how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

Saigon won't read it, but for the edification of others re Gslack's sig line:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf

 

[gslack]

. I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal.

That is silly - wind is cheaper than coal everywhere and anywhere and all the time. With or without taxes.

The stats were posted earlier.

BS "stats". Not indicative of actual costs. Again as I said before actual costs would include loss of power due to lack of wind, damages, maintenance, insurance, so on and so forth. The numbers you cherry picked from wikki do not represent any of that.

 

[gslack]

Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.

LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.

Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.

Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?

Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?

What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?

Nope, coal fired or NG powered plants aren't producing power 100 feet or more in the air dumbass. It costs a great deal to get people to do that type of work. Also if a big storm comes the FF or NG powered plants don't risk coming apart and becoming a large projectile. Again INSURANCE!

 

[gslack]

This might be a good time to review energy costs:

Advanced Coal 140 (per MWH)

Coal NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132

Biomass 120

Nuclear 112

Advanced Coal 112

Convention coal 99.6

Wind 96.8

Hydro 89.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this shows why most experts consider coal to be an outmoded technology, and why nuclear, wind, tidal, hydro and natural gas are considered to be the main fuels of the 21st century.

Tidal is not priced here, but pilot programs in Scotland, Korea, New Zealand and China suggest that it may become the cheapest source of energy available.

Nice numbers but the fact it was for "Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017" seems to change things a bit.. LOL,dude are you even capable of honesty anymore?

Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017

Conventional Coal 99.6
Advanced Coal 85 112.2
Advanced Coal with CCS 140.7
Natural Gas Fired
NG: Conventional Combined Cycle 68.6
NG: Advanced Combined Cycle 65.5
NG: Advanced CC with CCS 87 92.8
NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132.0
NG: Advanced Combustion Turbine 105.3
Advanced Nuclear 112.7
Geothermal 99.6
Biomass 83 120.2
Wind1 34 96.8
Solar PV1,2 156.9
Solar Thermal1 251.0
Hydro1 89.9

That's from your link socko.. Why not cite the full list instead of cherry picking?

And the funny part is the numbers are not only estimated but do not reflect actual costs of wind power.It does not reflect insurance. it's a huge tower with big spinning blades and not only a fire hazard but a big airborne fire hazard. Not to mention the damage it can do to birds, and the habitat destruction such wind farms will entail. Oh yes insurance will be a problem. Also where is the maintenance costs? It's meaningless list generated to sell a product..

Your costs are to build new capacity, not to run it. If you never turn them on, fueled sources are pretty cheap. If you do turn them on, fuel and waste disposal are the largest costs.

The only question left is, are you just slow or just deceptive or both?

NO LOL, it's your buddy's list. Or rather the list he cherry-picked numbers from to back his claim. I simply posted the full list to show perspective and his dishonest nature.

Don't like the list? Think it's deceptive? Me too, why not take it up with your pal...

 

[gslack]

Tell us what surrounds our atmosphere if not a vacuum.

Why don't you quit spouting random factoids and go back and explain how "Climate Sensitivity" is not required to predict a temp rise from CO2.. And tell me HOW CERTAIN you are that all your myriad of consensus AGREEE on what this number should be?

OR -- you could refute my observation about the "feedbacks" dominating the temperature projections. ABOVE AND BEYOND the mere injection of some trivial amount of CO2..

After all -- You started this with the silly statement that AGW was "simple" and "obvious"..

And that my bone-headed friend is the topic here... Not interested in your "recollection" of basic physics..

I've changed my mind. You are incapable of understanding simple physics and are educated only in the denial of physics. A conservative media cult exclusive.

Anyone educated in physics would avoid all of your pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and get to the point. Temperature and energy balance. Irrefutable.
All that is needed to describe the problem.

All of the crap that you lay down like a manure spreader on steroids are factors necessary to quantify and predict the timing and consequences and magnitude of what is inevitable. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth must be.

Anyone educated in physics would know that the actual heating on this planet occurs when the short wave EM radiation interacts with the atmosphere and suface. And that is not a vacum.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.

LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.

Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.

Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?

Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?

What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?

Nope, coal fired or NG powered plants aren't producing power 100 feet or more in the air dumbass. It costs a great deal to get people to do that type of work. Also if a big storm comes the FF or NG powered plants don't risk coming apart and becoming a large projectile. Again INSURANCE!

The fact is, if you remove the government subsidies and/or the carbon taxes, there is no place that wind power produces energy anywhere nearly as cheaply or as efficiently as coal, natural gas, and oil. And since we are in no imminent danger of running out of any of the carbon based fuels, it seems the smart thing would be to focus technology on minimizing any environmental damage from the use of them rather than forcing less efficient stuff on us.

When wind energy or solar energy or any other energy source becomes more profitable than carbon based energy, we will see newer forms of energy replacing the old. Profit is a powerful motive to produce new products that work better than the old ones.

 

[itfitzme]

Climate change 101 with Ernest Moniz: ?Count.? | Grist

That’s how "....Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz explained his confidence ....." Moniz replied. “'I know how to count. I can count how many CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel combustion and I know how many additional CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere.'”

