harry writes:

On Jul 21, 10:51Â*pm, wrote:
Jim Yanik writes:
wrote :

Jim Yanik writes:

wrote :

Jim Yanik writes:

wrote :

harry writes:

On Jul 20, 12:23ÀšÃ€šÃ‚Â*am, jamesgangnc
wrote:
On Jul 19, 7:02ÀšÃ€šÃ‚Â*pm, Frank
wrote: All power plants have
maintenance costs.

PV?

Pretty low maintenance costs.

solar uses a lot of water,gotta keep the panels clean.

Just watched a video.
Every 2 weeks:
Wipe off dust with dry towel.

That video isn't telling you everything.
wiping without water means scratches that lower output.
It also doesn't remove bird crap or tree sap.

Dust lightly with soft towel.

Wash with towel dampened in water, vinegar, detergent.

That doesn't sound like a lot of water.

for all those panels?
it has to be done more often than every two weeks,too.

Yes, all those panels.
The video said every 2 weeks.
How much dirt is in the air where you live?
In places with no rain, just dusting will do the job.
Downwind of a coal plant, maybe more than every 2 weeks.
I still see no evidence that more often than 2 weeks is required.

So I still don't see a lot of water being used.

"you don't see";
there's the problem.

BTW,how often do you need to wash a car that's left outside? Or just run
your windshield wasers? If I leave my car outside for 2 weeks,no rain,it's
COVERED in dirt,along with tree sap and bird crap.
You can write your name in the dirt,and pranksters often do.

that lowers solar panel output significantly.

Don't leave my car outside.
Still see 2 weeks.







then Â* there's Â* inverter Â* maintenance,and Â* if Â* storage Â*
batteries used,battery maintenance. Â* Plus,the hazards of Â*battery
chemicals and lead,along with fire hazard.

Just looked up maintenance procedure for a solar panel
inverter.

"replace every 10 years".

what about dust,power surges,electrolytic capacitor dryout,etc?
Cap failure is a common occurrence in power systems.

Yeah, what about them. Â*They're also subject to random meteorite hits.
Anything can go wrong. Â*Still the cost of maintenance remains replace
every 10 years unless you have some other source to cite.

BTW,I note that the system you cited uses TRACKING solar panels,so
there's maintenance on the mechanicals that move the panels.Then
there's snow/ice removal,seeing as it's up North(N.Jersey?).

The system at Bell Labs is not tracking.

read the article again. that is where I got it from.

It does say that.
I drive by the panels frequently, they sure look like the
are rigidly mounted...





They could remove snow if they want, or just wait until it slides off.
We get snowfall in Central NJ but it's not going to stick to a slick
glass panel for long.

Denial.
besides,the fact that your panels ARE covered by snow means you get ZERO
output from them,for some length of time.
So,that power has to come from some other,more reliable source.

Anyway, it mostly just sits there and pours electricity into the
grid. Â*Pretty cool, especially with this heat, you can imagine
all the air conditioners it's running.

"POURS" electricity? Â*how big a plant is it? how many MW?

1.2MW:

http://newprovidence.patch.com/artic...-system-to-pow
er -bell-labs-campus-3http://tinyurl.com/3srexrm

It probably runs THEIR AC and maybe the building lights.

The building is pretty big. Â*The article says it's enough power to
power 200 homes.

Is that peak or average output?

Read the article or do more research.

Likely peak output.

I don't get it. Â*Are you against power generation or does it just
feel good to point out that someone has to push the snow off the
panel.

MY point is that it's a "feel good" action,not truly practical.
With a lot of money spent,and probably with Federal tax credits,or as the
"progressives" call them;"loopholes" to be plugged.
And you end up with an intermittent power source,not reliable,won't output
it's rated power consistently or at night.And 20 years later,you have to
buy all new panels,sooner if there's a hailstorm.

Sure there are problems, I'm well aware of all the issues, I've heard
it all before. Â*I still see an open field that wasn't doing anything
but growing grass, still growing grass but now also pushing some power
into the grid. Â*It's going to take a lot of fancy BS to convince me
this is a bad thing.

Wait until that grass grows high enough.
It appears from the picture included in that article that mowing would be a
problem.

Yes, that's the one issue I saw with their setup.
I thought they'd put down mulch or something.
Maybe if they're motorized they'll just move them perpendicular and then
be able to run a mower down the lanes.

--
Dan Espen

You must live in a filthy place.
I very rarely wash my car. Most of the dirt is thrown up by traffic
in wet weather whilst I/m driving and the rain washes it off.
In any event, the rain washes the dirt off near horizonatal surfaces,
(such as solar panels) less so vertical surfaces.
How dirty does the roof of your car get?

Looks like you are replying to me, but you must mean someone else.
I live in the garden spot of the US, central NJ.

Actually, it's amazingly beautiful here, but don't tell anyone.

As for my car, it goes for years at a time without being washed.
A good rain gets it clean enough for me.

Our main issue here is tree sap and pollen.
Bell Labs doesn't have the 150ft monsters (Tulip Poplars)
on it's front lawn like the rest of the town. I'm sure
their cleaning issue will be minor.

--
Dan Espen

On Jul 22, 4:58*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

S. Korea
Part of Japan Pre-WW2. Intermittant democracy since.

Tell a Korean that his nation was part of Japan prior to WWII--go on, I dare
you.

