Does it make sense to potentially buy more at this level?
I have debated getting a U-Verse package, but just spent a lot of time looking at suprisingly unfavorable reviews and comments several places on the web.
I own 4000 shares of T, but have not paid much attention to it for many years. Is U-Verse a serious problem for T technically? Is it a money loser currently? Any ideas why I should see such an unfavorable opinion of the service and customer service?
I was in the Virginia mountains today at 7am taking a long hike. The temperature was -6F (-21C). It was very sunny. If it wasn't for the 35 mph winds it would have been a comfortable day...
It seems as though a market in cold weather heat pumps would make a lot of sense for a good measure of the world's population. For traditional heat pumps the COP drops off quite a bit below ~+25F making the need for an alternative heating source almost mandatory for those in temperate latitudes. I hope the cold weather heat pump can continue to make headway into the market.
And yet he is an eccentric genius that may yet to prove great things going forward that the rest us can not grasp...
I think the fundamental concern with your 'possibles' is the 'sell it in to the highest value stream at any given time'. I don't believe that it is possible to construct a large array without first getting someone to contract for your power. In this case a utility guaranteed to purchase all power for 20 years. That means the 'farmer' is stuck with probably the lowest price for his product from the beginning. The utility is the one that gets to manage various price models, instead. So Plan A is the most likely route, but the least profitable for the producer.
If the 'farmer' chose to become a utility (I imagine that literally takes an act of Congress) then the farmer could by an electrolyzer and storage facility, locally or at POU, and switch from electrons to hydrogen on demand fit if they had a ready and flexible market for both products. So Plan B is much more difficult to achieve and more expensive to capitalize, but would have the ability to generate more cash flow.
If the farmer reached an agreement to inject it into nat gas lines that would be a favorite of mine. Here the 'farmer' would need to purchase an electrolyzer, but could generally send all the hydrogen they produce at any output into a nat gas line continuously. Due to the higher BTU content of hydrogen the farmer could sell this product at a higher price than natural gas and make a decent profit with little of the market whims, or demand fluctuations, and virtually no storage requirements. I like Plan C maybe more than Plan A.
In the last scenario the 'farmers' costs are the highest of all and one wonders if there would be any price paid for the product that would tolerated by consumers that would make any profit for the farmer. So I think Plan D is the least likely despite its potential for load balancing.
Thanks for your thoughts.
If all that sunlight was turned into electrolytic hydrogen it would provide the fuel for about 100,000 FCV LA commuters a day or about double that for EV's. Not a lot when you think about it. But would it be a better use of those PV electrons than powering an average of 160,000 homes? Just a thought question...
The sea levels have been rising for over 11,000 years. Over 400 feet since the end of the last ice age. Do you think that only lately we have been building cities right on the water? Check the papers...we are discovering the remains of submerged cities for the past 100 years. Our ancestors didn't learn and neither have we. We still build right on the waters edge and wonder why we have coastal flooding occasionally...
Apparently exposing of the permafrost doesn't cause catastrophic problems as the permafrost has been exposed countless times and the Earth hasn't self destructed. What are you thinking will be different this time?
Only one of the major databases said we had the warmest year evah in 2014. All the others said it wasn't. Why do you believe the outlier database? Do you know that the outlier database has been manipulated continuously to show cooler past temps and warmer present temps?
When you speak of 'no doubt of that' storms, droughts and floods, do you know that none of the major databases that track storms droughts and floods agree with you? They all show no change to a slightly decreased levels. So where do you get your information? The media or the actual databases that track such things?
I keep trying to post some really interesting proxy data to try to discuss your questions, but it never manages to survive the Yahoo censoring process...
You are clearly wrong about the the slightly warmer temperature not proving detrimental. See: western wildfires, pine bark beetles, super storm sandy, irene, coral bleaching, the indian subcontinent, austrailian wildfires, incidents of skin cancer, asthma...
Oh my Jake,
Can ANY of these be pinned on warmer temperatures? Can ANY of these be pinned on human causation? Can ANY of these be pinned on CO2?
The answer is a big NO Jake. And every one of these has failed when scrutinized. You can find all kinds of experts who have said that there is no proof. Lots of speculation, yes, but no proof.
Western wildfires...Flare up in drought situations and die down in non-drought situations. Drought seems to be correlated to cyclical swings in PDO.
Pine bark beetles...come in cyclical waves. Include migration changes, changes in relative moisture and unknown cyclical patterns.
Sandy/Irene...no correlation with temperature, ocean temperatures or CO2.
Coral bleaching...little correlation to ocean temperatures, but highly correlated to pollution levels.
Skin cancer/asthma...NIH says very little evidence except related to pollution and lifestyle issues.
You are going to find precious little good science that pins warmer temperatures to anything other than modified growing zones and crop output. The jury is out on almost everything else despite what the eco types and political media tell you.
Don't fall for unsubstantiated hype.
