Climate Change And Fire

Your Venus "explanation" is just WRONG! The atmospheric pressure raises temperature not the All powerful CO2 molecule.

If it worked - at all - as the AGE cult proports, you'd be able to show us countless repeatable lab experiments linking the 120PPM increase in CO2 to temperature, but you don't, because you can't because a wisp of CO2 will not raise temperature

Also, is it your contention that Earth would have a 900F Surface temperature in a 100% CO2 atmosphere? Really?

Increasing pressure increases temperature strictly during adiabatic processes ... the two systems aren't even close to "same energy content" ... there's good evidence the surface of Venus was molten just 500 million years ago ... and those are clouds of sulfuric acid that encircle the entire planet all the time ... Siberian Traps level volcanism ... we need to take everything into consideration when we try to compare the two atmospheres ... the two energy budgets will be significantly different ...

You don't need lab experiments for something you can do on your kitchen counter ... a jar of CO2 and a jar of air, shine a strong light on them, measure the equilibrium temperature ... post your results ... my argument is this temperature rise is there, but trivial, as I'm sure your result show quite clearly ... no EF-9 tornadoes formed in the CO2 jar ...
 
Your Venus "explanation" is just WRONG! The atmospheric pressure raises temperature not the All powerful CO2 molecule.
You have been taking SSDD too seriously. Venus radiates 16,000 W/m² from it's surface. Where does all that radiation go? To space?
 
The atmospheric pressure raises temperature not the All powerful CO2 molecule.

Lemme humor your "theory" then and turn the tables on you.. If the GMAST anomaly temp is increasing and it is by about 0.15Deg/Decade -- AND it's a function SOLELY of atmospheric pressure ---

1) SHOW that "global average pressure" anomaly that you imagine is real... CERTAINLY, some one in some Atmos Physics lab is tracking that -- RIGHT?? Show us the numbers for the increase....

2) Explain to us the CAUSE of the "growing atmos pressure" anomaly....

In less than 10 pages please... LOL -- and with credible linkage....

:rolleyes: Maybe in your OWN THREAD where that IS the topic...

Or :anj_stfu: and accept basic physics and chemistry and thermodynamics as it's taught and practiced...
 
PG&E shares were trading north of $80 a share even with the renewable mandate ... that's mean healthy profits when buying these renewables ... there's always been plenty of money to do the maintenance and repairs all along ... the money was sent out as dividend payments instead ... profit before people ... you are absolutely wrong to say BPA power is a waste of money, that's dirt cheap electricity, cheapest in the nation ... 80 years old and just getting broken in, that carbon load gets amortized over centuries ...

PGE share price is based on WORTH and ASSETS.. Buying stuff increases it's assets even if they suck... When you're facing litigation for setting large portions of the state on fire - that share price plummets.. Because it MAY BE unrecoverable...

Why would any rational human being risk their capital monies if they have NO RETURN to them? Risk gets rewarded.. And in THIS case,


What does Bonneville power have to do with BEING FORCED to buy flaky unschedulable wind and solar that requires DUAL generation for when the sun dont shine and wind dont blow???

Here's a little hint about your "theory" about dividends....

edbb402cbb0e532acbe6933aeb379730.png


2019-01-16_8-08-12.jpg


Those 35 cent dividends mean NOTHING to an investor who's watched a $70 stock that they own PLUMMET to below $10 a share because the Cali Govt and the corporate mgt are off chasing unicorns farting glitter...
 
PGE share price is based on WORTH and ASSETS.. Buying stuff increases it's assets even if they suck... When you're facing litigation for setting large portions of the state on fire - that share price plummets.. Because it MAY BE unrecoverable...

Why would any rational human being risk their capital monies if they have NO RETURN to them? Risk gets rewarded.. And in THIS case,


What does Bonneville power have to do with BEING FORCED to buy flaky unschedulable wind and solar that requires DUAL generation for when the sun dont shine and wind dont blow???

Here's a little hint about your "theory" about dividends....

