Well not if you actually believe in evolution instead of just hating people that don't. Which is the problem with so much of the SJW agenda, it isn't positive or reasoned it's just people that have a desperate need to give the middle finger to anyone that resembles their parents.
So much willful, bigoted dumbfuckery.
Thanks, my point was that SJWs didn't have a rational or reasoned approach to ethics, and you come here and show you don't have anything beyond name calling.
Well not if you actually believe in evolution instead of just hating people that don't. Which is the problem with so much of the SJW agenda, it isn't positive or reasoned it's just people that have a desperate need to give the middle finger to anyone that resembles their parents.
And the air mixing will result in some small heat transfer from the attic to the room. So by implication (since you're still being deliberately opaque) - I must assume your claim is that the downwards heat transfer from air mixing at sub-km altitudes around wind farms will similarly result in some small heat transfer from the air further above that. This is not in question - but it's still a localised effect. There's nothing in the study that suggests any significant effect on the upper atmospheric layers.
Most people don't live in the upper atmosphere, hows the housing prices ?
They have nothing on people with dollars in their eyes. Walmart just turned their stores into polygraphs that will monitor their customers physical response to advertising. Bravo. Even the Soviet Union couldn't find a way to pry out people's thoughts.
Globally, coal is even more alive. "Think the Big Banks Have Abandoned Coal? Think Again." Even a solar magazine admits: "China to add 259 GW of coal capacity, satellite imagery shows." For reference, 259 GW is more than twice the amount of power capacity that mighty Texas has FROM ALL SOURCES.
Now Asia - which accounts for close to 80% of total global coal usage - is increasingly turning to the U.S. to supply coal. We are still the world's third largest coal producer. The U.S. supplies both types, met coal to produce steel and steam coal to produce electricity. "U.S. coal exports increased by 61% in 2017 as exports to Asia more than doubled."
The U.S. has a 360-year supply of coal to bolster our expanding export market. The trade war with the U.S. however, could have China looking to expand domestic supply, and the country's coal production caps have been found to be "technically infeasible."
The fact is that both China (65%) and India (75%) are hugely dependent upon coal-based electricity, which will be needed in even bigger quantities to lift their low Human Development Index closer to those in the West, where universal electricity access has more people living better and longer. Can you really blame them? "The Statistical Connection Between Electricity and Human Development."
If you're concerned about mischaracterisation then perhaps you should try and actually clarify what you're saying, instead of all these deflections?
Would you care to explain how pointing out the errors in your premises is deflection ? I encourage to take your own advice so you at least appear less ignorant
This is why you should read the study instead, where it explicitly states that turbines are "redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer". Any warming in one layer of air is offset by cooling in another; there is no extra heat generated. If you believe otherwise, please cite where in the study it contradicts this. What physical method is supposed to produce "some level of warming", other than moving the heat from elsewhere?
As for moisture, it's well known that it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas - but this is irrelevant, because atmospheric water levels are not changing. The effect of water vapour is the same as it's always been - no more, no less. CO2 levels are most definitely changing, and the cumulative effect of this is already being felt.
I'm quite confident I know what the OP was referring to, thanks. What I was trying to clarify was your response, but you don't seem interested in explaining yourself.
Seems you are more concerned with mischaracterizing my response into something I explicitly didn't say.
The whole point here is that wind farms only change the climate locally, in the immediate area of the turbines, by mixing different temperature airstreams. They don't affect global average temperatures like CO2 release does
Really I didn't see that, matter of fact the article strongly suggests the exact opposite.
The core problem is that wind turbines generate electricity by extracting energy out of the air, slowing down wind and otherwise altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere,” the study explains. That can produce some level of warming.
So it seems not only do you not understand the OP but you don't understand the article. Oh and btw moisture, that's water vapor the absolutely dominant greenhouse gas at work.
I am kind of curious how determining if physical laws are constant over time or variable became the province of "Wingnuts and kooks".
The "wingnuts and kooks" were identified as those who claim to "have proven that it's wrong."
Not those still seeking to determine the answer to the question through a rigorous experimental design and (yet to be collected) results.
