Scientific American, Mann hockey stick graph

[Old Rocks]

Lordy, lordy, Mdn, you are really intent on proving yourself to be a total idiot.

Over 7% of Oregon's power is now supplied by wind. As for the rest of your drivel, whatever you are smoking has completely fried your brain.

Oooh ... a whole 7% ... that's so much ... what will they do with all that extra power ...


... I know, stop having to buy 50% of it from our coal plants here in Washington.

So far Old Crock has yet to prove this, I challenged you when you stated Oregon can supply power to all of seattle and portland, that was a pure lie, sure you linked to an article but the article was nothing but propaganda.

Oregon has installed enough wind mills that have the potential to supply 7% of Oregon's power, yet they do not, they supply less than 1%.

Still to put this is perspective Old Crock must tell us how much energy is used to produce one ton of fiberglass.

Old Crock if you are as smart as you say you are how come you cannot answer one basic question on the science you claim to know so much about.

The answer to my question proves beyond any doubt that Wind farms suck. Hell they only provide power 6% of the year, thats it. In theory they disregard that the wind does not blow all year at sufficient force to spin the windmill.

So how much energy and which types does it take to produce one ton of fiberglass. Cant answer than you are all full of shit.

Idiot.

Wind power grows but still a small percentage of market - Natural Resource Report

Wind power grows but still a small percentage of market
August 24, 2009

By Natural Resource Report,

According to the latest statistics from the Energy Information Agency, non-hydroelectric renewable power provided three percent of total electricity generated in the U.S. for 2008 up from 2.5 percent in 2007.The growing importance of state renewable portfolio standards and the proposals for a national renewable energy standard have sparked an interest in the share of U.S. generation provided by renewable energy.

As seen in Oregon, wind power accounted for the greatest increase in capacity. By the end of 2008, wind power provided 1.3 percent of total U.S. generation (from all energy sources) up from 0.4 percent in 2004. Total wind capacity stood at 23,847 megawatts at year’s end, up from just 6,456 megawatts in 2004.

Oregon is ranked seventh in the nation with 5.4 percent of electricity generated coming from wind power. Wind accounted for 42 percent of the new power added nationwide in 2008, the highest level ever.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lordy, lordy, Mdn, you are really intent on proving yourself to be a total idiot.

Over 7% of Oregon's power is now supplied by wind. As for the rest of your drivel, whatever you are smoking has completely fried your brain.

Oooh ... a whole 7% ... that's so much ... what will they do with all that extra power ...


... I know, stop having to buy 50% of it from our coal plants here in Washington.

So far Old Crock has yet to prove this, I challenged you when you stated Oregon can supply power to all of seattle and portland, that was a pure lie, sure you linked to an article but the article was nothing but propaganda.

Oregon has installed enough wind mills that have the potential to supply 7% of Oregon's power, yet they do not, they supply less than 1%.

Still to put this is perspective Old Crock must tell us how much energy is used to produce one ton of fiberglass.

Old Crock if you are as smart as you say you are how come you cannot answer one basic question on the science you claim to know so much about.

The answer to my question proves beyond any doubt that Wind farms suck. Hell they only provide power 6% of the year, thats it. In theory they disregard that the wind does not blow all year at sufficient force to spin the windmill.

So how much energy and which types does it take to produce one ton of fiberglass. Cant answer than you are all full of shit.

My, my, Mdn, still proving yourself an idiot incapable of using the tool setting right in front of you.

BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone | Oregon Business News - - OregonLive.com


BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
By Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian
August 12, 2009, 4:55PM
The Bonneville Power Administration says the wind farms plugged into its transmission system blew past a notable milestone earlier this month, sending out 2,000 megawatts of electricity for more than an hour.

That's enough to power all of Seattle and Portland for that hour.

The 22 wind farms in eastern Oregon and Washington hit a new peak of 2,089 megawatts on the evening of Aug. 6., doubling the previous peak of 1,000 megawatts recorded in January 2008.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oooh ... a whole 7% ... that's so much ... what will they do with all that extra power ...


... I know, stop having to buy 50% of it from our coal plants here in Washington.

So far Old Crock has yet to prove this, I challenged you when you stated Oregon can supply power to all of seattle and portland, that was a pure lie, sure you linked to an article but the article was nothing but propaganda.

Oregon has installed enough wind mills that have the potential to supply 7% of Oregon's power, yet they do not, they supply less than 1%.

