nothing magical. they simply underestimated how much heat the oceans would absorb. turns out right now about 80% of the energy is going into the oceans. the models previous to the correct anticpated a fair less than that. this turns out to be a big deal because with the ocean warming so much faster than expected, certain other processes will also speed up. there's also the bit about oxygen content (warmer water holds less O2....bad thing for fish), and changing currents.
A refresher for your ignorance: They weren't ignored. The scientists just didnt realize just how much they would be affected. When running climate models, about 10 years ago they noticed the models at the time were diverging from observed conditions. Essentially, the models were predicting higher temperatures than what we were seeing. We know how much energy was going into the system, but for some reason we werent observing the energy in the real world. It was missing.
Turns out, they underestimated how much of that energy the oceans would absorb. They noticed that while air temperatures increased at a lesser rate than expected, oceans were warming more than expected. Thus, they realized more of the heat was going into the oceans.
The models have since been adjusted, and once again the predictions and the actual observational data once again tracking together.
Predict, observe, adjust. No magic required. Just science.
No, we didnt survive. Because that last time it was this hot we didnt exist. It has never been hotter on earth during the existence of humans or polar bears. The "medieval warm period" was colder than today, and it only affected northern europe whereas global warming is.....global. No, it is not cooling. No, the models do NOT fail to predict the current trends. In fact, the models accurately recreate all conditions seen from 1900 to present. Again: you are wrong, and full of crap.
There's a reason facts become talking points. Being a talking point in no way reduces their legitimacy. Your words are the response of one who has neither a legitimate counter argument, nor counter facts with which to argue his position. In short, youre no better than the trolls khallow and lynnroosterwhatever, and just as ignorant.
No, my link was to the DOE's own analysis of ALL their loans as presented to the Congress in an official hearing. The only reason you can't find anything is because you didnt bother to read a single source document that I provided. You're stupidity is almost as bad khallow's.
Private sector: 70% failure is acceptable and usually still yields a profit. DOE: 11% is the goal. They achieved only 3%.
Again: Solyndra and the couple of others that failed represent only 3% of all funds the DOE loaned out.
Minor footnote? This is one of the most successful loan programs the government has ever run. The few that failed did so because of the Chinese flooding the market with cheap panels they couldn't compete with. Meanwhile they've had more than 19 others that are unequivocal successes, right now, today, including Tesla Motors the most famous example.
The EPA isnt responsible for the windmills. They also arent the ones to blame for your eagles, niether the enforcement of having a feather, nor for the ones hit by the windmills.
You didnt vote for the military either. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence. You didnt vote for the IRS either. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence (like it not, someone has to collect the revenues). You didnt vote for the Dept of Treasury. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence. You didnt vote for the FBI. But you enjoy the benefit of their and other law enforcement's presence. You didnt vote for the FCC. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence every time you sit down to the watch the game at night. You didnt vote for the FDA. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence, everytime you eat a steak or take a drug without dying.
I could go on. There's a lot of independent agencies with different tasks.
Point is this: The EPA is an independent agency with essentially one mission: Enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. That means dealing with pollution. That means regulating the creators of pollution.
When it comes to our electric grid coal generates ~40% of our juice. At the same time, it's our single biggest source of air pollution, coming to nearly 65%. It also generates a lot more than just air pollution. There's the mercury and other toxic chemicals released. There's the waste slag, and dirtied water. the coal ash waste.
There's all the infrastructure to support coal burning: -mining: Miners work in a.... less than ideal... environment shall we say. Their health problems really dont need repeating; they're legendary. That costs the economy (and taxpayers) money. -transporting: takes fuel to get it around. -washing: remember the little accident they had in WVa, minor spill...contaminated 300,000 people drinking water? Bunch of folks got sick? Kind of a big deal. There's more but you get the idea.
So again: The EPA is charge of dealing with the environment, and that means regulating the creators of pollution. They do this because most people rather dislike the idea of losing cities to rising seas. They dislike the idea of the planet getting warmer, shifting weather patterns, killing crops, reducing food supply, making places uninhabitable, increasing population pressures, decreasing water availabilty, sparking conflicts.
In short: the idea of potentially losing the human race, of pushing so far we can't recover, is kind of a bad idea. There is no argument you can make that absolves you of that. That makes it ok.