That's one way to read it. I read it as the author thinks anyone who disagrees or has an opinion on the matter different than his, is one or the other perhaps both. It was hard to get past his fuming especially since there had been experimental evidence that purported to show alpha (fine structure constant) had variance in the past, currently there's results from a team at Los Alamos claiming to show the variance. Others have indirect isotope evidence claiming to constrain it. Personally given the sheer complexity and possibility for unaccounted events, the isotope work isn't as compelling as its champions would like people to believe.
The problem is having faith in the result before the experiment is done. There's been argument over the years about if physical constants are constant and if physical laws have been consistent over time. Anyone who asserts they are or aren't without experimental data to back up their position is equally bad, and not actually using the scientific method or in any way practicing science.
So far as I'm aware, those physical constants have held up to all experimental evidence we have today. So accepting them as constants is reasonable for all other work. Until someone provides repeatable proof that they're not constant, this will not change. Kind of like the expansion of the universe and the fact that space itself is expanding. That one blew a lot of assumptions out of the water. So it's not that science is wrong, it's that people who assume that alternate facts can explain something with no basis is equally valid to experimentally derived theories that are delusional.
Tell it to the guy who submitted the article with a rather obvious axe to grind. Personally just on cosmology's version of eschatology, I have seen heat death, big crunch, endless expansion, quantum fluctuation cycle and big rip (steady state was alreadyon the way out when I got interested). I may be leaving something out it's not my field. The one thing they all have in common is how remarkably belligerent their supporters have been.
Energy Department proposes funding for Ohio’s first offshore wind project
There is absolutely nothing in the story about funding anything.
What this says is that and environmental impact assessment was done and there would be no impact to the human environment.
Whoop de doo. Give the project momentum and the people that oppose it will find their equivalent of the snail darter before you can say boo. What's more, there still is no mention of dollar one.
You get this continuously with her just yesterday she had the zero information EU CO2 capture story.
It's like she holds treats out for dogs and some people feel obligated to get excited about nothing.
I got my novice ticket when I was barely 6 years old. My dad was a Ham and we had a blast playing with electronics together. I can see where a kid could pass the exam with flying colors if they were committed to the hobby instead of TV and video games.
Absolutely. Novice was exactly that, a license meant to get people willing to put in effort and learn into the hobby. No offense meant but the advanced and extra licenses were considerably harder.
I don't know, I've been on the other side of that "let's let everyone with a belly button in" attitude before. It doesn't end well. You get a bunch of jerks who don't understand and who don't care what made the community great in the first place.
Exhibit A: The Internet.
It used to be the domain of people who understood a little about it and cared about its future. Then it was overrun by the Ooh Shiny crowd in the early 90's and it has been downhill ever since.
Sometimes some degree of gatekeeping is a good thing. Not so exclusive you have nobody left, but exclusive enough that you filter the worst of the riff-raff out.
There's actually another layer to the internet nobody has told you about because well we don't want you there.
I don't know, I've been on the other side of that "let's let everyone with a belly button in" attitude before. It doesn't end well. You get a bunch of jerks who don't understand and who don't care what made the community great in the first place. They just want to take, take, take and return nothing. Barriers to entry are a good thing. You don't want the Great Unwashed to spoil your good thing. That's how we ended up with Brexit.
It wasn't a free pass for know nothings to join. You still would have had to take the theory test, which if you take a look at is no walk in the park
I was more interested in nailing down what you're talking about.
Seeing as I was talking about what he was saying, knowing what he said would be a necessary prerequisite.
Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.
Yes, this sort of thing often happens when something changes the climate. Again, what's your point? If you're attempting to show CO2 has no significant role in our changing climate, I don't see how.
Vs the OP
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Greenhouse gases add heat energy (and thus average temperature) to the Earth's global atmosphere.
Does that help you see why you need to understand the whole conversation ?
Or is it your contention that mixing up the atmosphere can't change climate and only CO2 can ? (See how easy that is to do ?)
Can you provide experimental data for them being "equally bad" and not actually using the scientific method or in any way practising science?
