Forums

We've got more Sun than You've got Oil. Brown said.

We've got more Sun than You've got Oil. Brown said.

http://www.ecowatch.com/california-solar-power-2305961141.html

California meeting half its Energy Needs and is the 6th largest World Economic power and the biggest in the United States.

And the Sun transports it energy for FREE.

SCCRENDO | April 15, 2017

@compchat. I appreciate your approach to the environment and it is certainly similar to mine. Just to confirm. You do believe that AGW is real and needs to be addressed?

I guess one question would be? Are you not concerned that many in the Republican Party are deniers. Also Trump has called climate change a Chinese hoax and has filled his cabinet with deniers. He also wants to severely limit or potentially shut down the EPA. While I guess you could have other overwhelming reasons to support these guys it does concern me that if you understand the implications of climate change you are prepared to elect politicians who are either not smart enough to understand the consequences of climate change or pollution or don't care particularly that their personal economic interests are far more important than the well being of our planet and mankind.

MitchP85D | April 15, 2017

Quite the contrary ozone hole Mike. Al Gore is the Rev. Jim Jones of your new age religion. And you and your ilk are all in!

MitchP85D | April 15, 2017

SCCRENDO, I surmise compchat believes responsibility starts with the individual, not the collective. Am I correct on that one comchat? That is what I believe, anyway. I will never tell anybody what kind of energy one must use, or what kind of vehicle they must drive. I drive a Tesla because it is a cool car, and I love the convenience of just plugging in for fuel at home. This is a new lifestyle I know I will never depart from. I will always have a Tesla till the day I kick the bucket!

Fast Girl | April 16, 2017

MitchP85D, we think alike, except I am an opera person, not a pink person ;-)

"Red Sage " Wow. Now I remember why I don't come to this section of the forums anymore."
Hmmm, scratching my head..... but you were just here!

Mike83 | April 16, 2017

One thing that is obvious is that opinions matter more to some than facts and that is why fake news is popular.

MitchP85D | April 16, 2017

Hey ozone hole Mike, need I break the news to you that what some people think is factual, others think is erroneous?

Fast Girl, thank you ever so much for stating that we think alike. If one of these folks here tells me I'm stupid, I can say, "well Fast Girl is on my side!" And that is a hell-of-a-lot more than what some of these folks here can say about themselves. By the way, Pink Floyd folks don't mind the opera or the symphony at all. My own sister is a concert harpist.

SamO | April 16, 2017

The hospital took my temperature and it said 98.6 but I think it is erroneous. - Mitch

MitchP85D | April 16, 2017

Hey SamO, UAH data took a temperature measurement of the earth. For the month of March 2017, they measured a +0.19 deg C global mean temperature anomaly. In other words, the earth's temperature is running 0.19 deg C higher than the 1981-2010 global temperature average.

SOMETHING TELLS ME YOU THINK THAT MEASUREMENT IS ERRONEOUS!

Mike83 | April 17, 2017

The fossil fuel trolls have been all over and one thread that tried to disparage Tesla brought up a very informative link which the poster removed. The cognitive problems when using ICE vehicles possibly affect peoples belief in conspiracy theories and perhaps the cult type religious kooks like the Jim Jones kook aid people that have a religion of Climate Change Denialism. Perhaps with less critical thinking they buy into the fossil fuel propaganda. Most Americans are not fooled but those in power use these weaknesses to exploit Americans.

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/773916

SamO | April 17, 2017

even innumeracy is bigger in Texas.

"This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

See, NASA didn't cherry-pick years for comparison. They used them all since 1880.

SamO | April 17, 2017

Sorry. 1884, not 1881. Apologies.

"The time series below shows the five-year average variation of global surface temperatures from 1884 to 2016. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average."

SamO | April 17, 2017

Or, for the graph-ignorant, that is a 1 degree increase over the 1960-1980 average temperature.

Fast Girl | April 17, 2017

MitchP... "I can say, "well Fast Girl is on my side!" :-)

Mike83 | April 17, 2017

Thanks Sam. Evidence is irrelevant to the brain washed I guess.

MitchP85D | April 17, 2017

Hey SamO, that data set is based on the 1951-1980 average, which was the coldest period of the 20th century. Has thas GISS graph messed up your life in some way?

SamO | April 17, 2017

That data set is based on 1884 to 2016.

Sad.

rxlawdude | April 18, 2017

We had a conservative friend over for dinner the other night. He asked me if I believe the term "settled science," and then went on to, in his view, justify there is no such thing as "settled science."

I didn't take the bait, as I figured he'd then move on to climate change and use his assertion to "prove" AGW is not "settled science."
We debated another hot button topic, instead. :-0

MitchP85D | April 18, 2017

lawdude, you have conservative friends? That's a feather in your cap!

MitchP85D | April 18, 2017

SamO, the GISS graph certainly fits the scenario you believe in. Concerning RSS and UAH data, not quite so.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/

mark.willing | April 18, 2017

@rxlawdude,...Agree. Anyone who is in any of the science, technology, and/or medical fields knows there is no such thing as "settled science". Newton, Einstein, and many others have proven that. One of my mentors once said, "If you've been doing something for more than 5 years, you're probably doing it wrong." A bit tongue-and-cheek, but probably true most of the time. The nature of science is based upon the concept of, "The more you know, the more you don't know." and clearly is the driving force for most of us that seek knowledge and innovation in our respective fields. All that said, I have to roll my eyes whenever someone says that they don't trust science because "it is always wrong." Clearly, people like this don't understand that scientific knowledge is only as accurate as it can be today, but is more accurate than it was yesterday, and will be even more accurate tomorrow. This is why we need to support and celebrate our intellectuals,...not chastise them for "presumed mistakes" of the past.