No it's not going to be easy. After you break a window, is it easy to put it back together? Is it free? Is it without consequences? But does that difficulty mean you should do nothing?
The only thing in your favor is this: you post quite clearly communicates that you have little idea of what the EPA even does, how our government and agencies work, what the problems facing us are.
In short: you are ignorant and need to just. shut. up.
Solyndra is a bullshit distraction from reality for conservatives appealing to their base and ignoring facts.
Fact: Typical, average, VC firm turns a profit with a 30% success rate, depending of course on individual circumstances. Fact: The DOE loan program is rocking a 97% success rate to date.
Yes Solyndra failed. Epically. But the program as a whole is succeeding. Epically.
Therefore, repetition of Solyndra, just like Benghazi, just like the IRS, just like most everything else, is nothing more than handy diagnostic tool to determine how intelligent and well informed someone is.
The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.
The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)
The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)
Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, J
The government didnt plan to lose money. In fact, the government didlost lose money at all. The energy program that the Solyndra loans were a part of has not only NOT lost money, it's turned a profit with the overwhelming majority of participating companies repaying their loans in full. Tesla is merely the most famous example. So once again, you prove yourself an ignorant dingbat.
Yes. I been saying that a lot, and anyone working in the highway sector is well familiar with how poular it is to raid the HTF, both at the Federal, and local equivalents as well.
But, the tax rate is also too low. Simply stopping the raiding wont solve all the shortfalls.
(side note: it doesnt happen with social security. its physicall illegal. it may be a popular myth, but its wrong, and stems frm ignorance of the workings of SSA's funding)
because highways and bridges, etc, still need repair, even in poorer states. most projects, both repair and replacement, are collaborations, which one chunk of funding coming from the state, another from county and even city, and another from the Fed.
do you recall what roads were like prior to this system of collaborating on funds? do you recall just WHY Route 66 (and the rest of the US HWY system) and then later the Interstate system were such a big deal?
its precisely BECAUSE the fed left it to states, and states left it to counties and cities, and if they were too poor to handle it, "oh well". a hodge podge of quality and quantity. transport was a mess.
thats why collaboration of funding is so useful. it helps level the burden, sharing hte burden between richer and poorer communities, countries, and states, to make the system as a whole function better. It very much does act as a redistribution, and its a good thing.
but, the federal highway fund is perpetually underfunded lately (past 20+ years), because its paid for by the gas tax. and they continually raid the fund for other (non infrastructure) programs. those things need to stop, so we can once again have a transport system that is the envy of the world. killing the system by undefunding it and then blaming it for poor performance is just like congress's attempts to kill the Post Office by by pointing to its poor performance, when that poor performance has been directly caused not by the post office, but by the congress itself as it hamstrings them at every turn.
and it spent over 2 trillion, so there's still a deficit to cover. but this isnt about the larger bugetary issues. this is about the federal gas tax and the federal highway fund which it's intended to fill.
problem is, the fed gas tax is a flat rate and hasn't been adjusted for decades.
second problem is the fed highway fund is perpetually short on cash, both due to underfunding (tax isnt high enough to meet needs) and due to it being one of the first funds raided by other programs for funding. this leaves it perpetually short on funds, limiting how much actual infrastructure repair and replacement can occur in a year, putting a larger burden on states (because projects are frequently a collaboration). states that can afford to share a larger portion of the cost fare better than those that cant. but poorer states still need working infrastructure, which is one reason the federal fund exists, to act as a leveler redistributing excess funds from richer states to poorer ones to keep the highways and bridges functional at least in theory, cause like said, its perpetually underfunded.
so when they talk about our infrastructure sucking and being woefully inadequate to our needs, in need of repalcement or repair? THIS is one of the chief contributors to that problem.
It needed to be 18c 10 years ago, and that was at a minimum. probably needs be around 25c by now.
One of the other major reforms needed is the federal highway fund needs to be made offlimits to other departments spending requirements. thats another major reason its perpetually deficient, is its one of hte first places they raid for funds for other things.
Fox is acting like its big news, but really, anyone whos had to deal with government computer networks shouldnt be surprised by any of this.