Oh you're so funny. If you reach conclusions before the experiment is even started you are by definition not using the scientific method or practicing science. Matter of fact doing so is the experimental data that proves you aren't.
The guy who thinks that science is wrong because it can't explain absolutely everything? And quite coincidentally he has a hypothesis of everything of his own? I don't think he really understands what science is about. Of course that doesn't mean everything he says must automatically be wrong. So please make precise references that illustrate your point and don't expect others to do that job for you.
The problem is having faith in the result before the experiment is done. There's been argument over the years about if physical constants are constant and if physical laws have been consistent over time. Anyone who asserts they are or aren't without experimental data to back up their position is equally bad, and not actually using the scientific method or in any way practicing science.
running off with the money. The number of times this has happened on Kickstarter is ridiculous, and overwhelmingly it's carried out by Americans with grand ideas and pretentious pitches.
Serious question, why is it ALWAYS the Americans who steal and pull stunts like these? It's getting mighty difficult to trust you, and any time you deal with Americans you have to use extra caution.
We are good at it. What's your excuse for falling for it ?
The community has been divided since the days the really old timers were fighting everyone else over the No Code license (MORSE not programming) Then there were the volunteer examiner scandals. Oh wow an 8 year old girl has somehow managed to get an Extra Class license how did that happen.
Matter of fact the group in general seems to do this on a regular basis. My guess it's the people that can't get genuine technical accomplishments like QRP records or high numbers of CQ contacts, screwing with everyone else.
If the US really wants to embargo itself then so be it, you'll be left behind in every area of science and crawl back to trading as a junior partner within 5 years.
You mean the same way that happened during the cold war ?
Slashdot Mirror
So much willful, bigoted dumbfuckery.
Thanks, my point was that SJWs didn't have a rational or reasoned approach to ethics, and you come here and show you don't have anything beyond name calling.
Brendan supported the wrong ethics.
Well not if you actually believe in evolution instead of just hating people that don't. Which is the problem with so much of the SJW agenda, it isn't positive or reasoned it's just people that have a desperate need to give the middle finger to anyone that resembles their parents.
And the air mixing will result in some small heat transfer from the attic to the room. So by implication (since you're still being deliberately opaque) - I must assume your claim is that the downwards heat transfer from air mixing at sub-km altitudes around wind farms will similarly result in some small heat transfer from the air further above that. This is not in question - but it's still a localised effect. There's nothing in the study that suggests any significant effect on the upper atmospheric layers.
Most people don't live in the upper atmosphere, hows the housing prices ?
They have nothing on people with dollars in their eyes. Walmart just turned their stores into polygraphs that will monitor their customers physical response to advertising. Bravo. Even the Soviet Union couldn't find a way to pry out people's thoughts.
Well coal's future may be uncertain but wishful thinking on the internet will likely outlive us all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
Globally, coal is even more alive. "Think the Big Banks Have Abandoned Coal? Think Again." Even a solar magazine admits: "China to add 259 GW of coal capacity, satellite imagery shows." For reference, 259 GW is more than twice the amount of power capacity that mighty Texas has FROM ALL SOURCES.
Now Asia - which accounts for close to 80% of total global coal usage - is increasingly turning to the U.S. to supply coal. We are still the world's third largest coal producer. The U.S. supplies both types, met coal to produce steel and steam coal to produce electricity. "U.S. coal exports increased by 61% in 2017 as exports to Asia more than doubled."
The U.S. has a 360-year supply of coal to bolster our expanding export market. The trade war with the U.S. however, could have China looking to expand domestic supply, and the country's coal production caps have been found to be "technically infeasible."
The fact is that both China (65%) and India (75%) are hugely dependent upon coal-based electricity, which will be needed in even bigger quantities to lift their low Human Development Index closer to those in the West, where universal electricity access has more people living better and longer. Can you really blame them? "The Statistical Connection Between Electricity and Human Development."
If you're concerned about mischaracterisation then perhaps you should try and actually clarify what you're saying, instead of all these deflections?
