Hillhater said:. . .When you get to the point where you have to lie to try to make your argument - perhaps try a different argument?
..and see my previous replies !
Or not.
Hillhater said:. . .When you get to the point where you have to lie to try to make your argument - perhaps try a different argument?
..and see my previous replies !
But how accurate is our knowledge of the rate of CO2 release and adsorbtion in the Oceans ? or the land and forrests ? ( 10-20 times greater than fossil emissions)..... Those are just extrapolated estimates..+_ 10 % either way on each makes a Massive difference to the " net balance" !billvon said:We know with pretty good accuracy how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. We know with pretty good accuracy how fast the CO2 content of the atmosphere is rising. The difference between those two numbers - the "missing" CO2 - is going into natural sinks, like the ocean, or faster-growing trees, or limestone weathering.
Hillhater said:Apollo 17 moonwalker Harrison Schmitt stirs up a buzz with climate change views
Hillhater said:But how accurate is our knowledge of the rate of CO2 release and adsorbtion in the Oceans ? or the land and forrests ? ( 10-20 times greater than fossil emissions)..... Those are just extrapolated estimates..+_ 10 % either way on each makes a Massive difference to the " net balance" !
Potentially many times more than the entire human CO2 contribution!
How do you KNOW. Its "in balance" ?Punx0r said:....The natural carbon cycle exists in a delicate balance established over geological time. ..
A lot of astronauts are. A friend of mine is one, and she's awesome - but she's a little out there.Hillhater said:There are only 4 astronauts left who walked on the moon.
3 of them Have publicly spoken out against the AGW theory.
They were all highly trained , highly educated , logical thinking, rational, specialists.....The "best of the best".
Schmitt has a Phd in Geogology...... And you choose to lable him a "Fruitcake" !
Let's hope one of those designs works out.sendler2112 said:PDF round up from IAEA of small modular reactor designs under consideration.
So you are just assuming its in "balance" .?Punx0r said:...because if it wasn't balanced it would be chaotic, which is not amenable to life... Also we know the past composition of the atmosphere and climate conditions, which shows *drum roll* stability compared to the last 150...
Pilots, , commercial , military, even private, are trained to understand weather patterns and atmospheric conditions, and their effects, together with the factors that influence them.Punx0r said:....
What has being a test pilot got to do with climate science? ....
I'm a pilot. And the weather I learned was restricted to how that weather affects airplanes. We got zip, zero, nada information about climactic forcing, or even about weather prediction (beyond the basics, like correlating pressure changes with front arrival.)Hillhater said:Pilots, , commercial , military, even private, are trained to understand weather patterns and atmospheric conditions, and their effects, together with the factors that influence them.
Uh, astronauts fly in . . . space. Where there is no atmosphere. Shuttle pilots got the same weather training as any other commercial pilots. Well, a little less, since they had about a hundred other experts looking at the weather as well, so they don't need to sit in a cockpit looking at radar returns trying to deduce what a weather system is doing.I Suspect Astronaughts need to go way beyond any normal pilots level of understanding atmospheric systems (their lives depend on it !).
No astronaut alive has dedicated his/her life to interplanetary travel. But that's beside the point. Even if they had, that has nothing to do with understanding climate change, any more than a sea captain must understand ocean chemistry.You cannot compare men/women who dedicate most of their life to interplanetary travel, to a bunch of political puppets (IPCC) , and label them as "fruitcakes",..just because they have a different understanding of a controversial theoretical topic.
Nope. They were selected for their abilities as astronauts, not for their ability to study atmospheric science (or even come to rational conclusions about their experiences.)Hillhater said:12 people have walked on the moon, a few dozen have left the Earths gravity.
Our of the thousands that trained, those few were selected for their many skills and abilities.
"Fruitcake" would have eliminated anyone at the first application form !
sendler2112 said:found several years worth of good data for a 50kW solar PV system in Ithaca, NY. 13.7% capacity factor for the lifetime. Located at an intentional community so it gets the best care, snow removal, cleaning.
.
https://www.sunnyportal.com/Templates/PublicPageOverview.aspx?page=aada1d7a-5767-424a-9275-42e8bec717c9&plant=d33937cf-acfe-4775-b14a-74093353ecf8&splang=en-US
.
.
Right. And in that case the value of the array would be about $0.07/kwhr, because they would get the FIT of 0.04 when they generate more than they use, and they would get 0.12/kwhr reduction in the bill when they offset their own use - and those heavy use times (hot sunny days in the summer) will tend to coincide with maximum solar generation. So that gives you a payback time of ~30 years unsubsidized - in one of the worst places in the US for solar.sendler2112 said:The cheapest pricing I have seen in the NY area is from Renovus on community/ shared grid scale installations at $2.20/ kW installed. So the Ithaca group's 50kW system would have cost at least $110,000 and have a 15 year pay back at $0.12/ kWh if the electric company gives them the very generous situation of buying any instantaneous excess at the "meter runs backwards" price. If they only received the true spot price for their excess they would only get back around $0.04
And what you are doing is the classic,'. "Discredit the messenger". Which is a tactic used by oponents who fear that the knowledge and experience of that messenger could cause others to pay attention tto the message.billvon said:......
What you are doing now is the classic logical fallacy "appeal to authority." This is a fallacy where someone's opinion is given more weight because they are famous in a way that gives them some level of celebrity - even though that fame comes about from something unrelated to the subject being discussed.
Nope. (BTW the term is ad hominem, not "discredit the messenger.") I am sure he is a nice guy, and has as much credibility as any other layperson. (Say, yourself.) So does my friend Pete the Southwest pilot, who is another climate change denier.Hillhater said:And what you are doing is the classic,'. "Discredit the messenger". Which is a tactic used by oponents who fear that the knowledge and experience of that messenger could cause others to pay attention tto the message.
An independent free opinion is worth more than a thousand sponsored ones.billvon said:He does not have as much credibility as, say, a climate researcher on the topic of climate change.
Or have research funded by any organisation with a particular interest in a specific outcome !Punx0r said:That is true, especially ones sponsored by the fossil fuel industries.
That is interesting, still a small scale solar compared to the big ones out there.sendler2112 said:sendler2112 said:found several years worth of good data for a 50kW solar PV system in Ithaca, NY. 13.7% capacity factor for the lifetime. Located at an intentional community so it gets the best care, snow removal, cleaning.
.
https://www.sunnyportal.com/Templates/PublicPageOverview.aspx?page=aada1d7a-5767-424a-9275-42e8bec717c9&plant=d33937cf-acfe-4775-b14a-74093353ecf8&splang=en-US
.
.
The cheapest pricing I have seen in the NY area is from Renovus on community/ shared grid scale installations at $2.20/ kW installed. So the Ithaca group's 50kW system would have cost at least $110,000 and have a 15 year pay back at $0.12/ kWh if the electric company gives them the very generous situation of buying any instantaneous excess at the "meter runs backwards" price. If they only received the true spot price for their excess they would only get back around $0.04
.
State and national rebates would give back an additional $60,000 of the installation price. And they might even qualify as a "grid scale" installation which unlocks a further $0.03/ kWh federal "feed in tariff" reimbursment.
TheBeastie said:I am so sick of you other guys talking about climate change in this thread, start a new thread if you want as this is just getting so annoying.