The Sustainability Ninja
And that’s according to NASA. Let’s see the climate change deniers argue with those nerds. “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade” and “there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”
Here’s the full report on the NASA site.
The yearly running mean global temperature has reached a new record in 2010, and all that despite the recent minimum of solar irradiance.
Hmmmmm…
Found by Cináedh.
Yes we can go ape shit with solar. That marvelous technology where by a $100 per sq foot (about 6 x 10-3 KWatts) produces one dollar of power PER YEAR.
What!!!! You go do the figures.
PV is micro power, put up a 25 watt panel plus battery to hopefully continuously run a 5 watt transmitter.
#30 – cgp
The extreme cold weather that the USA experienced in March and April of this year are largely unexplainable in terms of ‘weather’, and largely explainable in terms of ‘climate change’. Basically what happened is that unseasonably (actually record breaking) warm air near the north pole cut off and created a couple of very cold air bubbles, that were pushed down through Canada and into the central USA.
The result: record breaking weather in the USA. The cause: warmer than normal weather close to the north pole (and over the full globe overall)
So too much warm air in the north caused cold air in the center.
That is climate change. And once you understand that, you might start understanding the difference between weather and climate.
As to the CRU ‘coverup’ investigation… if you are so uninformed as to know that the ‘coverup’ has been totally dismissed by just about everyone by now… well… you need more sources of info that Glen Beck lying clown.
#24 Awake – What are you talking about?
In #12 I didn’t say either side was right or wrong. I said I thought other conditions should also influence the warming.
My main point was about the schemes being used to make the rich and powerful even richer and more powerful.
I ask again, shouldn’t everyone benefit equally from any plan to end global warming?
I stand by my belief that if there is a plan to fix the problem then everyone should benefit from it equally, not just a chosen few.
#31 CGP.
OK, aside from the fact that your figures are totally wrong (it is currently averaging 50 cents per kilowatt hour, 28 cents at an industrial level), you don’t account for basically ZERO recurring costs year over year.
So with solar you have a high initial cost, but very low year over year production costs.
An initial $100 investment in solar may produce $5 of energy per year, but over 30 years it produced $150 of energy. With conventional power you have an initial investment (the generator), plus the annual energy costs of running the generator. And this equation ignores the pollution differential.
#24 Awake said, on July 14th, 2010 at 11:33 am
“If #22 (Benjamin) is typical of the denier crowd, looking at a silly fringe site and claiming it as proof of a theory while throwing out reams of other data, you can pretty much ignore the whole ignorant bunch as a crowd.”
I didn’t say warming was not occurring. I was saying that actual observation of the conditions of surface stations made it impossible to get an accurate measurement. I you actually looked at the site instead of immediately dismissing it as fringe, you would have read that their mission is to survey all the surface weather stations to see if the others have conditions that skew the results one way or another.
I doubted this story: http://npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874, but just now did a scientific experiment on you to prove that article. Given the facts, you, the misinformed dismiss it as lies just as the story asserted.
Just answer me this question: if you think it is acceptable to put heat sources next to temperature monitoring stations, how would you feel at the meat counter at your butcher if he set the tongs on the scale that he used to pick up the meat before he weighed it? Would you accept paying the price of the weight of the tongs and the meat?
#24 Awake
You accuse people’s opinions of being politically motivated, and then turn around and call them “deniers”. The term “denier” is itself a politically biased term, not one of science.
By your own standards, you prove your opinion is nothing more than politically motivated BS.
p.s. Your Glenn Beck comment only reinforces it.
I have to admit, as an AGW skeptic, I feel to need to consider when NASA has said this for two years in a row now. (Although I am not sure why NASA is doing this and not NOAA, who are the ones who should be responsible for this.)
But lets define when the argument on here is since everyone one here seems to have strong opinions.
Can we agree on any of the following?
A) The earth has been warming over the last century
B) The amount of temperature change compared to human history has been greatly exaggerated
C) Al Gore is a lying hypocritical douchebag.