Can it be that simple? *It's hotter, there is more CO2, we can count how much is from people, and they are the same.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...

When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....

 

[itfitzme]

The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...

When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....

I forget, what was your explaination for the correlation between CO2 and temp
in last 100 years or so? Coincidence?

Who's was optical computing? Was that you or Westwall?

 

[gslack]

Climate change 101 with Ernest Moniz: ?Count.? | Grist

That’s how "....Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz explained his confidence ....." Moniz replied. “'I know how to count. I can count how many CO2 molecules have gone out from fossil fuel combustion and I know how many additional CO2 molecules are in the atmosphere.'”

Can it be that simple? *It's hotter, there is more CO2, we can count how much is from people, and they are the same.

The bold part is a lie. A bad one.. They have an estimate based on a sampling from the top of an active volcano and which they extrapolate with other readings to get a global estimate. Also, the very bio-components of "fossil fuels" make virtually every deposit vary from another. Meaning they aren't going to produce the exact same amounts of energy or give off the exact same amounts of waste. It's all an estimate, every single bit of it. Anybody who claims otherwise is full of it.

 

[gslack]

The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...

When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....

I forget, what was your explaination for the correlation between CO2 and temp
in last 100 years or so? Coincidence?

Who's was optical computing? Was that you or Westwall?

Simple socko. The correlation is as temperatures rise due to solar and cosmic input increase, CO2 increases, until the solar/cosmic input changes again and then CO2 levels decrease. Simple..

Now dude what happened with your rep? Looks like a socking violation to me...ROFL.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...

When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....

I forget, what was your explaination for the correlation between CO2 and temp
in last 100 years or so? Coincidence?

Who's was optical computing? Was that you or Westwall?

Well considering your level of understanding of correlation versus causation, the temp rise also correlates well with 49 other factors. Like the average mature size of farmed salmon for instance. Why don't you go back a few pages and try to hurt me with an INTELLIGENT rebuttal to the observation that CO2 forcing is NOT a temperature rise without a "Climate Sensitivity number to account for the earth's surface thermal properties.. And tthat YOUR THEORY of GW, can't decide whether this number is closer to 1 or 5 --- but they PRETEND that their graphs and models are "RIGHT SPOT ON"...

Do a little work sucker. And YES --- I have 4 or 5 published papers on Optical Computing. Just ONE of the areas I've been blessed to work in.. Yu wanna discuss? Or just badger?
Be glad to do any number of OTHER areas I've done research and engineering in.. But let's do all that in PMessaging eh?

Respond CAREFULLY -- my anger about losing my Civil Liberties and my country is making me more NEG today than usual....

 

[PMZ]

The dishonesty sometimes involved in the various scenarios the warmers lay out there is amazing. I have been reading glowing reports from left leaning publications, gleefully repeated on all the warmer sites, that wind energy in Australia is now cheaper than coal. But so far I haven't found many, if any, who acknowledge that the primary reason it is cheaper is because of the massive carbon tax imposed on coal- roughly $9 billion for a country with population of fewer than 22 million. Also government regulations on new coal production operations are so expensive as to be prohibitive.

Even with the carbon tax, Australian coal plants built in the 80's or earlier are producing energy more cheaply than the wind energy industry.

Why shouldn't the cost of saving civilization from the consequences of dumping waste carbon in the air not be charged to those saving money by dumping it there?

And add to the loooooooooong list of points that went sailing right over PMZ's head. You need to pay better attention to what your Siamese twin is spouting up there.

Another Bo Jangles class dance to avoid answering a question. That's the problem with indefensible positions. You can't defend them. So, you dance.

 

[PMZ]

Why don't you quit spouting random factoids and go back and explain how "Climate Sensitivity" is not required to predict a temp rise from CO2.. And tell me HOW CERTAIN you are that all your myriad of consensus AGREEE on what this number should be?

OR -- you could refute my observation about the "feedbacks" dominating the temperature projections. ABOVE AND BEYOND the mere injection of some trivial amount of CO2..

After all -- You started this with the silly statement that AGW was "simple" and "obvious"..

And that my bone-headed friend is the topic here... Not interested in your "recollection" of basic physics..

I've changed my mind. You are incapable of understanding simple physics and are educated only in the denial of physics. A conservative media cult exclusive.

Anyone educated in physics would avoid all of your pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and get to the point. Temperature and energy balance. Irrefutable.
All that is needed to describe the problem.

All of the crap that you lay down like a manure spreader on steroids are factors necessary to quantify and predict the timing and consequences and magnitude of what is inevitable. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth must be.

Anyone educated in physics would know that the actual heating on this planet occurs when the short wave EM radiation interacts with the atmosphere and suface. And that is not a vacum.

Anyone educated in physics would know that that has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[PMZ]

Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.

LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.

Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.

Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?

Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?

What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?

Nope, coal fired or NG powered plants aren't producing power 100 feet or more in the air dumbass. It costs a great deal to get people to do that type of work. Also if a big storm comes the FF or NG powered plants don't risk coming apart and becoming a large projectile. Again INSURANCE!