I am all for evaluating the laundry list of proxies. After all they do provide some very detailed chrono-records of what was happening at that precise moment in time. You made a comment about some plankton that had just shown up in the record after a long time period a few days ago which I have not had a chance to look into. But just seeing a change does not preclude an answer of why there was a change. Was it man-caused? Natural cycle-caused? Ocean circulation-caused? Related to CO2? Related to contamination by an ocean going vessel? That will take some time to determine. Viewing the records seems like it should be mostly easy to interpret. Then again you have to remember the gargantuan blunder by Al Gore when he told the world that the ice core clearly showed CO2 leading temperature....
Look...is the slightly warmer temperature, caused by a mix of man and nature really proving detrimental to mankind? You sure can't prove that easily by any objective evidence. Was a degree colder caused primarily by nature detrimental to mankind? What evidence we have from the LIA seems to indicate that it was. So one could argue that the warmer climate is better than it is worse? Just because something changes doesn't mean it changes for the worse.
I attended seminars of climate modeling as a greaduate student in college chemistry in the late 70's. People have been trying to computer model 'weather' for over 40 years...unsuccessfully... and that is fine as a scientific quest. But today the intent of modeling has been usurped by groups of political scientists that are trying to use model output as a basis for legislation. Which might also be fine except they STILL can't get the models to predict accurately.
Now, half the populace is caught up in climate hysterics about man-made global warming and the boogieman of 'bad' CO2 and are actually believing climate model output as if it were the truth. But it is not. Model output is only a guess that is waiting for verification or non-verification in the future. The actual global weather/climate is not verifying the model output well at all. Not temperatures. Not methane output. Not storms. Not storm intensity. Not precipitation. Not rates of ocean rise. Not drought severity. Not much of anything at all.
So why don't we use the real data we have? Well, we do very much actually. What does it say? It says we don't know much of anything, yet. We don't know why ice ages start and end. We don't know much about naturally occuring cycles of CO2, sun output, or ocean currents. We don't even know how much or how frequently or why polar ice caps or extent changes over time. That's why we keep sending up satellites and sending out research teams to try and make sense of the world.
If we know so little, why do we think we can believe so much, change something that is in constant change, predict what is worse or better for mankind or make predictions of the future?
That kind of emotional brashness has no place in rational discussions right now.
We need to try to control obvious pollution, but our minds are being polluted by fear and chaos by those who have no clue...
You're losing it, red...
I said again the model outputs have been nothing but wrong and have no basis in reality. Therefore, they should not be used in any argument. I have also said that humans have some affect on the global temps, but very small as natural processes can overwhelm human effects. You would have to understand the flat line of the last 18 years to understand this.
It's clear that you do not read as well as not think.
I said nothing about human activity not being able to alter global temperatures. In fact I implied as much by saying that the temperature might rise another half a degree (as this is about the rate of rise of temperatures based on recent observations) for the next 100+ years. By then we will have all but run out of coal, nat gas and cheap oil.
Your Gates example is meaningless in this discussion. Over the temperate areas the Earth seems to be warming up approximately evenly...a little less at the equator due to the negative feedback of increased clouds, a little less at the south pole due to albedo and a little more at the north pole due to more water and land. These assumptions are poorly understood, however, and are subject to change as more information is added.
In the temperate areas, where most of us live and grow food, the warmth has been nothing but good for humans. Easy to shelter, clothe and feed. If the average temperature would rise 0.5 degrees not a one of us would be able to tell the physical difference, but the growing zones might stretch another 200 miles north and south and more food would benefit everyone.
If we returned to LIA temperatures (about 1.2 degrees colder) the growing zones would retreat about 600 miles towards the equator which could mean a lot less food. Todays warmth is good. Yesterday's coolness is bad.
This planet is in very little danger of becoming uninhabitable. You are taking the 'big' position in the least probable outcome. Only the models have been predicting extremes. The models have been quite wrong.
But if this extreme is where you want to position yourself, that is up to you.
Actually the planet has been cooling for the last 10,000 years. The temperature was about 1.5 degrees warmer at the beginning of the current interglacial period and has been generally cooling ever since. Do not confuse the warming of the permafrost with the cooling of the planet. The permafrost could not warm until the ice above it had melted away. After about 3000 years of warmer weather than today the ice did melt allowing the permafrost areas to receive sunlight during the summer months, along with metabolic activity, resulted in the last 7000 years of 'warming' permafrost areas.
About your increased risk argument... One does not have to act on increased risk if the risk seems to be low enough as not to be an issue. Such 'actions' might cost hugely and gain nothing. If we all acted in a defensive manner about perceived risk, then none of us would ever fly in a plane for fear of an adverse aerodynamic situation, step into the street for fear of getting hit by a two ton piece of metal, leave home for fear of contracting a virus from the public, snow ski for fear of twisting a knee... The list goes on and on.
While you may fear the risk of not being able to adapt to a half degree warmer climate many others do not. There are people that live in Fairbanks and Cairo. If we can adapt to 80 degree swings in temperature where is the solid argument for one half degree? Remember that the normal state of the Earth (90% of the time) is 12 degrees colder than now and we are near the end of this brief interglacial according to the historical record. You may consider cherishing the warmth we have and all the food we can grow due to the current mild temperatures and elevated amounts of CO2 we have...