The Japanese invaded and occupied it. They were there for longer than
the USA has occupied Hawaii.

On Jul 22, 5:21*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

Democracy can't be given. *I thought even you would see that by now.

Seems to have worked in Japan, hasn't it.
How long was Japan occupied for? *Fifty years?

Your ignorance is truly breathtaking. *You barge around making assumptions
that have absolutely no basis in fact, but when your errors are pointed out
you either ignore them as if they never happened or pretend they don't
matter.

Worldleadersofterro
The occupation of Japan ended early in 1952 when a treaty signed the
previous year came into effect. *So no, Harry, Japan was not occupied for
fifty years, it was occupied for less than seven years.

It was enforced there too, not given.

Ah, so now you make up a new meaningless category in hopes of explaining
away your previous foolishness. *"Enforced" democracy doesn't count, it
isn't the same as the mythical "given" democracy you referred to earlier.

Meanwhile India is still a democracy, a status it gained only when Britain
finally ended its centuries-long occupation of that country. *So it would
appear there is another kind of democracy in addition to "given" and
"enforced"--it's called We Finally Got Rid Of Those Limey Colonialists.
Say, come to think of it the same thing happened in the United States of
America too, only in that case the Brits left at the point of a bayonet
rather than because they were bankrupt and could no longer afford to hold
onto their empire.

You have breathetaking arrogance. Your revolution occured because a
few rich people didn't want to pay taxes. Nothing changed there.
They still don't want to pay taxes, expect the poor to fight their
wars and subsidise their banks when they fail, A unique form of
oppression.
Then you invaded and ethnic cleansed the interior of America killing
2,000,000 stone age people. On reaching the West coast you carried
across the Pacific, Hawaii, Samoa, Philipines.
It was called "American exceptionalism" and "manifest destiny"
Then there was "military philibustering" a feeble excuse to invade
central and South America.

So don't come your crap with me. The USA has more innocent blood on
it's hands than most.
Still at it too. 100,000 Iraqis, your latest victims. And the stolen
billions of their "disappeared" money.

USA, world leader in Terrorism, Torture. Theft, Kidnap. Murder.
Extortion, War crimes, Oppession TODAY.

DGDevin wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...


S. Korea

Part of Japan Pre-WW2. Intermittant democracy since.

Tell a Korean that his nation was part of Japan prior to WWII--go on,
I dare you.

Uh, it was.

Japan annexed Korea in 1910. As a provision of the Potsdam Declaration
established Korean independence in 1945.

Harry K wrote:

I think you read my position improperly. I do not acknowledge that
the product of resources are limited (e.g., when we run out of
whales, we use Kerosene).

I do display contempt that reductions in a better life now for some
evanescent, gossamery future goal is a good idea.

While you are correct that I won't be around to see what my
great-great-grandchildren have to contend with, I am around now.
That I should swelter in the current heat wave - thereby risking
heat stroke - so that electricity usage will be reduced because we
need to conserve coal so that our progeny may need it, is insane.

Even IF the claims of "running out" are correct, conservation now is
merely a delaying tactic.

So your view is "I got mine, later generations can go **** up a wall".


First, that would be difficult for half the population.

Second, what I got, I earned. Setting aside what I've earned for "... nay,
unto the third generation..." (if the inheritance tax doesn't get it), later
generations should earn theirs, too.

Third, I think it's "****eth against the wall".

Fourth, look at my last sentence in the above post. Whether disaster comes
from running out of "X" next year or 200 years from now, it's still a
disaster. How will economizing now prevent that cataclysm? "Eat, drink, and
be merry, for tomorrow we die."

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I think you read my position improperly. I do not acknowledge that
the product of resources are limited (e.g., when we run out of
whales, we use Kerosene).

I do display contempt that reductions in a better life now for some
evanescent, gossamery future goal is a good idea.

Your definition of a better life is driven by selfishness. And you
ignore that it isn't some fairy-tale future that needs protecting, it
is a future of any kind.

While you are correct that I won't be around to see what my
great-great-grandchildren have to contend with, I am around now.
That I should swelter in the current heat wave - thereby risking
heat stroke - so that electricity usage will be reduced because we
need to conserve coal so that our progeny may need it, is insane.

We had a ceiling fan installed in our bedroom last year, it allows us
to sleep comfortably without relying on air conditioning nearly as
much which saves money on electricity. The new insulation we put in
the attic some years back helps too both in summer and winter, again
it paid for itself very quickly. I'm not asking you to die of heat
stroke, I'm suggesting that there are ways to go about keeping cool
other than simply running the A/C full blast.

Even IF the claims of "running out" are correct, conservation now is
merely a delaying tactic.

Like I said, selfishness.

Keep cool? Fran Liebowitz observed that "... the outdoors is something
through which I pass between my apartment and my car." In your case, if you
never go outside, you should be okay.

Adam Smith settled this "selfishness" hash in 1776 with the publication of
"Wealth of Nations." When everybody operates in their own self interest,
society overall benefits.

Selfishness is good. It's a normal human thought process or emotion given us
by God, and God doesn't make junk (except, of course, for the gall bladder).

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.

I'm not a climate scientist, and neither are you. But the
overwhelming majority of people who are climate scientists agree that
manmade climate change is real and represents an accelerating threat.

Who to believe, who to believe...?

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not determined by
majority vote. The climate researchers use scientific methods and thereby
claim their endeavors are science.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Selfishness is good. It's a normal human thought process or emotion given us
by God, and God doesn't make junk (except, of course, for the gall bladder).