D) Humans may be responsible for some of the temperature increase due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
E) Humans may be responsible for some of the temperature increase due to destruction of forests, paving, construction, and energy use which generally makes cities several degrees warmer than unpopulated areas.
F) CRU fudged data, tried to undermine scientific publications which offered any real form of peer review, and ignored FOIA requests and deleted emails relevent to the request. They were not specifically cleared of any of these accusations, but an investigation concluded their actions did not undermine IPCC reports.
G) There is no computer model that accurately predicts the warming trends we are seeing based on CO2 output without fudging numbers. If we fully understood the mechanism by which CO2 causes temperature increase, and CO2 is the prime reason for temperature increases, the model should be a fairly straightforward.
F) The hockey stick graph is a lie, and cannot be reproduced. (Don’t worry, this alone does not disprove AGW. It does, however prove point C)
Surely we can agree on some of these. If we can agree on most of these, I don’t see the reason for such hatred each side exhibits for the other.
#37 – A slightly cranky geek.
Nope, we can’t agree on ANY of your premises besides ‘A, D and E’
All the others are proven false statements on your part.
Asleep, obviously my 1990 reference is to Kyoto. So we need to eliminate industrial CO2 output all together? Within this lifetime? Yeah, good luck with that. Your analogy to gasoline is relevant in fantasy land only.
#34 “OK, aside from the fact that your figures are totally wrong (it is currently averaging 50 cents per kilowatt hour, 28 cents at an industrial level), you don’t account for basically ZERO recurring costs year over year.”
I doubt this ZERO reoccurring cost. Solar does have no fuel being used and that does save over coal, but I doubt you get constant power from a solar plant. Solar has this problem in that it does not work at night or when it is cloudy. That means you still need a coal plant running on standby during the day and running all night just to keep power at a constant level.
Also, you need to figure that maintenance has to COST SOMETHING. In the best case you need to put a guy on the panels every so often to clean the dust off of them. I also guess that these things wouldn’t stand up well to a hail storm.
I am not saying that there isn’t any cost savings in going solar. I am saying that we cannot go to 100% solar and wind because the wind doesn’t blow all the time and the sun doesn’t shine at night. Keeping a coal plant on standby during the day and running it at night is not that much more efficient than running it 24/7.
#36
The true ‘Deniers’ will always deny that Glen Beck is a lying clown. It doesn’t change the fact that he is a lying clown. Everything he says has to be fact checked, since he is THE most unreliable source of information on TV.
I have watched / listened to Glen Beck for over 12 years now, since he was a side show to the jewish-Nazi Michael Savage… nothing but lies and manipulation.
#34
holly crap who pays 50 per kwh? I did 12 cents, at 20 cents everyone is screaming corporate ripoffs. I remember those good ole days of 3 cent hydro base costing, which the power companies correctly stating that at that cost no private firm could build, subsequently they brought those assets made billions and rarely built, other than small token plants.
So reality carbon/water based power production costing aside, my further figures actually considered optimistic milestones such as cost halving from china production/slave labour, even 30 percent efficiency.
It still looks like a 100 to 1 install to annual current cost power return. No good never was. Unless you double/triple/quadruple current power costs.
Hot water with concentration of sunlight is different. But look at what the current greenie nonsense is funding!!!!
Lets have a starter article on this ripoff. Sorry to go slightly off topic.
#40 Sea Lawyer – Please see my #29.
#41 Benjamin. Thank you for agreeing that your figures are way off. And yes, compared to ‘conventional’ power generation, recurring costs are basically zero. As to hail damage, I could say the same thing about tornado damage to your coal plant. Yes, you need some form of co-generation for peak hours and dark hours, but you dismissed solar outright, and that is the problem… it should not be dismissed outright… we should have a goal of 50% daytime solar in 15 years of something like that, not utter dismissing and quoting of false cost figures as you did.
Hey I have this neat MOV file that I got from a text book on the el nino la nina effect that was shown up by true climate scientists.
It shows the fluctuations over 75 years of the mean sea surface temperature and the mean surface pressure.
That is the cause of seasonal variations and anomalies. What drives this variation? The sun what else!