Still to put this is perspective Old Crock must tell us how much energy is used to produce one ton of fiberglass.

Old Crock if you are as smart as you say you are how come you cannot answer one basic question on the science you claim to know so much about.

The answer to my question proves beyond any doubt that Wind farms suck. Hell they only provide power 6% of the year, thats it. In theory they disregard that the wind does not blow all year at sufficient force to spin the windmill.

So how much energy and which types does it take to produce one ton of fiberglass. Cant answer than you are all full of shit.

He won't answer ... he can't answer, and I think Oregon also buys a lot of energy from California, but that's just an assumption on my part. I have always hated Oregon buying our energy ... it's driving our costs up.

Ah, Sweet Kitten, everything is just an assumption on your part. You never post links to back up your BS.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is your position? Articulate it.

Man-made CO2 is causing the earth to warm. This could be disasterous, depending on the activity level of the Sun. We need to move toward alternative made-in-America energy sources and CONSERVATION. We waste an enormous amount of energy.

We have the technology available to us now, and in the long run it will help us because we won't be as dependent on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is the greatest national security problem we face.

The part highlighted in blue is very likely just wrong. Man Made CO2 is only about 3% of the total emitted annually. The other 97% will continue if the man made part stops entirely which it won't.

The part in red, I heartily agree with.

You are comparing cyclic CO2 to sequestered CO2 emission, as you well know. At present, about 40% of the present CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of the burning of fossil fuels in the last 150 years.

 

[mdn2000]

Man-made CO2 is causing the earth to warm. This could be disasterous, depending on the activity level of the Sun. We need to move toward alternative made-in-America energy sources and CONSERVATION. We waste an enormous amount of energy.

We have the technology available to us now, and in the long run it will help us because we won't be as dependent on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is the greatest national security problem we face.

The part highlighted in blue is very likely just wrong. Man Made CO2 is only about 3% of the total emitted annually. The other 97% will continue if the man made part stops entirely which it won't.

The part in red, I heartily agree with.

You are comparing cyclic CO2 to sequestered CO2 emission, as you well know. At present, about 40% of the present CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of the burning of fossil fuels in the last 150 years.

So where are you in LOL, or the other Geothermal thread, I dont blame old crock for calling me names, after all, it must hurt old crock to be shown to be lacking in intelligence time after time, its so easy, wind power, where are your facts, I dont need a source old crock, all your sources so far are nothing more than a Dear Abbey column.

Wind Power, lets take an intelligent look at wind power and have a real debate, Old Crock will run from this, Old Crock knows nothing of what he speaks.

To begin you must know how much energy is used to create one wind mill, lets break this down to its simplist terms so that we dont lose old crock. Let us look at one material at a time and as we debate each material we can move on.

Lets start with the material that makes up 99% of the wind mill, fiberglass.

Lets look at one ton of fiberglass.

Old Crock is the self proclaimed expert on hot air, or wind in general so Old Crock goes first, first Old Crock answers a question establishing a rudimentary knowledge of what we speak than Old Crock asks a question of me.

My question to the wind expert is how much energy and of which types does it take to make one ton of fiberglass.

So we will wait for this very simple answer from old crock

 

[Oddball]

Old Crock is the self proclaimed expert on hot air, or wind in general so Old Crock goes first, first Old Crock answers a question establishing a rudimentary knowledge of what we speak than Old Crock asks a question of me.

My question to the wind expert is how much energy and of which types does it take to make one ton of fiberglass.

So we will wait for this very simple answer from old crock

Still waiting for any of the enviro-wackaloons to point out the metals smelter that is fired on anything other than coal or gas, since the towers and armature windings are made of refined metals.

 

[mdn2000]

Oooh ... a whole 7% ... that's so much ... what will they do with all that extra power ...


... I know, stop having to buy 50% of it from our coal plants here in Washington.

So far Old Crock has yet to prove this, I challenged you when you stated Oregon can supply power to all of seattle and portland, that was a pure lie, sure you linked to an article but the article was nothing but propaganda.

Oregon has installed enough wind mills that have the potential to supply 7% of Oregon's power, yet they do not, they supply less than 1%.

Still to put this is perspective Old Crock must tell us how much energy is used to produce one ton of fiberglass.

Old Crock if you are as smart as you say you are how come you cannot answer one basic question on the science you claim to know so much about.

