Those with a little bit of knowledge preach about learning.
Sometimes, forward thinking pays dividends. Nah. Not sometimes. Always.
What happens when the ocean rises ? Are the "floating" offshore wind farms going to become free floating ? Stretching the needed infrastructure wiring.
That's a sharp observation. I hadn't ever thought of that.
I expect there would be enough slack in the anchor lines to accommodate a fairly significant amount of rising sea level, before anything would have to be done to maintain these offshore wind farms.
If not... well, that would probably be among the lesser problems that people would be faced with.
Originally posted by Fats: I think if we include and add up all the waste and inefficiency created by the people that buy into this crap, it would be WAY more than that.
C'mon Man. Don't hold back Brad. Tell the whole truth.
Add in all the extra money it cost us because they forcibly raised fuel prices, causing all costs of any and all things to skyrocket.
C'mon Man. Don't hold back Brad. Tell the whole truth.
Add in all the extra money it cost us because they forcibly raised fuel prices, causing all costs of any and all things to skyrocket.
who is they
the last round of cheap oil vs hi priced oil is direct link to two of the rump buddy's
putin who tryed to rig prices and the saudi MBS who does rig prices by controlling production so yes there are price riggers but no american demo can do much
but kind of a stretch to blame world wide price of EVERYTHING TO OIL PRICE INCREASES
and a much much BIGGER THEY ALSO because your they there is EVERYONE
Originally posted by Fats: Don't forget that all the crap they add into the fuel is subsidized, you're easily paying double what the price at the pump says.
I question whether this is an exaggerated assertion, especially where it says "double what the price at the pump says." But I only question it. I don't have "numbers".
The only connection I get from this is the EPA's Renewable Fuels Standard or RFS. This is what is behind the long history of federal subsidies for the Ethanol From Corn industry—but there's more to it than just that.
The truth cannot be apprehended without taking the time to do some research, but that conflicts with the penchant that some have displayed for dumbing things down to catchy but reality-distorting little slogans like "groomers" or "80,000 new IRS agents", and the penchant that some have displayed for mindlessly posting the latest meme or cartoon that caught their eye when they were on Twitter, or Instagram, or whatever online space(s) where so much of that garbage accumulates.
I have two online articles to suggest—for the record, if for no other reason.
Originally posted by Fats: Don't forget that all the crap they add into the fuel is subsidized, you're easily paying double what the price at the pump says.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I question whether this is an exaggerated assertion, especially where it says "double what the price at the pump says." But I only question it. I don't have "numbers".
You need to take up some reading comprehension courses. With the increased fuel costs, the increased prices everything because fuel cost more money, and the federal subsidies, I can believe Brad is correct. Perhaps even low.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The truth cannot be apprehended without taking the time to do some research ...
What has your pseudo science researching apprehended for you ?
The media and other pushers of radical green energy policies never show scientific data that show a direct link between our consumption of these products and warming temperatures. Because there is none.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-21-2023).]
What has your pseudo science researching apprehended for you? The media and other pushers of radical green energy policies never show scientific data that show a direct link between our consumption of these products and warming temperatures. Because there is none.
That's risible. Please describe what scientific evidence of a "direct link" would look like to you—other than what's already on display on the pages of the most obviously relevant scientific journal. The science journal Nature is the first one that comes to my mind, but I'm sure I could zero in on more than just a handful of other science journals if I invested about 30 minutes to do it and turn it into a forum post.
The science journal reports are not easy reads—the Abstract is the first place to look, and that can be reasonably summary and straightforward—but there are countless explanations of these research reports on YouTube, and in the daily science or "climate news" sections of BBC News, New York Times, Washington Post, Live Science, Science Direct, RealClearScience and so on and so on. All accessible online.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-21-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Does not Global Cooling also cause Climate Change?
Global Cooling causes Climate Change. I have no doubt about that. Do you?
I would even go beyond that, and predict that the larger the amount of Global Cooling (as determined from temperature readings), the expectation moves towards a larger or more conspicuous change in climate. There could even be an "ice age" (so to speak), if a large enough amount of Global Cooling were to happen.
This might have been what the Vice President was explaining at a recent event in Florida, judging by her body language. It looks like the "blow gesture", when someone exhales through their mouth, and puts some extra effort into it, to make people think of a gust of wind. In a Global Cooling scenario, it could be a wind that's bringing cold Arctic air southwards into the Great Lakes region, or New England, and perhaps even further south, into the Mid Atlantic region. Even as far south as Georgia.
