.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,241]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I provided you with high quality data from Greenland ice cores. If you want to prove them wrong then it is up to you to make your case. 

The 2nd graph shows 12K years and around 9K years ago was much warmer than today. All this proves is temps go up, temps go down. It doesn't stay static. I personally am not worried about a spike. Gives me more work days 🙂

[Ecocharger + 1,462]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I provided you with high quality data from Greenland ice cores. If you want to prove them wrong then it is up to you to make your case. 

I made the case already...you were not able to comprehend it.

Check out the material I linked you to above.

Edited May 17, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

I made the case already...you were not able to comprehend it.

Check out the material I linked you to above.

And you wonder why your side has lost the debate about transitioning to renewables.

[Ecocharger + 1,462]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And you wonder why your side has lost the debate about transitioning to renewables.

We won the debate. You slept right through it.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

We won the debate. You slept right through it.

Funny, reality says your side lost the debate:

Of that NG addition only 3.9 GW is combined cycle the rest are peakers.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416

Furthermore that 6.6 GW NG addition is offset by 3.5 GW of fossil retirement

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/13/2021 at 11:06 PM, QuarterCenturyVet said:

I dont think +2° in 170 years can be referred to as "increasing exponentially". 

That is because you are not very smart and do not understand planetary physics. Try 15 degrees at the poles already. And going from 2 degrees in 170 years to 5 degrees in the next 50 years is indeed exponential. Anyway, I think the point is moot now. 60% of global emissions come from China and they do not intend to slow down.  Many eco-systems are already on the verge of collapse. Species are going extinct at a very rapid rate. It is called the "Anthropocene event". I am usually an optimist, but when govt's around the world start talking about taxing vehicles on how far they travel, I see big problems ahead. In Australia, we have long complained about "the tyranny of distance" and I suppose the rest of the world will know what we mean in a few decades time. I doubt I will be around to see it but this planet is already becoming too authoritarian for me anyway. The "thought police" are everywhere these days, and none of them have much grey matter between their ears. It is as though the whole world has lost it's sense of humour since we allowed the Chinese to take it over. I am just glad that I am old enough to remember what it was like to be able to smoke a cigarette on an aircraft. Without freedom, we may as well just cook the planet?

[turbguy + 1,540]

11 hours ago, Wombat said:

That is because you are not very smart and do not understand planetary physics. Try 15 degrees at the poles already. And going from 2 degrees in 170 years to 5 degrees in the next 50 years is indeed exponential. Anyway, I think the point is moot now. 60% of global emissions come from China and they do not intend to slow down.  Many eco-systems are already on the verge of collapse. Species are going extinct at a very rapid rate. It is called the "Anthropocene event". I am usually an optimist, but when govt's around the world start talking about taxing vehicles on how far they travel, I see big problems ahead. In Australia, we have long complained about "the tyranny of distance" and I suppose the rest of the world will know what we mean in a few decades time. I doubt I will be around to see it but this planet is already becoming too authoritarian for me anyway. The "thought police" are everywhere these days, and none of them have much grey matter between their ears. It is as though the whole world has lost it's sense of humour since we allowed the Chinese to take it over. I am just glad that I am old enough to remember what it was like to be able to smoke a cigarette on an aircraft. Without freedom, we may as well just cook the planet?

With freedom, we will most certainly change the planet.

And changes to chaotic systems have unpredictable outcomes.

[waltz + 140]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

With freedom, we will most certainly change the planet.

And changes to chaotic systems have unpredictable outcomes.

Yes unintended consequences are real but what would you suggest to better get us out of the possible predicament of the earth dripping Oreo ice cream drops to be caught by the nearest black hole.

Is the more likely solution to be freedom and profit motive or the Minister’s dropout son in law deciding the policy moving forward in identifying the problem and formulating a solution?  Remember the philosopher king does not exist no matter how convinced the far left seems to believe they are in fact his/her physical embodiment.

        waltz 

[turbguy + 1,540]

47 minutes ago, waltz said:

Yes unintended consequences are real but what would you suggest to better get us out of the possible predicament of the earth dripping Oreo ice cream drops to be caught by the nearest black hole.

Is the more likely solution to be freedom and profit motive or the Minister’s dropout son in law deciding the policy moving forward in identifying the problem and formulating a solution?  Remember the philosopher king does not exist no matter how convinced the far left seems to believe they are in fact his/her physical embodiment.

        waltz 

I don't know of a black hole close by the earth.  They can be near, but so far, the nearest detected black hole is about 1000 light years away. 

With a chaotic system, "solutions" have unintended consequences themselves, whether proposed by the janitor, or the Pope..

We do not live in a cause-effect world.

Down deep, we live in an effect-effect world.

For instance:

We are born, into a world that is cold and we are penniless.

We combust fuels for comfort, and profit.  The effect is we generate emissions.

Those emissions have effects.

The effects resulting from emissions appear somewhat predictable for the long term.  Currently, the majority agreement is these predictions are very undesirable.

