Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Lake-Effect]

(I slightly changed the order of your sentences )

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

The existing grid has no need to store. It is designed to provide continuous baseload electricity at any demand level. Baseload power is a totally different beast which current electricity generation provides efficiently and consistently.

The North American grid is pretty old, actually. It's quite dependable and consistent, agreed... but in terms of efficiency it has significant transmission losses, and big maintenance costs. Ask your power utility to break out your energy costs into separate costs of energy and transmission.

The current grid struggles to manage fluctuating load. The daily electrical load itself is not steady through the day, and it also changes with the seasons. Most large-scale fuelled generating technologies are only happy and efficient within a narrow range of output. As a consequence, there are also special generator plants that come online to meet peak demand. (we toured one about 18 months ago)

So having a fluctuating source is not that much more of a problem than fluctuating load.

Another weakness of grid architecture - remember the small failure in Aug 2003 in Ohio that cascaded to take out a great big swath of eastern Canada and US, for a few days? Distributed generation and storage doesn't have that weakness.

A battery storage solution even if achieved would add another layer of cost burden to wind and solar generation. ... imagine 100 million households in USA replacing their solar panels and batteries every few years. Not sure why the term renewable is applied to solar and wind generation.

Neither can exist without a massive manufacturing infrastructure using vast amounts of electricity to keep building replacement solar panels.

So you think the infrastructure for building mega-generators and maintaining the grid ISN'T massive?

Mass production of smaller-sized generating and storage systems is going to be more efficient than building grid-sized generation. And there will be multiple competitors selling that hardware at Lowes, Home Depot, etc. Current solar panels can have a service life of 20+ years.

Obviously the numbers have to make sense, but when your electricity cost is more your hardware and less of buying energy and your piece of maintaining the grid, it's going to be competitive... or it won't catch on.

I presume you drive a car, fly in planes and use manufactured products. I presume you use imported products from China. None of this can happen without current baseload power generation and lots of fossil and nuclear fuels.

The need for a public baseload capacity will never go away, but distributed generation and storage for homes and small businesses would reduce or eliminate the need to expand the existing grid and large-scale generation, And a high number of distributed storage is going to be more practical than large grid-sized storage.

It's the future, m'lord.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Since you don't bother reading even your own stuff, no point in me posting anything.

Non sequitur.

But if you bother to actually read the first two papers of the three you linked and use that double degree honed mind of yours to analyse the results you will have what you have requested.

If there's something you have to say on this percentage, just say it. I'm not going to try and guess what your point is.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Non sequitur.

If there's something you have to say on this percentage, just say it. I'm not going to try and guess what your point is.

Ok. 97% is bunkum

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok. 97% is bunkum

No it isn't, here are three peer reviewed studies that support the figure:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

What do you think the percentage actually is, and why do you think so?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

No it isn't, here are three peer reviewed studies that support the figure:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

What do you think the percentage actually is, and why do you think so?

I told you. You've proved you don't even read your stuff let alone any opposing views so I'm not going to waste my time for your benefit.

Someone else might come along and point it out for you if you're having difficulty with it.

Edit: Here's a link to the author of your peer reviewed paper.
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...l-science.html

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok. 97% is bunkum

97%, 95% ... they're just numbers. Any exact number is debatable, of course.

The reality remains is that the vast majority of the subject matter experts seem to be onside with the fact of AGW, the vast majority of credible scientific bodies has endorsed the findings and found no reason to discredit the science behind the finding, and as Jackdale has repeatedly stated, no credible scientific organization has denied or discredited the findings or the science.

Take a whack at that.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I told you. You've proved you don't even read your stuff let alone any opposing views so I'm not going to waste my time for your benefit.

Someone else might come along and point it out for you if you're having difficulty with it.

It certainly isn't for my benefit.

My position is clear, and backed by good evidence.

Your position is unclear, and apparently backed by no evidence.

I'm very happy with the status quo.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

97%, 95% ... they're just numbers. Any exact number is debatable, of course.

The reality remains is that the vast majority of the subject matter experts seem to be onside with the fact of AGW, the vast majority of credible scientific bodies has endorsed the findings and found no reason to discredit the science behind the finding, and as Jackdale has repeatedly stated, no credible scientific organization has denied or discredited the findings or the science.