All bets are off (so to speak) in a Global Cooling scenario.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-22-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: ... how do you know CO2 levels cause droughts ? Wildfires ? Worse hurricanes ? Why did they change Global Warming to Climate Change ? Does not Global Cooling also cause Climate Change ? It is easy to pick off your beliefs with just mere common sense. Even when you advance some yay who's opinion.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Global Cooling causes Climate Change. I have no doubt about that. Do you?
Umm, do you expect an answer ? You never answer questions which may show you don't know everything you claim you do.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: In a Global Cooling scenario, it could be a wind that's bringing cold Arctic air southwards into the Great Lakes region, or New England, and perhaps even further south, into the Mid Atlantic region. Even as far south as Georgia.
All bets are off (so to speak) in a Global Cooling scenario.
Okay expert. Tell us where does all the water which you claim came from melted icebergs go, if their is a global cooling trend after your claimed life altering event ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-23-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Okay expert. Tell us where does all the water which you claim came from melted icebergs go, if their is a global cooling trend after your claimed life altering event ?
That reminds me of something on YouTube. It's very brief. Just 30 seconds. It's the way it ends. https://youtu.be/KeNPjoB_VrQ
Originally posted by olejoedad:Remind me, how big was their state budget shortfall this fiscal year?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: You can't say it's because the state of California invested in a nearly $5 billion project to build a Floating Offshore Wind Energy manufacturing facility.
That hasn't been done—yet.
I see Big (Floating Offshore) Wind as very possibly, part of the solution.
Part of the solution ? Solution to what,. ? Your fears ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I have the text of this "Pier Wind" proposal that's been published by the Port of Long Beach. As you can imagine, it talks to new job opportunities and new ways for the Port of Long Beach and the state of California to "revenue" from a burgeoning floating offshore wind energy development sector.
At this point, I can't speculate about how the nearly $5 billion of investment funding could be apportioned from federal, state (California) and private sector funding
.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It would take a combination of federal, state (California) and private sector funding to provide the nearly $5 billion investment to make this proposal for the Port of Long Beach a reality.
Why should all of America help pay for the zealots who are scared of a 1% increase in temperature in 100 years ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: There could be floating offshore wind energy development along the Gulf Coast, and even on Lake Michigan. You see (or you could see, if you looked) research about how floating offshore wind energy platforms and turbines could be designed to be [n]more hurricane-resistant—obviously a particular concern for the Gulf Coast.
Remind me ! How many off shore drilling or production platforms has the Gulf Coast lost during a hurricane ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The "cliffw" and the "olejoedad" have their attitudes, but Big Wind isn't asking for their permission. Big Wind says "Deal with me."
Federal funding investments ? More wallet point theft ? Why should I have to pay for your fantasy ? You have not figured it out that "investment" is a code word for taxes, . ?
why does the OIL industry get a free pass to pollute for years they got tax breaks investment credits depletion allowances so we paid the cost they pocket the profits
so why not get BIG OIL to stop lying about warming and pay the real costs of the warming they are creating
we do need more money to pay the costs
WHY NOT TAX CARBON USED TO MAKE CO2 OIL COAL CORN WHAT EVER
Originally posted by cliffw: Why should all of America help pay for the zealots who are scared of a 1% increase in temperature in 100 years?
I think what cliffw wanted to say was "scared of a 1 degree increase in temperature in 100 years." Not a "1%" or "1 percent" increase, which would not make any kind of sense at all.
This is a complete misapprehension of what the IPCC and other climate-focused scientists have been talking about.
quote
In 2021, the global average temperature was 1.1 °C above the pre-industrial baseline, according to the provisional WMO report on the State of the Global Climate.
By international accord, the temperature scale that is being referenced is Celsius (C), not the Fahrenheit (F) temperature scale that Americans are accustomed to. So that report from the WMO should actually read like this, from an American perspective:
quote
In 2021, the global average temperature was 2.0 °F above the pre-industrial baseline, according to the provisional WMO report on the State of the Global Climate.
That is the temperature increase since preindustrial times (starting roughly 150 years ago) that is already behind us. That is not what lies ahead, according to climate scientists. This is what lies ahead:
The most hopeful scenario is that by year 2100, the planet will have experienced a global temperature increase of somewhere between 1.0 and 2.0 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times. This is the Low GHG (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) scenario.