Or appendix, although I have always thought of these two organs as
actually being an indicator of His omnipotence as he saw clearly, even
way back then, the need to put a floor under the earnings of general
surgeons.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 7/22/2011 12:37 PM, DGDevin wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.

I'm not a climate scientist, and neither are you. But the overwhelming
majority of people who are climate scientists agree that manmade climate
change is real and represents an accelerating threat.

Who to believe, who to believe...?


First ya gotta define 'climate scientist', and then you have to see the
paper trail of whatever survey the article is quoting. An expert
speaking outside of their field of expertise is little better than a
layman, and often more dangerous, because people listen to them.

On general principles, no carbon-based 02-breathing life form should
**** in their own nest. And 'first, do no harm' is a pretty good life
philosophy. So, yeah, I think whatever crap H. Sapiens is pumping into
the system probably is not helping, and we should strive to minimize it.
However, I have yet to be convinced it is the primary cause of recent
changes that are well within historic variations. And I'm not willing
to take a decade or more off my remaining lifespan (what little is
left), and live in a cave, to reduce my footprint further than I already
have. (Not buying excess toys, limiting travel, living in the dark,
using everything until it is totally worn out, etc. Remarkable how being
green looks a lot like being a cheap SOB.)

--
aem sends...

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


Selfishness is good. It's a normal human thought process or emotion
given us by God, and God doesn't make junk (except, of course, for
the gall bladder).

Or appendix, although I have always thought of these two organs as
actually being an indicator of His omnipotence as he saw clearly, even
way back then, the need to put a floor under the earnings of general
surgeons.

Ah, you're right about the appendix.

Still, the appendix can be thought of as an outright mistake, whereas the
gall bladder was obviously designed improperly in the first place. And the
sad part is: everybody's a beta tester.

On Jul 22, 3:39*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 7/22/2011 12:37 PM, DGDevin wrote:







"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...

The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.

I'm not a climate scientist, and neither are you. But the overwhelming
majority of people who are climate scientists agree that manmade climate
change is real and represents an accelerating threat.

Who to believe, who to believe...?

First ya gotta define 'climate scientist', and then you have to see the
paper trail of whatever survey the article is quoting. An expert
speaking outside of their field of expertise is little better than a
layman, and often more dangerous, because people listen to them.

On general principles, no carbon-based 02-breathing life form should
**** in their own nest. And 'first, do no harm' is a pretty good life
philosophy. *So, yeah, I think whatever crap H. Sapiens is pumping into
the system probably is not helping, and we should strive to minimize it.
However, I have yet to be convinced it is the primary cause of recent
changes that are well within historic variations.

I agree. That it _is_ happening is beyond debate. My view is that it
is a natural cycle occurance but is being enhanced by our input. The
warming is 'normal' but the _rate_ is far faster than any historic
records (go bacy over 100,000 years) show. In fact it is even faster
than the specialists inthe field even predicted.

*And I'm not willing
to take a decade or more off my remaining lifespan (what little is
left), and live in a cave, to reduce my footprint further than I already
have. (Not buying excess toys, limiting travel, living in the dark,
using everything until it is totally worn out, etc. Remarkable how being
green looks a lot like being a cheap SOB.)

Same here. I recycle now what I can (didn't before), try to use some
'renewable' but that stuff is hard to find. No, I'm not going to
bankrupt myself by installing PV or trying to retrofit my house
"green". It is already "green" by 1980s sdtandards (insulated, double
pane windows, etc. To improve it would basically requir tearing it
down and starting over.

Harry K
--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 22, 8:36*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...

I think you read my position improperly. I do not acknowledge that
the product of resources are limited (e.g., when we run out of
whales, we use Kerosene).

I do display contempt that reductions in a better life now for some
evanescent, gossamery future goal is a good idea.

Your definition of a better life is driven by selfishness. *And you
ignore that it isn't some fairy-tale future that needs protecting, it
is a future of any kind.

While you are correct that I won't be around to see what my
great-great-grandchildren have to contend with, I am around now.
That I should swelter in the current heat wave - thereby risking
heat stroke - so that electricity usage will be reduced because we
need to conserve coal so that our progeny may need it, is insane.

We had a ceiling fan installed in our bedroom last year, it allows us
to sleep comfortably without relying on air conditioning nearly as
much which saves money on electricity. *The new insulation we put in
the attic some years back helps too both in summer and winter, again
it paid for itself very quickly. *I'm not asking you to die of heat
stroke, I'm suggesting that there are ways to go about keeping cool
other than simply running the A/C full blast.

Even IF the claims of "running out" are correct, conservation now is
merely a delaying tactic.

Like I said, selfishness.

Keep cool? Fran Liebowitz observed that "... the outdoors is something
through which I pass between my apartment and my car." In your case, if you
never go outside, you should be okay.

Adam Smith settled this "selfishness" hash in 1776 with the publication of
"Wealth of Nations." When everybody operates in their own self interest,
society overall benefits.

Selfishness is good. It's a normal human thought process or emotion given us
by God, and God doesn't make junk (except, of course, for the gall bladder).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that's what you call an old fashoined ideal?
You can see where it's got the USA today (greed and selfishness)

On Jul 22, 8:41*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" *wrote in message
om...

The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.

