Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Previous · 1 . . . 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 . . . 29 · Next
Author Message
bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,637,922
RAC: 3,126
United States
Message 1312732 - Posted: 8 Dec 2012, 21:58:11 UTC - in response to Message 1312637.

It's junk science.


Do you believe the physics of the greenhouse gas effect is junk science?

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,637,922
RAC: 3,126
United States
Message 1312733 - Posted: 8 Dec 2012, 21:59:43 UTC - in response to Message 1312689.

Order is the natural way things are.


Is the motion of water molecules in a waterfall orderly? If not, is a waterfall unnatural?

____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8497
Credit: 23,042,484
RAC: 14,893
United Kingdom
Message 1312745 - Posted: 8 Dec 2012, 22:39:54 UTC - in response to Message 1312689.

Order is the natural way things are. Chaos can rear it's head all it wants. Order will take it's place each and every time. There is NOTHING man can do to reestablish order, the reason why is time and the fact that order cannot be forced by man, it's a natural thing that nature does all by itself. In YOUR arrogance the only thing you have and will do is ensure chaos will stick around longer.

Chaos and order are just the two sides of the same coin.

When you have chaos, eventually a pattern will emerge and you think you have order, then there is an almost impercepable change in one variable, out of hundreds or thousands of variables, and you are plunged into chaos again.

Thats why we cannot predict earthquakes and volcano erruptions, or the weather accurately. Or why populations of animals vary so much.

And getting back on subject, when the climate changes, as it does all the time, do we know which parts of the world will get hotter or colder, or wetter or dryer.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8497
Credit: 23,042,484
RAC: 14,893
United Kingdom
Message 1312759 - Posted: 8 Dec 2012, 23:01:20 UTC - in response to Message 1312728.

I think we have a very long way to go before alternative power becomes really viable.

Batteries are really horrible things, either filled with strong acid or alkalides, and made of metals we would rather not use. And they don't have a long life.

Charging and discharging batteries is at best only 70% efficient in both directions. Use them roughly by fast charging and/or discharging quickly causes overheating and decrease of life. They also do not like to be cold either. How well does your car start with a three year old battery on a winters morning in Michigan?

Voltaic cells also need chemicals that are either dangerous or in short supply or both. They have only just got past the point were they generate more power over their lifetime than it took to produce them, and then only when used in reasonably sunny places.

Wind power is usually generated miles from where it is needed. Quite often when they produce most of their power we don't need it, like at night.
In the UK we have had news items where the controllers have had to tell the wind power farms in Scotland to switch off because they are supplying too much power, and then had to compensate them with £millions.

When we do need their power because of bad weather etc. they get turned off because the wind is too strong.
They are also not as efficient as they would have you believe, because although they can produce the power quoted in isolation where frequency is not too important. But as soon as they are connected to the grid keeping the frequency absolutely correct and in phase is the most important thing, by a long way.

Message 1312766 - Posted: 8 Dec 2012, 23:31:37 UTC

Windfall

The Movie(Documentary)

After watching, I feel sorry for anyone near a Wind Turbine.

Bad Bad Bad.

Alternative Energy. Worse than Fossil Fuels.

DEMON...Sweating
____________


Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31033
Credit: 11,226,963
RAC: 19,515
United Kingdom
Message 1312772 - Posted: 8 Dec 2012, 23:44:50 UTC

Wind power is usually generated miles from where it is needed. Quite often when they produce most of their power we don't need it, like at night.
In the UK we have had news items where the controllers have had to tell the wind power farms in Scotland to switch off because they are supplying too much power, and then had to compensate them with £millions.

When we do need their power because of bad weather etc. they get turned off because the wind is too strong.
They are also not as efficient as they would have you believe, because although they can produce the power quoted in isolation where frequency is not too important. But as soon as they are connected to the grid keeping the frequency absolutely correct and in phase is the most important thing, by a long way.

WK, can you point me in the direction of news reports and any other info you may have, regarding the above. I ask because I don't think that what you have stated is correct.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8263
Credit: 4,070,731
RAC: 392
United Kingdom
Message 1312780 - Posted: 8 Dec 2012, 23:53:44 UTC - in response to Message 1312772.
Last modified: 8 Dec 2012, 23:57:05 UTC

Wind power is usually generated miles from where it is needed. Quite often when they produce most of their power we don't need it, like at night.
In the UK we have had news items where the controllers have had to tell the wind power farms in Scotland to switch off because they are supplying too much power, and then had to compensate them with £millions.

When we do need their power because of bad weather etc. they get turned off because the wind is too strong.
They are also not as efficient as they would have you believe, because although they can produce the power quoted in isolation where frequency is not too important. But as soon as they are connected to the grid keeping the frequency absolutely correct and in phase is the most important thing, by a long way.