Can this be converted and put up
#38 Awake said, “Your very statement that I quote shows a basic ignorance of basic science. By your logic, I should be able to eat an ounce of arsenic because it is such a small amount relative to my body weight, when in reality eating 1/1000th of an ounce would kill me.”
You are a liar. You need at least 37/1000 oz of arsenic to kill you and that is just the lower threshold. I am assuming you weight 150 lb. If you weigh 200 lbs, you may safely ingest 48/100 of an oz. You were fudged on the math, and that makes your science faulty.
Here is my source for arsenic lethality: http://madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-04/987176844.Me.r.html
Awake,
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you can’t even admit the hockey-stick graph is a lie? You are not going to change anyones mind if you can’t even admit that. The graph did not match with any previous historical temperature reconstructions, nor has anyone been able to reproduce it since then. Even the original writers of the Nature paper admitted there were inadvertent data errors and improper mathematical techniques used to produce it. Why do you hold so tightly to something that is not required to prove your point?
Also, if you believe there are working CO2-based computer models which in any way correlate with reality, please share.
#44 Awake said, “#41 Benjamin. Thank you for agreeing that your figures are way off.”
What figures? I just said, ZERO reoccurring costs would be impossible. I did not give any figures, so I am not agreeing that my figures are off. I agree that your figures of ZERO are off.
“And yes, compared to ‘conventional’ power generation, recurring costs are basically zero.”
No they are not. You forgot maintenance costs. You need to calculate in there at least the cost to dust the things now and then to let the sun shine on them.
“As to hail damage, I could say the same thing about tornado damage to your coal plant.”
Hail is more common then tornados.
“we should have a goal of 50% daytime solar in 15 years of something like that”
How big should these solar plants be? Better yet would be to launch the darn solar plants into orbit avoiding dark and cloudy times. NASA should be planning something like that.
“not utter dismissing and quoting of false cost figures as you did.”
Point out in my posts where I gave any cost figures of solar. You can’t because I did not give any nor did I quote any. I pointed out they were not ZERO.
It is being reported here in New Zealand that we have recorded at a few places the lowest daytime temperatures since the 1890s!!! Some problems down south with ice on roads.
Sorry more weather related events. don’t look over here.
#46 egp,
Please share. But I think NASA is already acknowledgment the effects of El Nino. Their temperature history plot shows temperatures going up or down as you would expect with El Nino, but this is on top of an upward trend.
By the way, someone posted a link on here maybe a year ago which showed a NASA paged which seemed to indicate NASA was not on board with the idea of global warming. I think it was maybe 10 years old, but surprisingly was still on the NASA server! I poked around some of the links- most of them were broken, but went through the Wayback machine at archive.org, and came to the conclusion that NASA wasn’t always so pro-AGW. I few years ago their Earth sciences page totally changed to be devoted to ‘climate change’ and man-made global warming, and their tone completely turned around. Maybe recent temperature readings changed their minds, but I am guessing it was due to internal or external political pressure.
Awake:
Obviously NOT.
That animation file of al nina, el nino is amazing. This planet oscillates like a living breathing being. Oh I’m not going Gaia am I, gaga maybe. Still looking for said file.
Does anybody realize that high efficency PV (photovoltics) does not necessarily reduce costs, unfortunately which is really the only factor. Check out german firms that make high efficiency wafers.
Their main market is spacecraft. To get the high efficiency they basically have to make duplicate micro-cell silicon structures per wavelength band.
Cost breakthroughs will be due to slave labour.
To put it quick and easy the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a fraud along the lines of the homeopathy fraud. Where those dopes dupe many more dopes about the memory of water the greenhouse effect is the opposite, a 100’s part per million molecule (thats one per cent of one per cent) has an effect in a water vapor saturated atmosphere in a huge stream of sun driven heat flow between day and night. There is no accumulation of heat in this flow for amplification to occur.
So why do so called climate scientists endorse this unreality? Just like they refuse to admit CRU fraud and a ridiculous coverup investigation.
We are all sheople .. baar baarr ..
#24 Awake (not really)
I used science. This document alone is only PART of the whole picture.