I'm not a climate scientist, and neither are you. *But the
overwhelming majority of people who are climate scientists agree that
manmade climate change is real and represents an accelerating threat.

Who to believe, who to believe...?

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not determined by
majority vote. The climate researchers use scientific methods and thereby
claim their endeavors are science.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think there's a lot of people in America coming to terms with the
global warming idea due to the recent weather.
Even the ill-educated ones.

On Jul 22, 9:19*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:

Selfishness is good. It's a normal human thought process or emotion given us
by God, and God doesn't make junk (except, of course, for the gall bladder).

Or appendix, although I have always thought of these two organs as
actually being an indicator of His omnipotence as he saw clearly, even
way back then, the need to put a floor under the earnings of general
surgeons.



Clearly, you never read the bible.
You're not supposed to love money.
You're not supposed to covet your neighbours wife, ox or ass.
Or his Cadillac, i-phone or lawnmower.

Moneylenders are disapproved of too. Got that bit right as well.

No-one is omnipotent. Even Washinton orAdam.

On Jul 23, 1:35*am, (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:
In article , harry wrote:

The subsidies paid in various places are to encourage private
individuals to invest their money.

The subsidies are paid to:

1. Benefit specific corporate interests and

2. Benefit selected wealthy investors, like Al Gore, and

3. Maintain the "green jobs" myth.

If residential solar panels are such a damn fine investment
why do they need subsidies?


How does PV panels on my roof do Nos.1&"2 ?
Why is green jobs a myth?

Oh, you're talking about America!
Why do think that everywhere is the same as America?

On Jul 23, 1:45*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Selfishness is good. It's a normal human thought process or emotion
given us by God, and God doesn't make junk (except, of course, for
the gall bladder).

Or appendix, although I have always thought of these two organs as
actually being an indicator of His omnipotence as he saw clearly, even
way back then, the need to put a floor under the earnings of general
surgeons.

Ah, you're right about the appendix.

Still, the appendix can be thought of as an outright mistake, whereas the
gall bladder was obviously designed improperly in the first place. And the
sad part is: everybody's a beta tester.

No-one properly understands te gall bladder.
Ergo, no-one can comment on it'sdesign function.
Any more than Smith's theories have relevance today.

On Jul 23, 2:56*am, Harry K wrote:
to take a decade or more off my remaining lifespan (what little is
left), and live in a cave, to reduce my footprint further than I already
have. (Not buying excess toys, limiting travel, living in the dark,
using everything until it is totally worn out, etc. Remarkable how being
green looks a lot like being a cheap SOB.)

Same here. *I recycle now what I can (didn't before), *try to use some
'renewable' but that stuff is hard to find. *No, I'm not going to
bankrupt myself by installing PV or trying to retrofit my house
"green". *It is already "green" by 1980s sdtandards (insulated, double
pane windows, etc. *To improve it would basically requir tearing it
down and starting over.

Well, I have done just that.

harry wrote:

Selfishness is good. It's a normal human thought process or emotion
given us
by God, and God doesn't make junk (except, of course, for the gall
bladder).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that's what you call an old fashoined ideal?

Er, no, never said that.

You can see where it's got the USA today (greed and selfishness)

There was a time, not so very long ago, when, with every striking of the
hour by Big Ben, the British Ensign was being raised at dawn somewhere in
the world.

Then the British abandoned greed and selfishness.

Today, with every tick of the atomic clock at the National Bureau of
Standards, Microsoft Windows is booting up somewhere in the world (often for
the fourth time today).

Thanks to greed and selfishness.

harry wrote:

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not determined
by majority vote. The climate researchers use scientific methods and
thereby claim their endeavors are science.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think there's a lot of people in America coming to terms with the
global warming idea due to the recent weather.
Even the ill-educated ones.

To quote our revered betters: "Weather is not climate."

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:36:31 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not determined
by majority vote. The climate researchers use scientific methods and
thereby claim their endeavors are science.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think there's a lot of people in America coming to terms with the
global warming idea due to the recent weather.
Even the ill-educated ones.

To quote our revered betters: "Weather is not climate."

That's true *only* if "weather" is cold or calm.

" ) writes:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:36:31 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:

You're right. The problem is that scientific truth is not determined
by majority vote. The climate researchers use scientific methods and
thereby claim their endeavors are science.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think there's a lot of people in America coming to terms with the
global warming idea due to the recent weather.
Even the ill-educated ones.


To quote our revered betters: "Weather is not climate."

That's true *only* if "weather" is cold or calm.


Wait a minute... in Southern California there *isn't* any weather for
about 9 months of the year, and I have it on good authority that it has
something to do with the "climate of Southern California". The only time
there is weather in So Cal, is when it rains!

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


Tell a Korean that his nation was part of Japan prior to WWII--go on,
I dare you.

Uh, it was.

Japan annexed Korea in 1910. As a provision of the Potsdam Declaration
established Korean independence in 1945.

I repeat, tell a Korean his nation was ever just a colony/possession of
Japan, then duck. That Japan held onto the place by force of arms didn't
make Korea part of Japan any more than the Soviets occupying places like
Poland and Hungary made them part of the USSR.

"harry" wrote in message
...


USA, world leader in Terrorism, Torture. Theft, Kidnap. Murder.
Extortion, War crimes, Oppession TODAY.

Went through a whole box of tissues on that one, didn't you, Harry. But
nothing further to say about how Japan was occupied for fifty years? Just
smart enough to know when to shut your mouth, at least on some issues. What
a sap.