Those 35 cent dividends mean NOTHING to an investor who's watched a $70 stock that they own PLUMMET to below $10 a share because the Cali Govt and the corporate mgt are off chasing unicorns farting glitter...

The Federal Court disagrees with you ...
"Judge: PG&E Paid Out Stock Dividends Instead of Trimming Trees" --- KQED (an NPR affiliate) --- April 2019

“PG&E pumped out $4.5 billion in dividends and let the tree budget wither,” [Judge William] Alsup said. [from the bench I might add] ...

Those 35 cent dividends mean NOTHING ...

I'm not sure you understands stocks ... your graph clearly shows dividend payments of 53 cent per quarter, or $2.12 per year ... for a 3% return on the $70 stock share ... no, that's not a good return, I don't know why investors thought a company on felony probation was worth $70 a share, they sure did lose though ... them's the breaks ...

[sigh] ... lots of wind power coming down the BPA lines ... big wind farms along the Columbia River ... a windsurfer hotspot with that steady reliable wind up the Gorge ...
 
I'm not sure you understands stocks ... your graph clearly shows dividend payments of 53 cent per quarter, or $2.12 per year ... for a 3% return on the $70 stock share ... no, that's not a good return, I don't know why investors thought a company on felony probation was worth $70 a share, they sure did lose though ... them's the breaks ...

Then you can't read a chart.. The dividend chart shows a HUGE number of dividend adjustments over a 2 or 4 year period.. With the RANGE of dividends going from under 30 cents to 53 cents.. My bet is --- knowing that PGE is about one step short of govt run company -- that the dividends they CAN ISSUE are DICTATED by their utility license... Wanna put a bet on that? In which case it explains those MONTHLY adjustments in the "poor amount" they are paying their investors...

POINT IS -- NOBODY worries about the fucking dividend once their $70 dollar stock PLUMMETS to under $10 a share... Can you calculate that LOSS compared to the paltry dividends????

“PG&E pumped out $4.5 billion in dividends and let the tree budget wither,” [Judge William] Alsup said. [from the bench I might add] ...

Shitty journalism from the Socialist state of Cali that really doesn't care about numbers or accuracy... When you read that $4.5 Billion -- did you ask yourself???

1) Over how many YEARS was this number integrated??
2) What portion of market capitalization is that number on a PER YEAR basis??

Since Public Radio doesn't do numbers or finance well (or science for that matter) -- let me venture a guess..

PGE suspended dividends for quite awhile until 2005... You can find the table here...
PG&E Corporation - Shareholders - Dividend Information

So for the period in question -- that would 12 YEARS from 2005 to 2017.... That's $375Million per year... That's on an operating budget of roughly $15BILL in the years 2014 thru 2016... Lemme work out that out for ya... Hang on, big numbers here .......................................................................

2.5% of operating budget... They spent MORE THAN THAT on compliance and regulations and paperwork...

AND -- it was REQUIRED to capitalize a company that had been CASTRATED by the state for the previous decade making investment in the company a LOT more unattractive....

You sure are a sucker for whispy KQED type reporting aintcha???? I love weekend Public TV and Radio, but the stories they tell are cheese puff predetermined scripts..
 
I'm not sure you understands stocks ... your graph clearly shows dividend payments of 53 cent per quarter, or $2.12 per year ... for a 3% return on the $70 stock share ... no, that's not a good return, I don't know why investors thought a company on felony probation was worth $70 a share, they sure did lose though ... them's the breaks ...

Then you can't read a chart.. The dividend chart shows a HUGE number of dividend adjustments over a 2 or 4 year period.. With the RANGE of dividends going from under 30 cents to 53 cents.. My bet is --- knowing that PGE is about one step short of govt run company -- that the dividends they CAN ISSUE are DICTATED by their utility license... Wanna put a bet on that? In which case it explains those MONTHLY adjustments in the "poor amount" they are paying their investors...

POINT IS -- NOBODY worries about the fucking dividend once their $70 dollar stock PLUMMETS to under $10 a share... Can you calculate that LOSS compared to the paltry dividends????