Next up, the Intermediate scenario. That brings an increase of between 2.0 and 3.5 degrees (3.6 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) by year 2100.
Finally, the Very High GHG scenario, which is expected to result in a temperature increase from 3.0 to 5.5 degrees (5.4 to 9.9 degrees Fahrenheit) by year 2100. This is the Fossil Fuels Industries Preferred scenario, in which not much is accomplished in the way of reducing the amount of human-related greenhouse gas emissions, and in which the world's reliance for energy from coal, refined petroleum fuels and natural gas is not severely curtailed.
The bar graph is from the Brussels International Center and is based on data from the International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC.
SSP scenario means Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenario, which is the forecasting data (including world population growth) that the IPCC uses to calculate these projected temperature increases.
This "mantra" that is being repeated on this forum, which says (in effect) "Oh, it's just 1 thermometer degree more of global warming—and it's not even until 100 years from now" is an absolute canard. It comes from not being conversant with what climate scientists are publishing in their research reports, and it has that in common with the "celebrated" #IDIOTS meme, which is a case of certain idiots that used their idiocy to idiotically call some other people who aren't idiots "idiots". It's the GLACIERS, stupid! (Not the icebergs.)
Originally posted by rinselberg: A one degree fahrenheit increase is a complete misapprehension of what the IPCC and other climate-focused scientists have been talking about.
First of all, ... we invented Global Warming ! Why should we use celsius ? I remember, not fondly, when our self appointed over lords decided that we needed to know the metric system. Back when I was in High School. 1975 or so. It is the reason I gave up on learning math. I spent nine years of learning math, then they changed the rules. They used the old tried and failed fear mongering.
quote
"We will not be able to compete / survive, if we can not learn it"
50 years later, I am retired, own properties, ain't skeerd, and do what I want, when I want. Fearless ! I still do not know the metric system. I do not regret it at all, or any bit at all. It is pretty cool though. It makes sense. Math is easier when 10 is the Big Dog.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: A 2% (F) increase in, now 80 years from the original fear mongering, the temperature increase since pre-industrial times (starting roughly 150 years ago) that is already behind us. That is not what lies ahead, according to climate scientists.
Not that it matters to me, or anyone who believes in crap, the ... , metrics being discussed, was 100 years.
By the way, ???, what does 80 translate to in metrics.
quote
[B]Originally posted by rinselberg: [IMG]https://i.imgurginally posted by rinselberg:[/B.com/d9KYUiN.png[/IMG]
That graph is crap. EVERY PREDICTION MADE MADE BY THE GLOBAL CLIMATE ZEALOTS HAS BEEN WRONG!!!
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The most hopeful scenario is that by year 2100, the planet will have experienced a global temperature increase of somewhere between (1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since preindustrial times. This is the Low GHG (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) scenario.
Next up, the Intermediate scenario. That brings an increase of between 3.5 degrees 3.6 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by year 2100.
Finally, the Very High GHG scenario, which is expected to result in a temperature increase from 5.4 to 9.9 degrees Fahrenheit) by year 2100.
Again, EVERY PREDICTION MADE MADE BY THE GLOBAL CLIMATE ZEALOTS HAS BEEN WRONG!!!
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: This is the Fossil Fuels Industries Preferred scenario, in which not much is accomplished in the way of reducing the amount of human-related greenhouse gas emissions, and in which the world's reliance for energy from coal, refined petroleum fuels and natural gas is not severely curtailed.
, how much more wrong can you be ? Who gives a zhit what BIG FOSSiL prefers ? We the people, want cheap abundant fuel, be it fossil or electric. This is a good time to mention, ... , the electric car gets charged by fossil fuel.
The electric car is not ready, nor the grid to power them, nor the green energy producing energy thing-a-ma-gigs.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: This "mantra" that is being repeated on this forum, which says (in effect) "Oh, it's just 1 thermometer degree more of global warming—and it's not even until 100 years from now" is an absolute canard. It comes from not being conversant with what climate scientists are publishing in their research reports, ...
What is a canard, is trust the scientists, even those which disagree with other scientists. Which thermometer do you mean ? The Celsius, or fahrenheit one.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's the GLACIERS, stupid! (Not the icebergs.)
I am not as stupid as you look. The sky is falling ! Wolf ! Their is a Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown ?