The effect of that agreement is a range of policy actions to react to the predictions.

An implemented policy to react to those predictions will have further effects.

These further effects can be unpredictable (except perhaps the impact on those currently economically involved with the fuels).

 

[-trance + 114]

On 5/13/2021 at 9:38 AM, notsonice said:

Three examples of exponential growth compared with one example of linear growth, can you figure out which one is linear? 

 

 

sure looks like y=2 exp x/2

or are you exponentially challenged?

 

 

 

To be pedantic:

X^2 is algebraic growth.

Exponential growth is e^x. 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,462]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Funny, reality says your side lost the debate:

Of that NG addition only 3.9 GW is combined cycle the rest are peakers.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416

Furthermore that 6.6 GW NG addition is offset by 3.5 GW of fossil retirement

 

The debate is about logic and science, not public panic...we won the debate.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,462]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

I don't know of a black hole close by the earth.  They can be near, but so far, the nearest detected black hole is about 1000 light years away. 

With a chaotic system, "solutions" have unintended consequences themselves, whether proposed by the janitor, or the Pope..

We do not live in a cause-effect world.

Down deep, we live in an effect-effect world.

For instance:

We are born, into a world that is cold and we are penniless.

We combust fuels for comfort, and profit.  The effect is we generate emissions.

Those emissions have effects.

The effects resulting from emissions appear somewhat predictable for the long term.  Currently, the majority agreement is these predictions are very undesirable.

The effect of that agreement is a range of policy actions to react to the predictions.

An implemented policy to react to those predictions will have further effects.

These further effects can be unpredictable (except perhaps the impact on those currently economically involved with the fuels).

 

And I predict that we are now entering a cooling phase which will last a long time and thoroughly disprove the junk science which currently attracts the public panic-meters. 

Nothing to worry about, and it will not take long to expose the faulty science.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,255]

2 hours ago, -trance said:

To be pedantic:

X^2 is algebraic growth.

Exponential growth is e^x. 

 

the example given is y = 2^x not y = x^2. Exponential growth is not restrained to Eulers number e (2.71828)

Edited May 19, 2021 by notsonice

[turbguy + 1,540]

10 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

And I predict that we are now entering a cooling phase which will last a long time and thoroughly disprove the junk science which currently attracts the public panic-meters. 

Nothing to worry about, and it will not take long to expose the faulty science.

If you can show your list on "agreement" that exceeds this one, your prediction may have some impact. 

Otherwise, your prediction is just one of a few small voices that disagrees with the vast majority.

I think I'll go with the majority.

https://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Texas gov knew of natural gas shortages days before blackout, blamed wind anyway

Official's phone logs offer blow-by-blow account of the disaster as it unfolded.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/texas-gov-knew-of-natural-gas-shortages-days-before-blackout-blamed-wind-anyway/

[turbguy + 1,540]

On 5/21/2021 at 2:44 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Texas gov knew of natural gas shortages days before blackout, blamed wind anyway

Official's phone logs offer blow-by-blow account of the disaster as it unfolded.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/texas-gov-knew-of-natural-gas-shortages-days-before-blackout-blamed-wind-anyway/

So, they were ACTIVELY PREPARING for a load shed TWO DAYS before the cascading events. 

And not a word about wind generation.  ALL NAT GAS!!

[Robert Ziegler + 121]

On 4/10/2021 at 6:53 PM, turbguy said:

We will have to agree to disagree. Just remember that only about 2% of the stored inertia in synchronous generation is available for actual use before it separates from the grid.

As for personal home back-up generation, that's a good thing.   If you can afford it, and have the space, that's great.

Spending the equivalent money for a nice used SUV is not my preference, but something the irresponsible "green" energy push in Texas forces me to do. Even during Harvey we never lost power, but now the windmills and idiotic regulations - like that natural gas compressors have to be electric powered - did it.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Robert Ziegler
spelling

[turbguy + 1,540]

44 minutes ago, Robert Ziegler said:

Spending the equivalent money for a nice used SUV is not my preference, but something the irresponsible "green" energy push in Texas forces me to do. Even during Harvey we never lost power, but now the windmills and idiotic regulations - like that natural gas compressors have to be electric powered - did it.

I was surprised myself that nat gas "processing" and compression was electric rather than just using the fuel on-hand to run a local prime mover.

Those circuits should have been identified (by the process that was in place, BTW) as critical infrastructure so they would not participate in load shedding.

And "root cause" was not the wind turbines.  It was the cold (causing excessive demand for both nat gas and electric power), and plants that tripped for a multitude of reasons (one of which was lack of nat gas).

I'm also certain that SOME circuits were effected by Harvey.  Mostly via distribution system damage.

Edited May 31, 2021 by turbguy

[specinho + 467]

Usually, the chart we could be drawing from raw data would most likely be looking like the chart shown above.....

It is our presetting hypothesis that would decipher it into linear, exponential, and any other things that fit our creative imaginative mind, no?? 😋