SamO | April 18, 2017

They why arbitrarily choose your time frame of 1980-2000 or whatever. Mine is longer and shows the steepness of the slope.

"If we don't find a solution to burning oil for transport, when we then run out of oil, the economy will collapse and society will come to an end," Musk said this week during a conversation with astrophysicist and Cosmos host Neil deGrasse Tyson.

"If we know we have to get off oil no matter what, we know that is an inescapable outcome, why run this crazy experiment of changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere and oceans by adding enormous amounts of CO2 that have been buried since the Precambrian Era?" he added. "That's crazy. That's the dumbest experiment in history, by far."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/elon-musk-burning-fossil-fuel...

MitchP85D | April 18, 2017

SamO, there were no satellites back in 1800s. That's why! Satellite data did not become available till 1979.

mark.willing | April 18, 2017

A quote from the above article: "...Musk's comments reminded me of the time ​I visited another of the country's clean energy pioneers who also, outwardly, cared little about the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels. You probably haven't heard of him, but Roscoe Bartlett was an inventor who worked on the space race, was at IBM in its early days, and went on to be a 20-year US Congressman from Maryland.

Now, 88 years old, Bartlett lives in near obscurity, off the grid in the middle of nowhere in West Virginia. He was the first Congressman to drive a Prius, his compound runs solely on solar energy he built himself, he drinks water he has piped in himself. Bartlett is also staunchly conservative and doesn't care to learn whether or not climate change is real, and he doesn't care if humans are causing it or not.

I visited Bartlett on his compound for a story last year, and he told me that much of how he lives his life, and much of how he governed in Congress, was inspired by a ​May, 1957 speech by Hyman Rickover, a four star Navy admiral who was instrumental in the development of the nuclear sub.

"Our civilization rests upon a technological base which requires enormous quantities of fossil fuels," Rickover said. "In the basic fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite, the exact length of time these reserves will last is important in only one respect: The longer they last, the more time we have to invent ways of living off renewable or substitute energy sources and to adjust our economy to the vast changes which we can expect from such a shift."

And so, Bartlett spent much of his time in Congress pushing alternative fuels. Not because he cared about the environment, but because he realized American scientists and businesses could get rich by developing something new and better. We have the means, the financial incentive, and the imperative to switch to clean energy...."

Even military leaders in the 1950s could see into the future. I just wish that the politicians responsible for Federal budget could see that dependency upon fossil fuels is a national security risk. For 60-plus years our military leadership has been trying to beat this concept into the heads of some our politicians.

Haggy | April 18, 2017

There will always be some who reject "settled science." There are those who reject evolution as "just a theory." Those people should stay off airplanes because the theory of flight is just a theory.

Mike83 | April 18, 2017

Koole aid Mitch has no idea of what the greenhouse effect is since he is a believer in anything the fossil fuel establishment tells him.
As for fossil fuels they needed to go to tar sands and deep sea drilling to get more costly oil. The contamination and destruction of our beautiful environment seems short sighted to say the least. Who cares about Hg in the air and water or people who wish to go trout fishing or deer hunting? More fuel please, addictive behavior and damn lazy.

rxlawdude | April 18, 2017

@Haggy, my friend indeed used evolution as proof there is "no such thing" as settled science. He asked HOW new species came into existence. I explained adaptation and he just laughed.

Haggy | April 19, 2017

Some people just want to prove that evolution isn't real by using themselves as an example.

Mike83 | April 19, 2017

LOL

MitchP85D | April 19, 2017

Since you global warming snooty elitists are now making snide comments about people who question evolution, maybe you can explain to Dr. James Tour of Rice University how the first biological cell emerged in the pre-biotic world. Or better yet, maybe you can explain to him how the first protein molecule came into being. I am mentioning this because I saw him give a lecture last night on organic chemistry, molecular machines, and the probability that life came from an undirected process. If you are interested about how life formed from the pre-biotic building blocks, few on earth are as knowledgeable as Dr. Tour on this subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour

I would love to see one of you condescending types call him stupid!

After his lecture I asked him that since he is a chemist, he must know a little something about the CO2 molecule. And I wanted to get his opinion on how much of an effect 400+ ppm of CO2 will have on the atmosphere. He told me that increasing CO2 will cause a warming, but the anthropogenic portion is minor. It is not his expertise, so he takes it on face value what the climate scientists say. However, he does know there are dissenting voices in the climate science community, and he knows how they are treated by the establishment. Dr. Tour said it reminds him how he was treated in the organic chemistry establishment when he signed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism."

Nowadays, Dr. Tour gets very little, if any flak from anybody because of his scientific accomplishments and how respected he is in the academic community.

Mike83 | April 19, 2017

The Pope also has a degree in Chemistry and believes fossil fuel burning causes global warming but the fossil fuel worshiping kool aide drinkers don't take him seriously.

MitchP85D | April 19, 2017

Hey ozone Mike, I just stated that Dr. Tour thinks increasing CO2 will cause a warming. The degree of that warming is what the scientific debate is all about.

rxlawdude | April 20, 2017

So @Mitch cites a malcontent scientist with alleged expertise in biology to support climate change is a hoax.

Folks, you can't make this stuff up -- nuts be nuts.

rxlawdude | April 20, 2017

Tour is NOT a biologist, either, which make him eminently qualified to hypothesize gus own theory of evolution. Like the deniers here with no scientific backgrounds who are sure there is no such thing as ACC.

rxlawdude | April 20, 2017

gus->his

Mike83 | November 16, 2017

With California, the world's 6th largest economic powerhouse is getting to 50% Alternative Energy by 2020, led by Jerry Brown.

https://www.thenation.com/article/california-governor-jerry-brown-is-doi...

The red states depend on welfare for their climate disruption and want to drill to make more CO2 indicates a level of stupidity laughed at by all of the world.

Pages