The answer to my question proves beyond any doubt that Wind farms suck. Hell they only provide power 6% of the year, thats it. In theory they disregard that the wind does not blow all year at sufficient force to spin the windmill.

So how much energy and which types does it take to produce one ton of fiberglass. Cant answer than you are all full of shit.

He won't answer ... he can't answer, and I think Oregon also buys a lot of energy from California, but that's just an assumption on my part. I have always hated Oregon buying our energy ... it's driving our costs up.

You are wrong about the buying power from California, California and Oregon are buying power out of state from coal burning plants to make up the ever increasing deficit of our own power production. That is the dirty little secret, for every wind mill built a coal plant provides back up power, of course back up power is not the correct term, all green energy sources need a source that is capable of providing power when the wind is not of sufficient force or the sun is not shining, to avoid lawsuits, thats a 100% backup. Edison and Cal Energy is great example, Edison refused to pay Cal Energy for power after Cal Energy's salton sea plants could not provide the power as specified in a contract. Over two months of lost power that edison had to go elsewhere to purchase at a much higher price.

So where is Old Crock's expertise on the basics of the science he proposes.

How much energy and which types are needed to produce one ton of fiberglass Old Crock.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mdn, you provide endless bullshit without a single referance to back up your position. Simply because those referances do not exist. All you are is a simpleton blowhard. Ignorant and proud of it.

 

[mdn2000]

Old Crock is a big idiot, once again old crock proves himself wrong, you have to read the article mornon.

Tingley’s result resembles the same basic hockey-stick shape as previous reconstructions, except that it has more variability in the past

More variabllity, less reliability, looser parameters so the data is easier to manipulate

his analysis suggests

His analysis as in his opinion of his data, suggests is also not proof, given more variability of course his analysis can suggest anything.



May help as in does not, this analysis using a novel approach does not remove the lingering doubts, hence the use of the word may.



data is admitted sparse and incomplete, no wonder at best this may help but not remove the doubt about global warming.



See anything that even suggests proof in this quote



This new method makes assumptions, nice non-scientific method.

we attempt to estimate how probable certain temperatures were

So these folks are not sceintists, assuming, attempting, estimating, what they beleive probable.

Tingley typically had to manipulate about one million matrices,

To maybe prove and assume an estimate of what they beleive

This article proves old crock is wrong once agaian.

This article states that these global warming kooks assume, use proxy data, estimate, manipulate, the data to get a preconceived result.

This article states its just a guess that the last decades were warmer.

A guess, you beleive this, and in took millions of manipulations to even get to a guess that still is just an estimate, at best.

So the last decades are not even proven warmer.

All these quotes are from Old Crocks source, Old Crock did not respond to this. Why should I provide a source when Old Crock's own source proves Old Crock wrong. I did this here, I did this in Geothermal, I did this in the C02 thread, I did this in LOL. I have been using Old Crock's sources. Whats wrong with that, nothing.

So I can take your name calling, watch this thread, I will cut and past all the other posts Old Crock is unable to defend.

How about that salton sea geothermal plant, I stated that geothermal is extremely dirty and old crock stated that the salton sea geothermal plant had a design flaw, being that there are many geothermal plants at the salton sea I asked a simple question of old crock, which plant are you refering to, Old Crock refused to answer, being of low intelligence and having bad memory old crock waited a week and in the same thread posted a ten year old article stating the profit to be made at a Cal Energy plant and its Zinc recovery plant. Dumb ass Old Crock unwittingly posted the plant with the design flaw, this 400 million dollar plant failed and never operated, the zinc recovery which was to offset the negative balance sheets of geothermal had to be shutdown, this was the plant with the design flaw that OLD CROCk used earlier in the thread, old crocks states the plant is flawed than forgets, than unwittingly used an aritcle ten years old that was a simple article used to attract investors, the plant never worked, geothermal never made a profit, old crock has yet to respond.

So who is the fool, the dumb ass old crock who must use ten year old articles, the dumb ass old crock who states Cal Energy's geothermal plant has a design flaw, than states the same plant makes a profit, and the said plant never ever worked.

Or how about when Old Crock said Bloomquist made mistakes when Bloomquist stated hidden costs that Geothermal producers hide, prior to Old Crock "discrediting" Bloomquist Old Crock used an article by Bloomquist and touted Bloomquist as an expert, another major screw up, to state the man is an expert and than attempt to discredit the same man's work, with the same man's work.