Would you care to explain how pointing out the errors in your premises is deflection ? I encourage to take your own advice so you at least appear less ignorant
This is why you should read the study instead, where it explicitly states that turbines are "redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer". Any warming in one layer of air is offset by cooling in another; there is no extra heat generated. If you believe otherwise, please cite where in the study it contradicts this. What physical method is supposed to produce "some level of warming", other than moving the heat from elsewhere?
As for moisture, it's well known that it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas - but this is irrelevant, because atmospheric water levels are not changing. The effect of water vapour is the same as it's always been - no more, no less. CO2 levels are most definitely changing, and the cumulative effect of this is already being felt.
How the structure of the atmosphere affects heat transfer.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/S...
Simpler, turn on a ceiling fan in a house with a hot attic.
BTW my original statement was
It never ceases to amaze me how the climate doom people never understand the most basic concepts about heat transport.
Thanks for providing empirical evidence.
I'm quite confident I know what the OP was referring to, thanks. What I was trying to clarify was your response, but you don't seem interested in explaining yourself.
Seems you are more concerned with mischaracterizing my response into something I explicitly didn't say.
The whole point here is that wind farms only change the climate locally, in the immediate area of the turbines, by mixing different temperature airstreams. They don't affect global average temperatures like CO2 release does
Really I didn't see that, matter of fact the article strongly suggests the exact opposite.
The core problem is that wind turbines generate electricity by extracting energy out of the air, slowing down wind and otherwise altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere,” the study explains. That can produce some level of warming.
So it seems not only do you not understand the OP but you don't understand the article. Oh and btw moisture, that's water vapor the absolutely dominant greenhouse gas at work.
I don't have a horse in this race except perhaps a desire to see new and interesting physics but it didn't take much effort find papers.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph...
The "wingnuts and kooks" were identified as those who claim to "have proven that it's wrong."
Not those still seeking to determine the answer to the question through a rigorous experimental design and (yet to be collected) results.
That's one way to read it. I read it as the author thinks anyone who disagrees or has an opinion on the matter different than his, is one or the other perhaps both. It was hard to get past his fuming especially since there had been experimental evidence that purported to show alpha (fine structure constant) had variance in the past, currently there's results from a team at Los Alamos claiming to show the variance. Others have indirect isotope evidence claiming to constrain it. Personally given the sheer complexity and possibility for unaccounted events, the isotope work isn't as compelling as its champions would like people to believe.
The problem is having faith in the result before the experiment is done. There's been argument over the years about if physical constants are constant and if physical laws have been consistent over time. Anyone who asserts they are or aren't without experimental data to back up their position is equally bad, and not actually using the scientific method or in any way practicing science.
So far as I'm aware, those physical constants have held up to all experimental evidence we have today. So accepting them as constants is reasonable for all other work. Until someone provides repeatable proof that they're not constant, this will not change. Kind of like the expansion of the universe and the fact that space itself is expanding. That one blew a lot of assumptions out of the water. So it's not that science is wrong, it's that people who assume that alternate facts can explain something with no basis is equally valid to experimentally derived theories that are delusional.
Tell it to the guy who submitted the article with a rather obvious axe to grind. Personally just on cosmology's version of eschatology, I have seen heat death, big crunch, endless expansion, quantum fluctuation cycle and big rip (steady state was alreadyon the way out when I got interested). I may be leaving something out it's not my field. The one thing they all have in common is how remarkably belligerent their supporters have been.
Energy Department proposes funding for Ohio’s first offshore wind project
There is absolutely nothing in the story about funding anything.
What this says is that and environmental impact assessment was done and there would be no impact to the human environment.
Whoop de doo. Give the project momentum and the people that oppose it will find their equivalent of the snail darter before you can say boo. What's more, there still is no mention of dollar one.
You get this continuously with her just yesterday she had the zero information EU CO2 capture story.
It's like she holds treats out for dogs and some people feel obligated to get excited about nothing.
I got my novice ticket when I was barely 6 years old. My dad was a Ham and we had a blast playing with electronics together. I can see where a kid could pass the exam with flying colors if they were committed to the hobby instead of TV and video games.