On Jul 24, 2:51*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
"harry" *wrote in message

...

USA, world leader in Terrorism, Torture. Theft, Kidnap. Murder.
Extortion, War crimes, Oppession * * TODAY.

Went through a whole box of tissues on that one, didn't you, Harry. *But
nothing further to say about how Japan was occupied for fifty years? *Just
smart enough to know when to shut your mouth, at least on some issues. *What
a sap.

I see you snipped the relevant bit.

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...


The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.


I disagree on devoid of meaningful value. At a minimum, my metaphor is
illustrative.

I'll tell you what's devoid of meaningful value:

"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again, so what.
Is this like the red area on the steam pressure gauge and when it reaches
350 the boiler's gonna blow?

And the biggest misdirection of them all:

"We've got to tax carbon emissions. It's the only way to save the planet." I
don't think any comments are necessary on this one.

"HeyBub" ) writes:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...



The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.


As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.



I disagree on devoid of meaningful value. At a minimum, my metaphor is
illustrative.

I'll tell you what's devoid of meaningful value:

"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again, so what.


If a person with a CO2 gas analyser measures 350 ppm, it would be a fluke.
It's the same typo... damn i mean type off... damn i mean type of fluke
as going to the grocery store and filling the cart, and then running it
through the cash, and the register displays exactly $35.00, not $34.73,
$35.18 etc.. 350 is a rounded number. Do I need to tell you which direction
it's rounded!


Is this like the red area on the steam pressure gauge and when it reaches
350 the boiler's gonna blow?


You do know that the dinosaurs, with their big lungs, were suckin' back
about 6.5 times (2300 ppm) the CO2 that exists today, when they were
pounding around on the Pangaea supercontinent, 200 million years ago?
That was 150 million years after the Mississippian Epoch for christ sakes!



And the biggest misdirection of them all:

"We've got to tax carbon emissions. It's the only way to save the planet." I
don't think any comments are necessary on this one.




I asked a politician many years ago, which allotrope of carbon (C) (and
weather... damn i mean whether it was amorphous or not, synthetic or not)
he intended to tax. He didn't know what I was talking about. WOW... he
wanted to tax something he knew nothing about. He yakked some blatherskite
about CO2. He didn't even know the difference between molecules and
atoms!. I told him "I can't write on the last page of my income tax forms
'i think i made this... and i don't think i owe any taxes', that's
unacceptable... they want to know all of my sources of income... right
down to the penny... to apply their complex tax rates... no vague ambiguous
crap is allowed". I was going throw him a curve about 'moles', but he
would have thought I was taking about rodents (which is ironic because he
was _some kind_ of species of rodent).

Have them show you your "carbon emissions", that they want to tax... after
all, carbon is a solid at ambient temps and pressures, its easy to see, if
there are copious quantities present.

In , HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in ...

The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.

I disagree on devoid of meaningful value. At a minimum, my metaphor is
illustrative.

I'll tell you what's devoid of meaningful value:

"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again, so what.
Is this like the red area on the steam pressure gauge and when it reaches
350 the boiler's gonna blow?

And the biggest misdirection of them all:

"We've got to tax carbon emissions. It's the only way to save the
planet." I don't think any comments are necessary on this one.

There are some figures on CO2 that even Dr. Roy Spencer and IPCC agree
on, or at least Spencer goes along with:

Global temperature as a function of CO2 is close enough to logarhythmic,
at a rate of 1.12-1.15 degrees C per doubling of CO2. "Pre Industrial
Revolution Baeline" is 270-280 PPM (by volume) or PPMV, depending on who
you listen to.

IPCC is considering projections of CO2 increasing to 800 PPMV, good for
about 1.55 degree C (about 2.8 F) increase in global temperature after
what prevailed after recovery from the Little Ice Age. That "baseline"
appears to me to be about .3 degree C below 1961-1990 average, maybe .25
degree C below. That projects to warming to 1.25-1.3 degrees C warmer
than 1961-1990 average by 2100 or by a few decades afterwards.

However, this is without consideration of feedbacks. IPCC and Spencer
agree that the various mentioned specific feedbacks all exist, but
disagree on the specific numbers for them. IPCC gives its consideration
to "determinations" that the sum of these feedbacks is strongly positive,
for global warming by most-likely 3 degrees C and possibly 7 degrees C.
(Figures vary slightly from one "Assessment Report" to another.) Spencer
likes to think, and on-the-whole finds by his works for "determinations",
that the sum of these feedbacks is either close to zero or negative.

I have put a lot of work into this myself, and it appears to me that the
total feedback is slightly positive, good for global warming by about
1.45 - 1.75 degrees C above 1961-1990 average - assuming 800 PPMV CO2.

With limitations of fossil fuels, I think 675 PPMV CO2 is most likely,
meaning I think most likely 1.25-1.55 degrees C global warming from
1961-1990 average, close enough to non-problem. They say it takes 2
degrees C of global warming (from 1961-1990 average) to significantly
achieve any meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet.

More data will come in over the next decade or two. We are going into a
predictable roughly-30-year-long dip in solar activity that occurs every
roughly 220 years. As we see how world weather and temperatures respond
to this, we will see better numbers for the feedbacks and especially the
sum of the feedbacks.

--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
"HeyBub" ) writes:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...



The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.


As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.