Government computers die all the time. Cause they suck. Old peices of trash. Horrible software bloat too, things required to run in background for security. And government IT's solution nearly always the same: Wipe it and reimage it, or "here, have a new(ish) computer. the emails arent even stored on the personal issued computer anyway, they're on the server. And those serves go down a LOT. The backups frequently dont work, or get lost; I cant tell you how many times I've lost stuff on the server drive. Plus employees all the time ignore protocols that get in the way of productivity ("must scan now" "must backup now" "dont turn off" are frequently met by "end task sucker, i got work to do"). Much like any large business.
Slashdot Mirror
nothing magical.
they simply underestimated how much heat the oceans would absorb.
turns out right now about 80% of the energy is going into the oceans.
the models previous to the correct anticpated a fair less than that.
this turns out to be a big deal because with the ocean warming so much faster than expected, certain other processes will also speed up. there's also the bit about oxygen content (warmer water holds less O2....bad thing for fish), and changing currents.
And now sumdumass is joining the troll game.
A refresher for your ignorance:
They weren't ignored. The scientists just didnt realize just how much they would be affected.
When running climate models, about 10 years ago they noticed the models at the time were diverging from observed conditions. Essentially, the models were predicting higher temperatures than what we were seeing. We know how much energy was going into the system, but for some reason we werent observing the energy in the real world. It was missing.
Turns out, they underestimated how much of that energy the oceans would absorb.
They noticed that while air temperatures increased at a lesser rate than expected, oceans were warming more than expected.
Thus, they realized more of the heat was going into the oceans.
The models have since been adjusted, and once again the predictions and the actual observational data once again tracking together.
Predict, observe, adjust.
No magic required.
Just science.
No, we didnt survive. Because that last time it was this hot we didnt exist.
It has never been hotter on earth during the existence of humans or polar bears.
The "medieval warm period" was colder than today, and it only affected northern europe whereas global warming is.....global.
No, it is not cooling.
No, the models do NOT fail to predict the current trends. In fact, the models accurately recreate all conditions seen from 1900 to present.
Again: you are wrong, and full of crap.
There's a reason facts become talking points. Being a talking point in no way reduces their legitimacy. Your words are the response of one who has neither a legitimate counter argument, nor counter facts with which to argue his position. In short, youre no better than the trolls khallow and lynnroosterwhatever, and just as ignorant.
IT HASNT LOST MONEY.
That's the entire fucking point.
No, my link was to the DOE's own analysis of ALL their loans as presented to the Congress in an official hearing.
The only reason you can't find anything is because you didnt bother to read a single source document that I provided.
You're stupidity is almost as bad khallow's.
You are still posting the same ignorant crap.
The fact its only 3% doesnt mean they didnt do any due diligence.
That fact its only 3% is PROOF THEY DID.
You are one stupid sack of crap.
You really dont understand plain English do you.
Private sector: 70% failure is acceptable and usually still yields a profit.
DOE: 11% is the goal. They achieved only 3%.
Again: Solyndra and the couple of others that failed represent only 3% of all funds the DOE loaned out.
Minor footnote? This is one of the most successful loan programs the government has ever run.
The few that failed did so because of the Chinese flooding the market with cheap panels they couldn't compete with.
Meanwhile they've had more than 19 others that are unequivocal successes, right now, today, including Tesla Motors the most famous example.
Your view is as ignorant as you are.
The EPA isnt responsible for the windmills.
They also arent the ones to blame for your eagles, niether the enforcement of having a feather, nor for the ones hit by the windmills.
You didnt vote for the military either. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence.
You didnt vote for the IRS either. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence (like it not, someone has to collect the revenues).
You didnt vote for the Dept of Treasury. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence.
You didnt vote for the FBI. But you enjoy the benefit of their and other law enforcement's presence.
You didnt vote for the FCC. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence every time you sit down to the watch the game at night.
You didnt vote for the FDA. But you enjoy the benefit of their presence, everytime you eat a steak or take a drug without dying.
I could go on. There's a lot of independent agencies with different tasks.
Point is this: The EPA is an independent agency with essentially one mission: Enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts.
That means dealing with pollution. That means regulating the creators of pollution.
When it comes to our electric grid coal generates ~40% of our juice. At the same time, it's our single biggest source of air pollution, coming to nearly 65%. It also generates a lot more than just air pollution. There's the mercury and other toxic chemicals released. There's the waste slag, and dirtied water. the coal ash waste.