WK, can you point me in the direction of news reports and any other info you may have, regarding the above. I ask because I don't think that what you have stated is correct.

Unfortunately, quite so for a very small number of occasions due to the National Grid infrastructure (supposedly?) becoming overloaded.

However... I suspect that the real problem was bureaucratic in that it was cheaper to turn off the Wind generators than renege on the supply contracts conditions imposed by the fossil fuels generators...

Hence, I suspect that was more of a case of the Wind power working better than expected and grabbing too large a proportion of the generation pie...


Which comes back to politics and the Market structure and who pays for pollution and the consequences of pollution...

All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8497
Credit: 23,042,484
RAC: 14,893
United Kingdom
Message 1312789 - Posted: 9 Dec 2012, 0:00:57 UTC - in response to Message 1312772.

A quick look failed to find the news report but there are some details in Wiki - Wind Power in the UK, Variability and issues

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8497
Credit: 23,042,484
RAC: 14,893
United Kingdom
Message 1312798 - Posted: 9 Dec 2012, 0:06:28 UTC - in response to Message 1312786.
Last modified: 9 Dec 2012, 0:10:38 UTC

And just like the coin, heads will come up more then tails. It is the natural order of things. Clouds and tornado's always give way to blue skies. Earthquakes are a natural happening of plate tectonics. Order always comes up.

You can deny it all you want but the only thing that you do is you will remain in your ignorance.

What we are seeing in nature now is the natural order of how things are. We can argue all you want on cause but as I have said, we have only been putting out Co2 since the industrial revolution. The natural order of nature is slow and over 100,000 of thousands of years. There has been short events but the cause is pointed at nature, not man. An impact of space junk, can be called a short event.

The event we are having now is something that happened long before we came into being, nature is cyclical. And a combination of a 11 year sunspot cycle has made it a little worse. During this summer in north america we had a heat wave. Now we are into winter and the south pole faces more directly into the sun then we do in north america. There is less ice pack in the south then up here in my neck of the woods. This is a natural event.

Al Gore has lied to you. You can deny it all you want but the only thing that you do is you will remain in your ignorance.

Your first sentence says it all. No real need to read further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_process

[school report] I.D. has delusions of adequacy. [/school report]

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1312804 - Posted: 9 Dec 2012, 0:13:38 UTC - in response to Message 1311572.

Reuters also posted the same story. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-sperm-french-idUKBRE8B40HR20121205

I don't think any of the studies have yet seen any definitive reasons for the drop. I would have thought chemicals would be the most likey reason rather than temperature.

And there was this observation in the Aljazerra report.

Finnish men, he said, "probably have the highest sperm counts of any men on the planet", while neighbouring Denmark has some of the lowest.


Phthalates used to plasticise polymers, like PVC, are possibly to blame as they can leach in to the environment. Certainly they have been blames for feminising fish, and other water life.
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8497
Credit: 23,042,484
RAC: 14,893
United Kingdom
Message 1312811 - Posted: 9 Dec 2012, 0:34:54 UTC - in response to Message 1312800.

Heads would be order.

No need to read the link...

There you go again, failing to increase your knowledge, because you think, wrongly, you know it all, or rely on questionable very biased sites.

[school report] He sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them.[/school report]

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8497
Credit: 23,042,484
RAC: 14,893
United Kingdom
Message 1312839 - Posted: 9 Dec 2012, 1:36:31 UTC - in response to Message 1312819.

Heads would be order.

No need to read the link...

There you go again, failing to increase your knowledge, because you think, wrongly, you know it all, or rely on questionable very biased sites.

[school report] He sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them.[/school report]


I oppose your biased view on nature.

And your intellectual cowardice.....

Think about it carefully.
Over a long run if the coin is balanced and is flipped fairly then it is going to fall on,

a) Heads most of the time
b) Tails most of the time
c) equally both sides
d) Don't know.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8497
Credit: 23,042,484
RAC: 14,893
United Kingdom
Message 1312854 - Posted: 9 Dec 2012, 2:03:15 UTC - in response to Message 1312850.

If?

The coin is never balanced.

Order always prevails. Ergo---heads.

Your premise MUST be rooted in the FACTS of nature herself. It is not. Ergo faulty logic. As your science is faulty, we can clearly see the intellectual cowardice you have in full display.

Show me the data that says the coin is never balanced.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8497
Credit: 23,042,484
RAC: 14,893
United Kingdom
Message 1312869 - Posted: 9 Dec 2012, 3:00:35 UTC - in response to Message 1312861.
Last modified: 9 Dec 2012, 3:00:43 UTC

Show me the data were nature is unbalanced.

No coin is balanced. Heads is always slightly more heavy.

I repeat the question. Show me the data, not your assumption. And don't forget we do not all use US coinage.

Previous · 1 . . . 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 . . . 29 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Copyright © 2014 University of California