I disagree on devoid of meaningful value. At a minimum, my metaphor is
illustrative.

I'll tell you what's devoid of meaningful value:

"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again, so what.

If a person with a CO2 gas analyser measures 350 ppm, it would be a fluke.
It's the same typo... damn i mean type off... damn i mean type of fluke
as going to the grocery store and filling the cart, and then running it
through the cash, and the register displays exactly $35.00, not $34.73,
$35.18 etc.. 350 is a rounded number. Do I need to tell you which direction
it's rounded!

SNIP from here

Latest reading is 391.4 ppm. I got this from www.wattsupwiththat.com,
a site widely considered skeptical of manmade global warming.

--
- Don Klipstein )

In , M.A. Stewart wrote in part:

You do know that the dinosaurs, with their big lungs, were suckin' back
about 6.5 times (2300 ppm) the CO2 that exists today, when they were
pounding around on the Pangaea supercontinent, 200 million years ago?
That was 150 million years after the Mississippian Epoch for christ sakes!

This was before all of the fossil fuels that existed 2 centuries ago
were formed from biomass. Also at this time, there were no continents at
the poles, making the world freer of ice and reflecting less sunlight,
absorbing more. Plus there is a feedback from CO2 being less soluble in
warmer oceans. Sea level was something like 600 feet higher then than
now.

--
- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein ) writes:
In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
"HeyBub" ) writes:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...



The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.


As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.



I disagree on devoid of meaningful value. At a minimum, my metaphor is
illustrative.

I'll tell you what's devoid of meaningful value:

"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again, so what.

If a person with a CO2 gas analyser measures 350 ppm, it would be a fluke.
It's the same typo... damn i mean type off... damn i mean type of fluke
as going to the grocery store and filling the cart, and then running it
through the cash, and the register displays exactly $35.00, not $34.73,
$35.18 etc.. 350 is a rounded number. Do I need to tell you which direction
it's rounded!

SNIP from here

Latest reading is 391.4 ppm. I got this from www.wattsupwiththat.com,
a site widely considered skeptical of manmade global warming.

--
- Don Klipstein )


Who took the measurement Snippy? Who made the gas analyser?
What's its error tolerance? How many measurement
were taken to get that average number? Where and when were they taken?

Don Klipstein ) writes:
In , M.A. Stewart wrote in part:

You do know that the dinosaurs, with their big lungs, were suckin' back
about 6.5 times (2300 ppm) the CO2 that exists today, when they were
pounding around on the Pangaea supercontinent, 200 million years ago?
That was 150 million years after the Mississippian Epoch for christ sakes!

This was before all of the fossil fuels that existed 2 centuries ago
were formed from biomass. Also at this time, there were no continents at
the poles, making the world freer of ice and reflecting less sunlight,
absorbing more.


HC's were formed during the Devonian Period (450 million years ago).
Coal was formed during the Carboniferous Period (specifically during the
Pennsylvanian Epoch, 310 million years).

Have you heard of 'Angle Of Incident' re the sun? That's one reason why
the pole areas are colder on Earth... and Mars.






Plus there is a feedback from CO2 being less soluble in
warmer oceans. Sea level was something like 600 feet higher then than
now.

--
- Don Klipstein )


Show me the 'feedback'.

Don Klipstein ) writes:
In , HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in ...

The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.

I disagree on devoid of meaningful value. At a minimum, my metaphor is
illustrative.

I'll tell you what's devoid of meaningful value:

"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again, so what.
Is this like the red area on the steam pressure gauge and when it reaches
350 the boiler's gonna blow?

And the biggest misdirection of them all:

"We've got to tax carbon emissions. It's the only way to save the
planet." I don't think any comments are necessary on this one.

There are some figures on CO2 that even Dr. Roy Spencer and IPCC agree
on, or at least Spencer goes along with:

Global temperature as a function of CO2 is close enough to logarhythmic,
at a rate of 1.12-1.15 degrees C per doubling of CO2. "Pre Industrial
Revolution Baeline" is 270-280 PPM (by volume) or PPMV, depending on who
you listen to.

IPCC is considering projections of CO2 increasing to 800 PPMV, good for
about 1.55 degree C (about 2.8 F) increase in global temperature after
what prevailed after recovery from the Little Ice Age. That "baseline"
appears to me to be about .3 degree C below 1961-1990 average, maybe .25
degree C below. That projects to warming to 1.25-1.3 degrees C warmer
than 1961-1990 average by 2100 or by a few decades afterwards.

However, this is without consideration of feedbacks. IPCC and Spencer
agree that the various mentioned specific feedbacks all exist, but
disagree on the specific numbers for them. IPCC gives its consideration
to "determinations" that the sum of these feedbacks is strongly positive,
for global warming by most-likely 3 degrees C and possibly 7 degrees C.
(Figures vary slightly from one "Assessment Report" to another.) Spencer
likes to think, and on-the-whole finds by his works for "determinations",
that the sum of these feedbacks is either close to zero or negative.

I have put a lot of work into this myself, and it appears to me that the
total feedback is slightly positive, good for global warming by about
1.45 - 1.75 degrees C above 1961-1990 average - assuming 800 PPMV CO2.


With limitations of fossil fuels, I think 675 PPMV CO2 is most likely,
meaning I think most likely 1.25-1.55 degrees C global warming from
1961-1990 average, close enough to non-problem. They say it takes 2
degrees C of global warming (from 1961-1990 average) to significantly
achieve any meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet.