There's all the infrastructure to support coal burning: .... less than ideal ... environment shall we say. Their health problems really dont need repeating; they're legendary. That costs the economy (and taxpayers) money.
-mining: Miners work in a
-transporting: takes fuel to get it around.
-washing: remember the little accident they had in WVa, minor spill...contaminated 300,000 people drinking water? Bunch of folks got sick? Kind of a big deal.
There's more but you get the idea.
So again: The EPA is charge of dealing with the environment, and that means regulating the creators of pollution.
They do this because most people rather dislike the idea of losing cities to rising seas. They dislike the idea of the planet getting warmer, shifting weather patterns, killing crops, reducing food supply, making places uninhabitable, increasing population pressures, decreasing water availabilty, sparking conflicts.
In short: the idea of potentially losing the human race, of pushing so far we can't recover, is kind of a bad idea.
There is no argument you can make that absolves you of that. That makes it ok.
No it's not going to be easy. After you break a window, is it easy to put it back together? Is it free? Is it without consequences? But does that difficulty mean you should do nothing?
The only thing in your favor is this: you post quite clearly communicates that you have little idea of what the EPA even does, how our government and agencies work, what the problems facing us are.
In short: you are ignorant and need to just. shut. up.
Solyndra is a bullshit distraction from reality for conservatives appealing to their base and ignoring facts.
Fact: Typical, average, VC firm turns a profit with a 30% success rate, depending of course on individual circumstances.
Fact: The DOE loan program is rocking a 97% success rate to date.
Yes Solyndra failed. Epically.
But the program as a whole is succeeding. Epically.
Therefore, repetition of Solyndra, just like Benghazi, just like the IRS, just like most everything else, is nothing more than handy diagnostic tool to determine how intelligent and well informed someone is.
I forgot to add: in light of all these actual facts...would you care to retract your ignorant bullshit statement sir?
Source:
http://www.energyfactcheck.org...
-----
(copypasta)
The DOE loan guarantee program is an overwhelmingly successful program that played a critical role in the development of new renewable energy technologies by offering long-term capital when private financing was not available.
The Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program has an approximately 97% success rate. As of late July, 2012, Solyndra, Abound Solar and the handful of other DOE-backed renewable energy companies that went bankrupt represented total investments of less than 3% of the entire DOE portfolio. (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/Nv1OeU)
It was well-known that the DOE’s loan programs would include a measured amount of risk. Before offering loan guarantees, Congress moved to protect taxpayers by appropriating nearly $10 billion to cover potential losses, acknowledging the risks of funding new technologies in industries that were facing significant market and economic challenges. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Following reports of Fisker Automotive’s financial difficulties, the Department of Energy acted decisively to protect the taxpayers’ interest. In June 2011, the Department ceased making disbursements to Fisker after the company began to fall short of the milestones required in the loan agreement. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
There is no evidence to suggest that Fisker Automotive’s loan was a political handout. Fisker was approached by the Bush administration about a potential loan in 2008. In early 2009, Fisker underwent a nine month-long review by DOE and several independent consulting firms to assess all aspects of Fisker’s business plan, technology, and finances. In 2009 – nearly 4 years ago – their business was deemed sound. (Source: House Oversight Committee, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWgY6)
The Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) and Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program have many success stories. For example, as the American automobile industry fought to recover from the brink of collapse in 2008, DOE provided a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Company to upgrade and modernize thirteen factories across six states. (Source: Department of Energy, April 2013, http://1.usa.gov/10dWZIE)
Another success story: In early March, 2013, Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced that Tesla will pay off their $465 million federal loan in five years, rather than the 10 years specified in the loan. The company made its first payment of nearly $13 million in December 2012 and hopes to pay off the loan by 2017 – 5 years ahead of the 2022 deadline. (Source: Associated Press, February 2013, http://bit.ly/WpP4b1)
Loan guarantees have a long history in the United States, and have been used to support many of America’s critical industries, including housing, transportation and agriculture. (Source: DBL Investors, September 2011, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
The Loan Guarantee Program is not part of the Obama stimulus. The LGP was created in 2005 with bipartisan support under the George W. Bush administration and designed to provide government support for “innovative technologies.” (Source: CNNMoney, J
The government didnt plan to lose money.