Without the use of science in the atmospheric readings it is incomplete and cannot be the sole basis of “global” temperature. It is only Surface and not a full and complete reading due to gaps in survey.
I am not against science, I am against incomplete work that some fool news service pumps up to show they are watching out for the common man.
I like science. I just want it done correctly. Or else we are back to the lungs make the penis grow, the bumps on your head tell who you are and canals on Mars.
At one point in time these were ALL valid points of science. Debunked later when we got clearer and more complete data.
Cursor_
There is NO THEORY
Showing no change expected
After Adding Carbon.
[Fail! 5-7-6 – ed.]
More moo cows needed, its cold down here
its cold up north too
http://stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/3919849/Ice-cold-country
bobbo, nice poem but it is a specious argument as it applies to ALL things added to ANY experiment. There will always, ALWAYS be a reaction or result.
What is constantly not being accepted is that CO2 is an infinitely small portion of what keeps this planet from being -14 to -17 C on average all year round. The sun and water (And remember that clouds are water) are BY FAR THE largest cause of weather and climate variability on this planet that is more that 70% covered with water and exposed to a star that radiates more than 1400 watts per square meter of energy on whatever it is striking.
And definitely, Awake is clearly ASLEEP and totally OK with lying to him/herself.
First this is the organization that used the same numbers for two months in a row, brought us the infamous hockey stick curve, etc.
That being said anyone who reads this report is going to figure out rather quickly that an awful lot of the numbers going into this thing are guesses in total because nothing was anywhere near the location they made the numbers up for (up to 1200 miles), they “adjusted” it for some reason with the degree of adjustment amounting to a guess, and of course they don’t know how much the heat island effect of urban centers is pushing their numbers up.
There is an old saying when it comes to feeding numbers into computer modals; garbage in garbage out.
You might get a couple of degrees C cooling in one year if you just flattened the urban centers and planted weeds however this might be rather hard on many of the bob tailed monkeys with scraggly pelts.
If you don’t get what I’m talking about, walk bare footed across some grass about 3:00 PM tomorrow then immediately do the same across a paved surface baking under direct sunlight. I’m sure you will figure it out.
All the heat absorbing surfaces created by humans is clearly doing a number on locale temperatures at many locations. I believe this is the reason that someone in the Obama administration once suggesting painting all the roofs white? I could be wrong though; maybe he just thought it would reduce air conditioning bills.
Whatever, I don’t put black roofs on my buildings and won’t purchase a black vehicle because of heat issues in the summer months.
As for having any confidence in the conclusions drawn in this paper; no. I don’t have any confidence in the numbers used to arrive at the conclusions so I can’t have any confidence in the outcomes.
#59–Jason==you say:
1. bobbo, nice poem /// thank you. An experiment in form affecting the message. Early results: it does.
2. but it is a specious argument as it applies to ALL things added to ANY experiment. There will always, ALWAYS be a reaction or result. /// How can it be species when you then argue it is always true?
3. What is constantly not being accepted is that CO2 is an infinitely small portion // No, its small, but finite.
4. of what keeps this planet from being -14 to -17 C on average all year round. /// Correct. And isn’t water at that temperature Ice? So, from imput from Scott in other threads on this point, I’m going to “assume” that water vapor refects in coming rays adding to cooling and that humidity also acts as a heat resevoir should it not precipitate out in an ice age? So, what compounds allow light in but trap the heat? Yes, co2 amoung others.
5. In the main, water vaporThe sun and water (And remember that clouds are water) are BY FAR THE largest cause of weather and climate variability on this planet that is more that 70% covered with water and exposed to a star that radiates more than 1400 watts per square meter of energy on whatever it is striking. /// Yes, and always remember the earth rotates and orbits.===all taken into account in the models. Has the amount of water vapor changed in the last 300 years? The orbit? Rotation? Distance from the Sun? Sun’s output. What is the variable????
So when YOU admit all changes have an impact and the current deniers all claim that the co2 level doubling will have no impact, does THAT sound credible to YOU? Hard to tell since you say both things. How about some resolution?