Meltdown? Hyperbole. Like all great glaciers, Greenland flows like taffy,
er in glacial terms.



More data will come in over the next decade or two. We are going into a
predictable roughly-30-year-long dip in solar activity that occurs every
roughly 220 years. As we see how world weather and temperatures respond
to this, we will see better numbers for the feedbacks and especially the
sum of the feedbacks.

--
- Don Klipstein )


As usual, completely devoid of a thing called 'Thermodynamics'.

Specious, speculative, hypothetical prognostications, not qualified with
any probabilities.

The IPCC (a political organization) lost it's credibility with
'GlacierGate'.

In 1988 the media was presented with the scary scenario of the oceans
rising by substantial noticeable amount going forward 20 years. I made note
of the low tide and high tide then. Observations at the same location in
2008 revelled no visible change. The ocean did rise... but it's
millimetres... just like has been rising (by millimetres) for the last 100
years (as measured at San Francisco... the only place that has data
going back only 100 years).

M.A. Stewart ) writes:
Don Klipstein ) writes:
In , HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in ...

The increase in CO2, since 1900, could be represented by the stain
left on the astoturf as he slowly bled out without a single person
coming to his aid.

As always your illustrations are colorful and even amusing while being
devoid of meaningful value.

I disagree on devoid of meaningful value. At a minimum, my metaphor is
illustrative.

I'll tell you what's devoid of meaningful value:

"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again, so what.
Is this like the red area on the steam pressure gauge and when it reaches
350 the boiler's gonna blow?

And the biggest misdirection of them all:

"We've got to tax carbon emissions. It's the only way to save the
planet." I don't think any comments are necessary on this one.

There are some figures on CO2 that even Dr. Roy Spencer and IPCC agree
on, or at least Spencer goes along with:

Global temperature as a function of CO2 is close enough to logarhythmic,
at a rate of 1.12-1.15 degrees C per doubling of CO2. "Pre Industrial
Revolution Baeline" is 270-280 PPM (by volume) or PPMV, depending on who
you listen to.

IPCC is considering projections of CO2 increasing to 800 PPMV, good for
about 1.55 degree C (about 2.8 F) increase in global temperature after
what prevailed after recovery from the Little Ice Age. That "baseline"
appears to me to be about .3 degree C below 1961-1990 average, maybe .25
degree C below. That projects to warming to 1.25-1.3 degrees C warmer
than 1961-1990 average by 2100 or by a few decades afterwards.

However, this is without consideration of feedbacks. IPCC and Spencer
agree that the various mentioned specific feedbacks all exist, but
disagree on the specific numbers for them. IPCC gives its consideration
to "determinations" that the sum of these feedbacks is strongly positive,
for global warming by most-likely 3 degrees C and possibly 7 degrees C.
(Figures vary slightly from one "Assessment Report" to another.) Spencer
likes to think, and on-the-whole finds by his works for "determinations",
that the sum of these feedbacks is either close to zero or negative.

I have put a lot of work into this myself, and it appears to me that the
total feedback is slightly positive, good for global warming by about
1.45 - 1.75 degrees C above 1961-1990 average - assuming 800 PPMV CO2.


With limitations of fossil fuels, I think 675 PPMV CO2 is most likely,
meaning I think most likely 1.25-1.55 degrees C global warming from
1961-1990 average, close enough to non-problem. They say it takes 2
degrees C of global warming (from 1961-1990 average) to significantly
achieve any meltdown of Greenland's ice sheet.


Meltdown? Hyperbole. Like all great glaciers, Greenland flows like taffy,
er in glacial terms.



More data will come in over the next decade or two. We are going into a
predictable roughly-30-year-long dip in solar activity that occurs every
roughly 220 years. As we see how world weather and temperatures respond
to this, we will see better numbers for the feedbacks and especially the
sum of the feedbacks.

--
- Don Klipstein )



As usual, completely devoid of a thing called 'Thermodynamics'.

Specious, speculative, hypothetical prognostications, not qualified with
any probabilities.


The IPCC (a political organization) lost it's credibility with
'GlacierGate'.


In 1988 the media was presented with the scary scenario of the oceans
rising by substantial noticeable amount going forward 20 years. I made note
of the low tide and high tide then. Observations at the same location in
2008 revelled no visible change. The ocean did rise... but it's

TYPO: replace "revelled" with "revealed", even though there was great
revelling at the time because the children who lived down by the ocean
weren't going to drown.


millimetres... just like has been rising (by millimetres) for the last 100
years (as measured at San Francisco... the only place that has data
going back only 100 years).

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.

can you breathe those pennies?

In article ,
(M.A. Stewart) wrote:

You do know that the dinosaurs, with their big lungs, were suckin' back
about 6.5 times (2300 ppm) the CO2 that exists today, when they were
pounding around on the Pangaea supercontinent, 200 million years ago?
That was 150 million years after the Mississippian Epoch for christ sakes!

and exactly how did that affect their intelligence?

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" ) writes:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


"CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since 1900!" So what? Yesterday I
had two cents. Today I found another penny on the sidewalk. Even though my
total wealth has increased fifty percent, I'm still broke.


can you breathe those pennies?


Enron wanted to trade them (commoditize air) back and forth, and back and
forth, ad nauseam, taking fee with each trade!