In fact, the government didlost lose money at all.
The energy program that the Solyndra loans were a part of has not only NOT lost money, it's turned a profit with the overwhelming majority of participating companies repaying their loans in full. Tesla is merely the most famous example.
So once again, you prove yourself an ignorant dingbat.
Obvious joke is obvious.
But still funny.
Yes. I been saying that a lot, and anyone working in the highway sector is well familiar with how poular it is to raid the HTF, both at the Federal, and local equivalents as well.
But, the tax rate is also too low.
Simply stopping the raiding wont solve all the shortfalls.
(side note: it doesnt happen with social security. its physicall illegal. it may be a popular myth, but its wrong, and stems frm ignorance of the workings of SSA's funding)
Guessing you don't like having roads to drive on then.
because highways and bridges, etc, still need repair, even in poorer states.
most projects, both repair and replacement, are collaborations, which one chunk of funding coming from the state, another from county and even city, and another from the Fed.
do you recall what roads were like prior to this system of collaborating on funds? do you recall just WHY Route 66 (and the rest of the US HWY system) and then later the Interstate system were such a big deal?
its precisely BECAUSE the fed left it to states, and states left it to counties and cities, and if they were too poor to handle it, "oh well". a hodge podge of quality and quantity. transport was a mess.
thats why collaboration of funding is so useful. it helps level the burden, sharing hte burden between richer and poorer communities, countries, and states, to make the system as a whole function better. It very much does act as a redistribution, and its a good thing.
but, the federal highway fund is perpetually underfunded lately (past 20+ years), because its paid for by the gas tax. and they continually raid the fund for other (non infrastructure) programs. those things need to stop, so we can once again have a transport system that is the envy of the world. killing the system by undefunding it and then blaming it for poor performance is just like congress's attempts to kill the Post Office by by pointing to its poor performance, when that poor performance has been directly caused not by the post office, but by the congress itself as it hamstrings them at every turn.
and it spent over 2 trillion, so there's still a deficit to cover.
but this isnt about the larger bugetary issues.
this is about the federal gas tax and the federal highway fund which it's intended to fill.
problem is, the fed gas tax is a flat rate and hasn't been adjusted for decades.
second problem is the fed highway fund is perpetually short on cash, both due to underfunding (tax isnt high enough to meet needs) and due to it being one of the first funds raided by other programs for funding. this leaves it perpetually short on funds, limiting how much actual infrastructure repair and replacement can occur in a year, putting a larger burden on states (because projects are frequently a collaboration). states that can afford to share a larger portion of the cost fare better than those that cant. but poorer states still need working infrastructure, which is one reason the federal fund exists, to act as a leveler redistributing excess funds from richer states to poorer ones to keep the highways and bridges functional at least in theory, cause like said, its perpetually underfunded.
so when they talk about our infrastructure sucking and being woefully inadequate to our needs, in need of repalcement or repair?
THIS is one of the chief contributors to that problem.
It needed to be 18c 10 years ago, and that was at a minimum. probably needs be around 25c by now.
One of the other major reforms needed is the federal highway fund needs to be made offlimits to other departments spending requirements. thats another major reason its perpetually deficient, is its one of hte first places they raid for funds for other things.
yes. spout some facts, and get modded Flamebait. stupid mods
false equivalence.
mod up.
AC gets it.
I'll pull that back slightly:
All in all: the only real scandal is how poorly managed and enforced government IT is.
Fox is acting like its big news, but really, anyone whos had to deal with government computer networks shouldnt be surprised by any of this.
Government computers die all the time. Cause they suck. Old peices of trash. Horrible software bloat too, things required to run in background for security. And government IT's solution nearly always the same: Wipe it and reimage it, or "here, have a new(ish) computer. the emails arent even stored on the personal issued computer anyway, they're on the server. And those serves go down a LOT. The backups frequently dont work, or get lost; I cant tell you how many times I've lost stuff on the server drive. Plus employees all the time ignore protocols that get in the way of productivity ("must scan now" "must backup now" "dont turn off" are frequently met by "end task sucker, i got work to do"). Much like any large business.
All in all: non-scandal
Another myth repeated without factual basis.