“PG&E pumped out $4.5 billion in dividends and let the tree budget wither,” [Judge William] Alsup said. [from the bench I might add] ...

Shitty journalism from the Socialist state of Cali that really doesn't care about numbers or accuracy... When you read that $4.5 Billion -- did you ask yourself???

1) Over how many YEARS was this number integrated??
2) What portion of market capitalization is that number on a PER YEAR basis??

Since Public Radio doesn't do numbers or finance well (or science for that matter) -- let me venture a guess..

PGE suspended dividends for quite awhile until 2005... You can find the table here...
PG&E Corporation - Shareholders - Dividend Information

So for the period in question -- that would 12 YEARS from 2005 to 2017.... That's $375Million per year... That's on an operating budget of roughly $15BILL in the years 2014 thru 2016... Lemme work out that out for ya... Hang on, big numbers here .......................................................................

2.5% of operating budget... They spent MORE THAN THAT on compliance and regulations and paperwork...

AND -- it was REQUIRED to capitalize a company that had been CASTRATED by the state for the previous decade making investment in the company a LOT more unattractive....

You sure are a sucker for whispy KQED type reporting aintcha???? I love weekend Public TV and Radio, but the stories they tell are cheese puff predetermined scripts..

So, your claim is that the quote was made up ... Judge Alsup doesn't exist ... 8 people didn't die due to PG&E's gross negligence ... ok, boomer ...

That's on an operating budget of roughly $15BILL in the years 2014 thru 2016 ...

Wrong ... that's revenue ... here's a link to PG&E's Income Statements for that period ... do you know how to read Income Statements? ... scroll down a bit ... there, see, "gross income" has a special meaning for grown-ups, closer to $2.5 billion ... so keep scrolling down, the highlighted row, net income, closer to $1.5 billion ... except for 2018 ... the parentheses around that $6B figure means negative, as in operating loses, PG&E killed some more people and burned down a mess of homes ...

Oh wait ... that citation is from Marketwatch ... another one of those liberal lying cheatin' stealin' sites ... just because you can't agree with them or you'd look uninformed ...

PGE suspended dividends for quite awhile until 2005 ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...
Yeah, Mr Completely Uninformed ... PG&E was in bankruptcy then too ...

Here's some educational material for you to read ... try to catch you up with the subject at hand ... "PG&E's Dividend" --- The Motley Fool --- December 2004 ... "As Milo learned in The Phantom Tollbooth, and I did after performing some due diligence, don't jump to conclusions. It is an easy place to get to, but a difficult place to leave." ...

If it's California regulations that are the problem, why hasn't SoCal Edison and SDG&E filed for bankruptcy? ...
 
So, your claim is that the quote was made up ... Judge Alsup doesn't exist ... 8 people didn't die due to PG&E's gross negligence ... ok, boomer ...

You have a SEVERE reading comp problem.. I have no reason to DOUBT the Judge said that.. You're second problem is that YOU DIDNT KNOW whether that $4.5Bill was over a year, 5 years or what because of shitty journalist research... I fixed that by showing you the 12 year period over which I believe - the judge got that number....

Wrong ... that's revenue ... here's a link to PG&E's Income Statements for that period ... do you know how to read Income Statements? ... scroll down a bit ... there, see, "gross income" has a special meaning for grown-ups, closer to $2.5 billion ... so keep scrolling down, the highlighted row, net income, closer to $1.5 billion ... except for 2018 ... the parentheses around that $6B figure means negative, as in operating loses, PG&E killed some more people and burned down a mess of homes ...

You have a LOT of issues not just with reading comp, but with graphs and tables as well...

I was looking at tables from PGE that had slightly different labels --- but the EXACT SAME numbers...

THE INCOME to PGE in your version says about 16 to 18 Bill per year.. What I'm talking about is OPERATING EXPENSES.. The money that went to MAINTAINING and growing the generation/distribution... The money YOU CLAIM was "stolen" to pay dividends... THOSE numbers ARE in the range of 14 to 15 billion EXACTLY as I stated...