Glaciers ? What's up with the Rocky Mountain glaciers ? Is [color=green]Global Warming[color] not melting them fast enough ? Your whole sector of the United States is thirsty for water. From the Colorado River. Y'all are negotiating with other States in your area who gets how much water from the Colorado River.
I remember. California used to deny your farmers water so the cities could have it. I remember, California used to let Colorado River water end up in the Pacific Ocean, contributing to a rise sea level.
Here is an article for you to read. It will, according to you by your read-o-meter, what you consider a life time. I think if it was only 30 seconds, you would not read it. You are the "informed over lord", .
Originally posted by ray b: why not tax to balance a budget
There is always a budget. Taxes fund it, The budget has never been balanced. 30 Trillion dollars ago. We always want to spend more than we make. I wish I could demand / force the money machine to give more. Your government, is printing more dollars. It makes our dollar weaker. Then they want to tax some more. We are already taxed from cradle to grave. All they can do now is take even more money from your, and your childrens wallet. They can do it forever. That is not good.
There is always a budget. Taxes fund it, The budget has never been balanced. 30 Trillion dollars ago. We always want to spend more than we make. I wish I could demand / force the money machine to give more. Your government, is printing more dollars. It makes our dollar weaker. Then they want to tax some more. We are already taxed from cradle to grave. All they can do now is take even more money from your, and your childrens wallet. They can do it forever. That is not good.
exactly
why we better forget the flat tax scam and go back to tax the rich who dodge most taxes
the Gop default scam is the quick way to less dollar value tax the rich tax the rump tax oil tax wealth tax the church
And not just the established church. It's beyond disgusting that wealthy televangelists pay zero taxes. It's no wonder that Kenneth Copeland has that ****-eating grin.
Last week, the White House released a comprehensive plan that could help fix America’s dysfunctional energy transmission system. The aim is to break down the barriers that are holding back the buildout of the truly massive amount of high-voltage power lines the country needs to connect clean energy projects to the grid and decarbonize the nation’s electricity supply.
Now the question is how much of the plan can be passed through a politically fractured Congress—and if the answer is none, how much of the plan can be pushed through via executive actions by the Biden administration.
The stakes are enormous—and the deadlines are looming. Over the past decade, the growth of the U.S. transmission grid has slowed from 2,000 miles per year between 2012 and 2016 to just 700 miles per year from 2017 to 2021, according to the Department of Energy. Large-scale transmission projects can face decades of disputes over permitting and cost-sharing. New wind and solar projects currently face years-long backlogs and rising grid upgrade costs due to the lack of adequate transmission capacity.
If the U.S. can’t rapidly speed grid buildout to accommodate this new clean power, the country won’t be able to realize the majority of the decarbonization potential unlocked by the Inflation Reduction Act, according to a comprehensive study led by Princeton University researchers.
“Given that we have to increase electric transmission 60 percent over the next seven years—which means building transmission lines at twice our current pace — we have to fix this problem now,” John Podesta, senior advisor to the president for clean energy innovation and implementation, said in a May 10 speech in Washington, D.C. introducing the new plan.
First few paragraphs of a longer report
"Biden’s got a plan for ramping up energy transmission"
quote
The White House wants Congress to pass permitting reform. In case that doesn’t work, it’s tapping DOE’s authority to make it easier to build transmission.
...you don't know the rich as they are cheap ''that's why they have it''
Ain't that the truth.
Many years ago I had an uncle who was an electrician with his own small business. He commented that his working-class customers promptly paid for the work that he did... whereas he had to constantly chase after his well-to-do customers to get any money out of them.
People tend to forget that I worked at ethanol plants for years.
They are heavily subsidized, all that money isn't just printed out of thin air... Well, it probably is anymore, but all the non-lefties know what I mean.
The corn that goes into the plants is subsidized, the plants buying the corn are subsidized, and I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the fuel companies that buy ethanol to add to their fuel are also subsidized.
The #1 byproduct from those ethanol plants? Carbon Dioxide, which is the side I worked in.
And none of the costs to the end user include the loss of food crops due to farmers growing for subsidized ethanol crops.
And the Prophet Mohammed said: "Whoever speaks about the Qur'an without knowledge should await his seat in the Fire." ~ Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 44 Hadith 2950
This "Hadith moment" has a parallel, even in the far more worldly realm of Ethanol, in the sense that "Whoever speaks about Ethanol without an abundant knowledge of Ethanol, is setting himself up for a fall."