Old Crock can call me names, what I do is show how Old Crock is a moron using old crocks contradictory posts, lack or reading his own sources, and Old Crock's lack of knowledge in all he posts.

Go to LOL old crock and respond.

tell us how much energy and of which types it takes to make a ton of fiberglass

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/92812-lol-7.html#post1696844

 

[Chris]

What is your position? Articulate it.

Man-made CO2 is causing the earth to warm. This could be disasterous, depending on the activity level of the Sun. We need to move toward alternative made-in-America energy sources and CONSERVATION. We waste an enormous amount of energy.

We have the technology available to us now, and in the long run it will help us because we won't be as dependent on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is the greatest national security problem we face.

The part highlighted in blue is very likely just wrong. Man Made CO2 is only about 3% of the total emitted annually. The other 97% will continue if the man made part stops entirely which it won't.

The part in red, I heartily agree with.

No, you are wrong.

CO2 causes the earth to warm, and we have almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is because we have upset the balance of CO2 by adding more every second of every day since the industrial revolution.

Atmospheric CO2 is now at its highest level in 600,000 years.

 

[mdn2000]

Man-made CO2 is causing the earth to warm. This could be disasterous, depending on the activity level of the Sun. We need to move toward alternative made-in-America energy sources and CONSERVATION. We waste an enormous amount of energy.

We have the technology available to us now, and in the long run it will help us because we won't be as dependent on foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is the greatest national security problem we face.

The part highlighted in blue is very likely just wrong. Man Made CO2 is only about 3% of the total emitted annually. The other 97% will continue if the man made part stops entirely which it won't.

The part in red, I heartily agree with.

No, you are wrong.

CO2 causes the earth to warm, and we have almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is because we have upset the balance of CO2 by adding more every second of every day since the industrial revolution.

Atmospheric CO2 is now at its highest level in 600,000 years.

I agree Chris, building thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of windmills has more than doubled the C02.

I pass the ball to you Chris, tell the folks how many tons of fiberglass went into the production of windmills this year, tell the folks how much energy was used to produce the fiberglass, tell the folks which types of energy were used to produce the fiberglass.

Thats right assholes, man has doubled, tripled, quadrupled the C02, now my freind Chris who is the expert will tell us how many tons of fiberglass was used.

Go ahead Chris, your turn.

 

[Old Rocks]

Old Crock is the self proclaimed expert on hot air, or wind in general so Old Crock goes first, first Old Crock answers a question establishing a rudimentary knowledge of what we speak than Old Crock asks a question of me.

My question to the wind expert is how much energy and of which types does it take to make one ton of fiberglass.

So we will wait for this very simple answer from old crock

Still waiting for any of the enviro-wackaloons to point out the metals smelter that is fired on anything other than coal or gas, since the towers and armature windings are made of refined metals.

I have worked in two steel mills. Both were fired with electricity. In fact, most melting of the primary source, ore or scrap, or any combination of those, are done in electric furnaces today.

http://www.stahlwerk-thueringen.de/files/File/2704_besu_engl.pdf

 

[Oddball]

How did electricity produce the coke to make the steel, genius?

 

[KittenKoder]

How did electricity produce the coke to make the steel, genius?

Dude, you're talking to someone who knows nothing about the science he reads.

 

[Chris]

How did electricity produce the coke to make the steel, genius?

Dude, you're talking to someone who knows nothing about the science he reads.

You are the one who knows nothing.

 

[KittenKoder]

How did electricity produce the coke to make the steel, genius?

Dude, you're talking to someone who knows nothing about the science he reads.

You are the one who knows nothing.

Yeah ... tell me this, do you even know what a processor looks like on the inside? Much less how one works?

 

[mdn2000]

Old Crock is the self proclaimed expert on hot air, or wind in general so Old Crock goes first, first Old Crock answers a question establishing a rudimentary knowledge of what we speak than Old Crock asks a question of me.

My question to the wind expert is how much energy and of which types does it take to make one ton of fiberglass.

So we will wait for this very simple answer from old crock

Still waiting for any of the enviro-wackaloons to point out the metals smelter that is fired on anything other than coal or gas, since the towers and armature windings are made of refined metals.