NOBODY CARES for the purpose of this analysis what the DIFFERENCE was (profit or gain).... Only need to show the RELATIVE SIZE of the Operating Expenses vs the Dividends paid... And THAT ration is 2.5% EXACTLY as I calculated it.....

The takeaway unchallenged assertion here is that the yearly dividends paid out during those years represented only 2.5% (or so) of what was spent on the SYSTEM operation and maintenance.... Explain to me how 2.5% to reimburse investors for risk had ANY serious effect on operations....
 
If it's California regulations that are the problem, why hasn't SoCal Edison and SDG&E filed for bankruptcy? ...

You have to ask??? Their distiribution and power gen is a tiny fraction of the PGE burden.. They are largely urban region providers and don't have to fly inspections over the Sierras and foothills to the extent that PGE does... They also have a much more DENSE payee map... Not a lot of 20 house towns in remote areas that have all manner of regulations on avoiding enviro and safety concerns...
 
https://nypost.com/2020/01/08/celeb...to-push-dangerous-climate-change-myth-devine/

A sane look at the fire situation in Australia. As usual, short-sighted environmentalist foolishness is the main culprit. Just like in California.

“Long unburnt fuels in national parks are the primary cause. Basic fire management states that a fire needs oxygen, a heat source and fuel. The only one of those that can be manipulated is fuel. The more fuel, the more intense the fire, the harder it becomes to suppress the fire.”

The facts and evidence STILL manage to get out.. Even with 75% of media in a perpetual hissy fit meltdown.....
 
So, your claim is that the quote was made up ... Judge Alsup doesn't exist ... 8 people didn't die due to PG&E's gross negligence ... ok, boomer ...

You have a SEVERE reading comp problem.. I have no reason to DOUBT the Judge said that.. You're second problem is that YOU DIDNT KNOW whether that $4.5Bill was over a year, 5 years or what because of shitty journalist research... I fixed that by showing you the 12 year period over which I believe - the judge got that number....

Wrong ... that's revenue ... here's a link to PG&E's Income Statements for that period ... do you know how to read Income Statements? ... scroll down a bit ... there, see, "gross income" has a special meaning for grown-ups, closer to $2.5 billion ... so keep scrolling down, the highlighted row, net income, closer to $1.5 billion ... except for 2018 ... the parentheses around that $6B figure means negative, as in operating loses, PG&E killed some more people and burned down a mess of homes ...

You have a LOT of issues not just with reading comp, but with graphs and tables as well...

I was looking at tables from PGE that had slightly different labels --- but the EXACT SAME numbers...

THE INCOME to PGE in your version says about 16 to 18 Bill per year.. What I'm talking about is OPERATING EXPENSES.. The money that went to MAINTAINING and growing the generation/distribution... The money YOU CLAIM was "stolen" to pay dividends... THOSE numbers ARE in the range of 14 to 15 billion EXACTLY as I stated...

NOBODY CARES for the purpose of this analysis what the DIFFERENCE was (profit or gain).... Only need to show the RELATIVE SIZE of the Operating Expenses vs the Dividends paid... And THAT ration is 2.5% EXACTLY as I calculated it.....

The takeaway unchallenged assertion here is that the yearly dividends paid out during those years represented only 2.5% (or so) of what was spent on the SYSTEM operation and maintenance.... Explain to me how 2.5% to reimburse investors for risk had ANY serious effect on operations....

I was right ... you don't know how to read an Income Statement ... sounds like you don't even know what an Income Statement is ... that's not my version, this is information on-file with the SEC and available to the general public ... most all publicly traded corporations have to publish this information at least once a year ... I guess I assumed you've filled out a few Schedule C's in your life and would have a better understanding of all this accounting terminology ... it appears I was wrong ...

Deferred maintenance ... that's not a question, I'd rather not hear what you think of that ...
 