How much did you say a dedicated coal fired power plant for your house would cost?

 

[PMZ]

Are you saying that fossil fueled power plans are maintenance free?

Why are you comparing a dedicated industrial windmill to distributed central power?

What would it cost to build and run a dedicated coal plant for your house?

Nope, coal fired or NG powered plants aren't producing power 100 feet or more in the air dumbass. It costs a great deal to get people to do that type of work. Also if a big storm comes the FF or NG powered plants don't risk coming apart and becoming a large projectile. Again INSURANCE!

The fact is, if you remove the government subsidies and/or the carbon taxes, there is no place that wind power produces energy anywhere nearly as cheaply or as efficiently as coal, natural gas, and oil. And since we are in no imminent danger of running out of any of the carbon based fuels, it seems the smart thing would be to focus technology on minimizing any environmental damage from the use of them rather than forcing less efficient stuff on us.

When wind energy or solar energy or any other energy source becomes more profitable than carbon based energy, we will see newer forms of energy replacing the old. Profit is a powerful motive to produce new products that work better than the old ones.

To compare costs, first fossil fueled plants have to be charged the cost of the consequences of their choices. The wars to defend their supplies, the consequences of dumping their waste into our atmosphere. That will be done by some version of carbon taxes. Then we'll let economics decide the issue. But, business has already decided. Nobody is investing in fossil fuels anymore. All investment is going to sustainable.

 

[PMZ]

The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...

When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....

I've told you several times, all aparently over your head.

You have no interest in the physics. Only in the denial of AGW. That's what ignorance does to you.

 

[PMZ]

There are only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.

Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.

Radiant energy in comes only from the sun.

Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space.

The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.

Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more.

That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.

 

[itfitzme]

The Sesame Street Big Book of Global Warming Theory? Global Warming for Dummies.. Maybe...*

When you learn what the theory actually is and purports to predict --- come back and tell how simple it is....

I forget, what was your explaination for the correlation between CO2 and temp
in last 100 years or so? *Coincidence?

Who's was optical computing? Was that you or Westwall?

Well considering your level of understanding of correlation versus causation, the temp rise also correlates well with 49 other factors. Like the average mature size of farmed salmon for instance. Why don't you go back a few pages and try to hurt me with an INTELLIGENT rebuttal to the observation that CO2 forcing is NOT a temperature rise without a "Climate Sensitivity number to account for the earth's surface thermal properties.. And tthat YOUR THEORY of GW, can't decide whether this number is closer to 1 or 5 --- but they PRETEND that their graphs and models are "RIGHT SPOT ON"...*

Do a little work sucker. And YES --- I have 4 or 5 published papers on Optical Computing. Just ONE of the areas I've been blessed to work in.. Yu wanna discuss? Or just badger?
Be glad to do any number of OTHER areas I've done research and engineering in.. But let's do all that in PMessaging eh?

Respond CAREFULLY -- my anger about losing my Civil Liberties and my country is making me more NEG today than usual....

Why would you want me to "hurt" you? What id wrong with you?

I'm not the one trying to play myself of as being brilliant.*

So you have published papers on optical computing, whoopty doo. *So why are you wasting your time on an internet forum?

What, you get put in a mental hospital?

Lots of things can be correlated without causality. *CPI is correlated with population growth. *But its meaningless because the are both simply functions that are grounded in exponential growth and they are part of entirely different systems. *This leads us nowhere as it simply says that in general, there are correlations that aren't causal. Woopty do...*

That's not the issue of interest. *The issue of interest is why is temp correlated with CO2 in the last century.

Here, I'll give you a basic clue to causality. *When two quantities of the same system are correlated, the probability is that there is a causal factor between the two.

No, seriously, what is wrong with you? *Why are you so pissed of at the world that your looking for some random person to take it out on?

Do you seriously think anyone is going to find you interesting or fun like this?

 

[gslack]

I've changed my mind. You are incapable of understanding simple physics and are educated only in the denial of physics. A conservative media cult exclusive.

Anyone educated in physics would avoid all of your pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo and get to the point. Temperature and energy balance. Irrefutable.
All that is needed to describe the problem.

All of the crap that you lay down like a manure spreader on steroids are factors necessary to quantify and predict the timing and consequences and magnitude of what is inevitable. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth must be.

Anyone educated in physics would know that the actual heating on this planet occurs when the short wave EM radiation interacts with the atmosphere and suface. And that is not a vacum.

Anyone educated in physics would know that that has nothing to do with what I said.

Really socko? Funny but you stated vacum several times, you even tried to use a partial and inaccurate take on emissivity and absorption in a vacum when you tried to inaccurately state your ludicrous claim.

You're tiresome socko. You state bits of partial knowledge, and even the parts you actually use, are garbled in one form or another. You cited Botlzmann and implied it was your own, then you tried to use blackbody radiation, and now it's emissivity and absorption in a vacum. And when you are called on it you go into some grandstanding rant using generalities that make little to no real point. You pretend you're a scientist yet you speak like failed politician.

At what point can we expect you to start showing the scientist you pretend to be?