Take a whack at that.

Tsk tsk. Assumptions are bad, m'kay.

And ask yourself. if such a simple thing as consensus is a flagrant lie, what else is?



Introducing Mr John Cook....


Edit: I'd say it's no coincidence he dresses up as Goebbels?

[Tensen]

As usual, no idea what your point is Reefmagnet.

55% of people don't realise that climate scientists actually agree on AGW. And your point is?

John Cook has poor taste in costumes. And your point is?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

It certainly isn't for my benefit.

My position is clear, and backed by good evidence.

Your position is unclear, and apparently backed by no evidence.

I'm very happy with the status quo.

Yes, I think you've clearly demonstrated your position.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

As usual, no idea what your point is Reefmagnet.

55% of people don't know that climate scientists agree on AGW. And your point is?

John Cook has poor taste in costumes. And your point is?

Well, my analysis that is a photoshop.

And 97% is a great big fib originating from the most biased pro-AGW Kool-Aid drinker on the planet who lists cartoonist and web developer as qualifications. Excellent source of peer reviewed literature ya got there

Most "alarming" is to see that organisations like even NASA climate research division buys into this crap

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

I guess the power of the grant dollar cannot be underestimated.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, my analysis that is a photoshop.

And 97% is a great big fib originating from the most biased pro-AGW Kool-Aid drinker on the planet who lists cartoonist and web developer as qualifications. Excellent source of peer reviewed literature ya got there

Most "alarming" is to see that organisations like even NASA climate research division buys into this crap

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

I guess the power of the grant dollar cannot be underestimated.

There are other studies that agree.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.short

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

John Cook's paper was co-authored by eight other people, from these organisations:

• Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia
• School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia
• Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA
• Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA
• Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK
• Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
• Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA
• Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada

If you think the percentage is something else please share. And if you have any more papers on the consensus rate I'd genuinely love to see them - more good data is always welcome.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

There are other studies that agree.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

John Cook's paper was co-authored by eight other people, from these organisations:

• Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia
• School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia
• Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA
• Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA
• Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK
• Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
• Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA
• Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada

If you think the percentage is something else please share. And if you have any more papers on the consensus rate I'd genuinely love to see them - more good data is always welcome.

I don't think it's wrong. I think it's deceitful. Aren't you good at maths? It's a pretty simple division and addition problem. I'm sure you can do it if you try really hard.

And it doesn't matter who helped author and who agrees. You were not able to associate the data when I handed it to you on a plate. The paper is junk. No matter how you try and paint it it is still junk. Anyone without an agenda can figure that out very easily. You really, really should go and read these papers thoroughly without the rose coloured glasses on.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I don't think it's wrong. I think it's deceitful. Aren't you good at maths? It's a pretty simple division and addition problem. I'm sure you can do it if you try really hard.

It's not wrong?
But it is deceitful?
Yes, I think I can manage division and addition, but I don't know what the question is. If you tell me what it is I'd be happy to do it.

And it doesn't matter who helped author and who agrees. You were not able to associate the data when I handed it to you on a plate. The paper is junk. No matter how you try and paint it it is still junk. Anyone without an agenda can figure that out very easily. You really, really should go and read these papers thoroughly without the rose coloured glasses on.

Saying it's junk doesn't make it junk.

It's a paper about a statistical analysis of papers, and it's written (mostly) by scientists who write papers regularly, and who understand statistics. It's published, and peer reviewed. There is apparently no conflicting evidence that disagrees with it. There are other independent papers that agree with it.

All that makes it look like it's probably pretty good evidence.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

It's not wrong?
But it is deceitful?
Yes, I think I can manage division and addition, but I don't know what the question is. If you tell me what it is I'd be happy to do it.

Saying it's junk doesn't make it junk.

It's a paper about a statistical analysis of papers, and it's written (mostly) by scientists who write papers regularly, and who understand statistics. It's published, and peer reviewed. There is apparently no conflicting evidence that disagrees with it. There are other independent papers that agree with it.

All that makes it look like it's probably pretty good evidence.

If you say so it must be true. But have you actually looked at it