I have worked in two steel mills. Both were fired with electricity. In fact, most melting of the primary source, ore or scrap, or any combination of those, are done in electric furnaces today.

http://www.stahlwerk-thueringen.de/files/File/2704_besu_engl.pdf

I am surprised, I wont follow your link though, too many of your links have proved nothing, I will leave that comment be.

So how much electricity is used in one steel mill in one day. What was the name of the plants you worked at.

I would still like to hear you tell us how much energy and of what types are used to make one ton of fiberglass.

 

[Chris]

Dude, you're talking to someone who knows nothing about the science he reads.

You are the one who knows nothing.

Yeah ... tell me this, do you even know what a processor looks like on the inside? Much less how one works?

Do you even know what the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 is?

 

[mdn2000]

Old Crock is the self proclaimed expert on hot air, or wind in general so Old Crock goes first, first Old Crock answers a question establishing a rudimentary knowledge of what we speak than Old Crock asks a question of me.

My question to the wind expert is how much energy and of which types does it take to make one ton of fiberglass.

So we will wait for this very simple answer from old crock

Still waiting for any of the enviro-wackaloons to point out the metals smelter that is fired on anything other than coal or gas, since the towers and armature windings are made of refined metals.

I have worked in two steel mills. Both were fired with electricity. In fact, most melting of the primary source, ore or scrap, or any combination of those, are done in electric furnaces today.

http://www.stahlwerk-thueringen.de/files/File/2704_besu_engl.pdf

You know old crock, fuck off, its over and over with you, you post a source and do not read your own source, you worked in two all electric steel mills, bullshit. I was not going to look at this source but I knew you were nothing but a moron. Here I go again, I will qoute Old Crock's source, Old Crock's source describes the most modern steel plant in the world. Of course the first plant using this technology was built in the USA in Indiana by Nucor steel. No one else thought the "continous roll" process would work. Check out the book "American Steel".

Now to quote Old Crock's source, showing once again that Old Crock never reads his own sources which shows Old Crock has knows nothing about energy and even less about the fairy tale "green energy".

The smelting shop
The electric arc furnace is charged with two containers of recycled steel per cycle; the
furnace needs approx. 50 minutes to convert this material into 120 metric tons of
molten steel. The furnace works on the direct current electric arc furnace principle. An
electric arc is generated between a graphite electrode with a diameter of 750 mm and
the bottom of the furnace which functions as the anode. This energy, supplemented by
natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrap

Before rolling, the beam blanks - both our own as well as those from external suppliers
- are placed in a natural gas fired pusher furnace where they are heated to a temperature
of approximately 1,200 °C.

So there you have it, no iron smelting plant exists that uses only electricity, hence the fairy tale of green energy being sustainable in the future is pure fantasy.

 

[Chris]

Still waiting for any of the enviro-wackaloons to point out the metals smelter that is fired on anything other than coal or gas, since the towers and armature windings are made of refined metals.

I have worked in two steel mills. Both were fired with electricity. In fact, most melting of the primary source, ore or scrap, or any combination of those, are done in electric furnaces today.

http://www.stahlwerk-thueringen.de/files/File/2704_besu_engl.pdf

You know old crock, fuck off, its over and over with you, you post a source and do not read your own source, you worked in two all electric steel mills, bullshit. I was not going to look at this source but I knew you were nothing but a moron. Here I go again, I will qoute Old Crock's source, Old Crock's source describes the most modern steel plant in the world. Of course the first plant using this technology was built in the USA in Indiana by Nucor steel. No one else thought the "continous roll" process would work. Check out the book "American Steel".

Now to quote Old Crock's source, showing once again that Old Crock never reads his own sources which shows Old Crock has knows nothing about energy and even less about the fairy tale "green energy".

The smelting shop
The electric arc furnace is charged with two containers of recycled steel per cycle; the
furnace needs approx. 50 minutes to convert this material into 120 metric tons of
molten steel. The furnace works on the direct current electric arc furnace principle. An
electric arc is generated between a graphite electrode with a diameter of 750 mm and
the bottom of the furnace which functions as the anode. This energy, supplemented by
natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrap

So there you have it, no iron smelting plant exists that uses only electricity, hence the fairy tale of green energy being sustainable in the future is pure fantasy.

Speaking of fairy tales....

The only thing that is pure fantasy is the believe that we will not move forward, because we will.

Green energy is coming, and you can't stop it.