Blending ethanol into gasoline is not just for the purpose of climate mitigation. In fact, if it were only on that basis, most climate experts (IMO) would be against it, because, in terms of carbon emissions, the numbers for ethanol fuel that's distilled from corn do not add up. It's not a low carbon way to fuel road vehicles. But it's an important octane booster for gasoline, as can be appreciated by reading from the "Qur'an" of gasoline... the Fuel Market News.
quote
Ethanol is the most widely used octane booster today, with about 98% of U.S. commercial gasoline containing up to 10% ethanol to boost octane and satisfy the Renewable Fuel Standard. E10, a blend composed of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, is the most commercially available gasoline, while E15 and E85 are widely available as well. E15 contains 10.5% to 15% ethanol and is approved for use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty conventional vehicles. Meanwhile, E85, a blend containing 51% to 85% ethanol, is classified as an alternative fuel under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) and can be used in flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs).
This is from an article that was posted in Fuel Market News in June of 2021, so a fairly current article—not something from the distant past.
Since "a man's got to know his limitations", I will conclude these remarks without further ado, except to remind the forum of what I believe are two of the seminal publications in the practice of Ethanol:
Climate Mitigation is so much more than just EVs, or reducing the carbon emissions from power plants and road vehicles. Here's a report about a variety of peas that is being developed as a substitute for soybeans. The peas are being bred to eliminate the gene that gives peas their distinctive taste.
quote
Peas have great environment-friendly credentials. Crops don't require nitrogen rich fertilisers, which are energy intensive to produce. In fact, they put nitrogen and other nutrients back into the soil, further reducing the need for fertiliser as farmers rotate their crops.
But while many people love them, their flavour can be a turn-off in plant-based products. Even if you are trying to wean yourself off meat, you might not want your vegan burger to taste like peas.
<SNIP>
The aim is to produce a commercially viable alternative to soya [soybeans] that also has higher levels of digestible protein and is easier to harvest than current varieties.
"Global warming set to break key 1.5C limit for first time"
quote
Hitting the threshold would mean the world is 1.5C warmer than it was during the second half of the 19th Century, before fossil fuel emissions from industrialisation really began to ramp up.
Researchers say there's now a 66% chance we will pass the 1.5C global warming threshold between now and 2027.
Imagine that there are people so ignorant that they think that "COWS FARTING" is how climate researchers estimate the total carbon emissions from the world's dairy and beef industries and how that connects with global warming.
Imagine that these same people are so ignorant of their own ignorance on this topic that they are not embarrassed for themselves to reveal their ignorance online.
Imagine that no one even has to imagine...
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-04-2023).]
Imagine that there are people so ignorant that they think that "COWS FARTING" is how climate researchers estimate the total carbon emissions from the world's dairy and beef industries and how that connects with global warming.
Imagine that these same people are so ignorant of their own ignorance on this topic that they are not embarrassed for themselves to reveal their ignorance online.
Imagine that no one even has to imagine...
You are not one to speak of ignorance. A little reading comprehension and critical thinking would do you well.
Imagine ... Wichita's post never ever mentioned carbon emissions. Where did you ever hear that cow farts created CO2emissions ?
Do you have a memory ?
Think back. What were the most prevalent Global Warming scoundrels ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-04-2023).]
May 2023's human representative will receive the Lord Monckton Trophy at a ceremony before the end of June.
The month that just passed—May 2023—is being described by scientists as having set a new "Major League Earth" record for Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: a new high mark of 424 Parts Per Millions that had not been equaled or surpassed by any single month during the most recent 4 million years of record keeping.
Here's a couple of "middling-sized" reads for the curious. Each has a "visual" of the famous Keeling Curve data plot of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.
Originally posted by rinselberg: May 2023's human representative will receive the Lord Monckton Trophy at a ceremony before the end of June.
What the hell does that mean, ??????????????????
The animal representative will not receive the trophy ? The robot representative will not receive it ? Where does the human representative receive it ? A Tupperware Party ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Here's a couple of "middling-sized" reads for the curious. Each has a "visual" of the famous Keeling Curve data plot of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.
Each read is a shill for "the agenda".
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-06-2023).]
? Your fears ?
. 
, metrics being discussed, was 100 years.
, how much more wrong can you be ? Who gives a zhit what BIG FOSSiL prefers ? We the people, want cheap abundant fuel, be it fossil or electric. This is a good time to mention, ... , the electric car gets charged by fossil fuel.
.