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" ) writes:
In article ,
(M.A. Stewart) wrote:

You do know that the dinosaurs, with their big lungs, were suckin' back
about 6.5 times (2300 ppm) the CO2 that exists today, when they were
pounding around on the Pangaea supercontinent, 200 million years ago?
That was 150 million years after the Mississippian Epoch for christ sakes!

and exactly how did that affect their intelligence?


Dinosaurs had intelligence? Instinct yes, and 2300 puny ppms (0.23%) of
CO2 didn't affect their instincts. They were on earth for about 175
million years. More than 50 times longer than humans.

In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
Don Klipstein ) writes:
In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
"HeyBub" ) writes:

SNIP to here

"CO2 levels are rapidly approaching 350 parts per million!" Again,
so what.

If a person with a CO2 gas analyser measures 350 ppm, it would be a fluke.
It's the same typo... damn i mean type off... damn i mean type of fluke
as going to the grocery store and filling the cart, and then running it
through the cash, and the register displays exactly $35.00, not $34.73,
$35.18 etc.. 350 is a rounded number. Do I need to tell you which direction
it's rounded!

SNIP from here

Latest reading is 391.4 ppm. I got this from www.wattsupwiththat.com,
a site widely considered skeptical of manmade global warming.

Who took the measurement Snippy? Who made the gas analyser?
What's its error tolerance? How many measurement
were taken to get that average number? Where and when were they taken?

Determination was done by the Mauna Loa observatory.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

How determinations are made, including backup measurements and
replications elsewhere in the world:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/ab...surements.html

They make a decent case that probable error is a fraction of a ppm.

Readings are taken hourly, and on most days a few to several hourly
readings show consistency within a fraction of a ppm during weather
conditions favorable to the air there not being contaminated by
local/nearby ground-level sources and sinks of CO2. An average monthly
determination considers about 414 readings, at average of 13.6 hourly
readings per day not de-considered on basis of showing signs of deviating
significantly from trend due to interaction with local/nearby ground
sources/sinks of CO2. The de-considered readings are still logged and
maintained.

--
- Don Klipstein )

In article , M.A. Stewart wrote:
Don Klipstein ) writes:
In , M.A. Stewart wrote in part:

You do know that the dinosaurs, with their big lungs, were suckin' back
about 6.5 times (2300 ppm) the CO2 that exists today, when they were
pounding around on the Pangaea supercontinent, 200 million years ago?
That was 150 million years after the Mississippian Epoch for christ sakes!

This was before all of the fossil fuels that existed 2 centuries ago
were formed from biomass. Also at this time, there were no continents at
the poles, making the world freer of ice and reflecting less sunlight,
absorbing more.

HC's were formed during the Devonian Period (450 million years ago).
Coal was formed during the Carboniferous Period (specifically during the
Pennsylvanian Epoch, 310 million years).

That was peak of production of biomass going into earliest of 1st stage
of biomass being turned into coal. Biomass newer than 309 million years
was not all shut out of being turned into fossil fuels that existed in
1800.

Have you heard of 'Angle Of Incident' re the sun? That's one reason why
the pole areas are colder on Earth... and Mars.

Look at the global insolation (year-round long-term average solar
irradiance) maps in the Wikipedia article on insolation.

Though the poles get much less than the equator and tropical areas do,
it's still significant. Also, the polar and subpolar areas (especially
the Arctic and near-Arctic when Antarctica has stable ice coverage) are
where the ice albedo / surface albedo positive feedback is most
significant.

Plus there is a feedback from CO2 being less soluble in warmer oceans.
Sea level was something like 600 feet higher then than now.

Show me the 'feedback'.

If you were in class on the relevant day in 11th grade chemistry class,
you would have been taught that in general solubility of gases in liquids
decreases as temperature increases. This is why soda, beer and
champagne bubble-up more when warmer, less when colder.

As for specific examples of solubility of 14 specific gases in water,
one of them CO2, as a function of temperature, there is:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ga...er-d_1148.html

(This is with gas-in-question being 100% of the "atmosphere" at "1
atmosphere pressure" above the water.)

Warmer temperature increases atmosphere/ocean ratio of CO2 in the
combo of atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse
gas worth about 1.12-1.15 degrees temperature change per doubling/halving
its atmospheric presence, before effects of the cloud albedo, surface
albedo, water vapor, and lapse rate feedbacks.
IPCC and Dr. Roy Spencer at least largely agree with this, although
Spencer has a beef with IPCC-considered "determinations" of these
feedbacks and sum thereof - especially notably the cloud albedo one.

--
- Don Klipstein )

On Jul 25, 1:21*am, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In , M.A. Stewart wrote in part:

You do know that the dinosaurs, with their big lungs, were suckin' back
about 6.5 times (2300 ppm) the CO2 that exists today, when they were
pounding around on the Pangaea supercontinent, 200 million years ago?
That was 150 million years after the Mississippian Epoch for christ sakes!

* This was before all of the fossil fuels that existed 2 centuries ago
were formed from biomass. *Also at this time, there were no continents at
the poles, making the world freer of ice and reflecting less sunlight,
absorbing more. *Plus there is a feedback from CO2 being less soluble in
warmer oceans. *Sea level was something like 600 feet higher then than
now.

--
*- Don Klipstein )

What wordy ******** you spout. There was massive glaciation and low
sea levels.
Coal deposites were laid down a hundred million years before the
dinosaurs appeared
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologi...ical_timelines