Wet forests don't catch fire easily.
Bull shit... Once the burn (fuel) load reaches critical levels a small fire even in a damp location will become what is known as a crown fire and nothing stops these until the fuel load is gone. The up drafts dry out the fuel load and it feeds itself..
 
Where's the relationship?
Well, when it gets much hotter, then the landscape and vegetation retain less moisture. So fires spread more easily and burn longer.

I gotta tell ya, that didn't take a lot of brain power to puzzle out, my man. Do better.
 
So, your claim is that the quote was made up ... Judge Alsup doesn't exist ... 8 people didn't die due to PG&E's gross negligence ... ok, boomer ...

You have a SEVERE reading comp problem.. I have no reason to DOUBT the Judge said that.. You're second problem is that YOU DIDNT KNOW whether that $4.5Bill was over a year, 5 years or what because of shitty journalist research... I fixed that by showing you the 12 year period over which I believe - the judge got that number....

Wrong ... that's revenue ... here's a link to PG&E's Income Statements for that period ... do you know how to read Income Statements? ... scroll down a bit ... there, see, "gross income" has a special meaning for grown-ups, closer to $2.5 billion ... so keep scrolling down, the highlighted row, net income, closer to $1.5 billion ... except for 2018 ... the parentheses around that $6B figure means negative, as in operating loses, PG&E killed some more people and burned down a mess of homes ...

You have a LOT of issues not just with reading comp, but with graphs and tables as well...

I was looking at tables from PGE that had slightly different labels --- but the EXACT SAME numbers...

THE INCOME to PGE in your version says about 16 to 18 Bill per year.. What I'm talking about is OPERATING EXPENSES.. The money that went to MAINTAINING and growing the generation/distribution... The money YOU CLAIM was "stolen" to pay dividends... THOSE numbers ARE in the range of 14 to 15 billion EXACTLY as I stated...

NOBODY CARES for the purpose of this analysis what the DIFFERENCE was (profit or gain).... Only need to show the RELATIVE SIZE of the Operating Expenses vs the Dividends paid... And THAT ration is 2.5% EXACTLY as I calculated it.....

The takeaway unchallenged assertion here is that the yearly dividends paid out during those years represented only 2.5% (or so) of what was spent on the SYSTEM operation and maintenance.... Explain to me how 2.5% to reimburse investors for risk had ANY serious effect on operations....

I was right ... you don't know how to read an Income Statement ... sounds like you don't even know what an Income Statement is ... that's not my version, this is information on-file with the SEC and available to the general public ... most all publicly traded corporations have to publish this information at least once a year ... I guess I assumed you've filled out a few Schedule C's in your life and would have a better understanding of all this accounting terminology ... it appears I was wrong ...

Deferred maintenance ... that's not a question, I'd rather not hear what you think of that ...

Your might be READING it -- but youre not analyzing the COGENT parts of it to determine if the dividend % is large enough to affect the OPERATING COSTS of the company...

The "bottom line" gain or loss you're focused on simply has NOTHING TO DO with how the dividends tax the company's ability to maintain it's system.... In fact, the dividends come OUT of the "gain or loss" --- NOT AT ALL out of the operating budget and they are even far less than the majority of the company's "gain" if indeed they MAKE one...
 
Where's the relationship?
Well, when it gets much hotter, then the landscape and vegetation retain less moisture. So fires spread more easily and burn longer.

I gotta tell ya, that didn't take a lot of brain power to puzzle out, my man. Do better.

The Australian bush, like Cali brush is "dry enough" EVERY late summer early fall to support MAJOR fires...
Especially with local conditions that prevail like the Santa Ana winds in Cali or the closely located ocean currents around Australia that cycle and affect both temp and humidity.. IN NORMAL YEARS....

What matters is whether the bush or brush get MAINTAINED and managed.... And arson, and just neglectful people STARTING the fires.. Or having a major utility start HUGE fires more than once a decade...

To channel James Carville, "It's the policies and humidity stupid" --- not 1 degC in temperature...
 

Forum List

Back
Top