Absolutely. Novice was exactly that, a license meant to get people willing to put in effort and learn into the hobby. No offense meant but the advanced and extra licenses were considerably harder.
I don't know, I've been on the other side of that "let's let everyone with a belly button in" attitude before. It doesn't end well. You get a bunch of jerks who don't understand and who don't care what made the community great in the first place.
Exhibit A: The Internet.
It used to be the domain of people who understood a little about it and cared about its future. Then it was overrun by the Ooh Shiny crowd in the early 90's and it has been downhill ever since.
Sometimes some degree of gatekeeping is a good thing. Not so exclusive you have nobody left, but exclusive enough that you filter the worst of the riff-raff out.
There's actually another layer to the internet nobody has told you about because well we don't want you there.
I don't know, I've been on the other side of that "let's let everyone with a belly button in" attitude before. It doesn't end well. You get a bunch of jerks who don't understand and who don't care what made the community great in the first place. They just want to take, take, take and return nothing. Barriers to entry are a good thing. You don't want the Great Unwashed to spoil your good thing. That's how we ended up with Brexit.
It wasn't a free pass for know nothings to join. You still would have had to take the theory test, which if you take a look at is no walk in the park
What did you think he was talking about ?
I was more interested in nailing down what you're talking about.
Seeing as I was talking about what he was saying, knowing what he said would be a necessary prerequisite.
Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic.
Yes, this sort of thing often happens when something changes the climate. Again, what's your point? If you're attempting to show CO2 has no significant role in our changing climate, I don't see how.
Vs the OP
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Greenhouse gases add heat energy (and thus average temperature) to the Earth's global atmosphere.
Does that help you see why you need to understand the whole conversation ?
Or is it your contention that mixing up the atmosphere can't change climate and only CO2 can ? (See how easy that is to do ?)
Can you provide experimental data for them being "equally bad" and not actually using the scientific method or in any way practising science?
Oh you're so funny. If you reach conclusions before the experiment is even started you are by definition not using the scientific method or practicing science. Matter of fact doing so is the experimental data that proves you aren't.
Thanks I needed the laugh.
But I know what I like and I like that.
The guy who thinks that science is wrong because it can't explain absolutely everything? And quite coincidentally he has a hypothesis of everything of his own? I don't think he really understands what science is about.
Of course that doesn't mean everything he says must automatically be wrong. So please make precise references that illustrate your point and don't expect others to do that job for you.
The problem is having faith in the result before the experiment is done. There's been argument over the years about if physical constants are constant and if physical laws have been consistent over time. Anyone who asserts they are or aren't without experimental data to back up their position is equally bad, and not actually using the scientific method or in any way practicing science.
I am kind of curious how determining if physical laws are constant over time or variable became the province of "Wingnuts and kooks".
Sounds like Rock Doctor has issues.
running off with the money. The number of times this has happened on Kickstarter is ridiculous, and overwhelmingly it's carried out by Americans with grand ideas and pretentious pitches.
Serious question, why is it ALWAYS the Americans who steal and pull stunts like these? It's getting mighty difficult to trust you, and any time you deal with Americans you have to use extra caution.
We are good at it. What's your excuse for falling for it ?
The community has been divided since the days the really old timers were fighting everyone else over the No Code license (MORSE not programming)
Then there were the volunteer examiner scandals. Oh wow an 8 year old girl has somehow managed to get an Extra Class license how did that happen.
Matter of fact the group in general seems to do this on a regular basis. My guess it's the people that can't get genuine technical accomplishments like QRP records or high numbers of CQ contacts, screwing with everyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
German Type 212 up to 3 weeks of silent running on fuel cells.
No, you don't have German scientists to steal this time.
We always have something to steal.
If the US really wants to embargo itself then so be it, you'll be left behind in every area of science and crawl back to trading as a junior partner within 5 years.
You mean the same way that happened during the cold war ?
Not laughing with you, just at you.
I didn't think I would need to post every news story available on the internet about this.
Here's from the San Francisco CBS outlet https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal....
Here's a google search
https://www.google.com/search?...