Suddenly? I haven't seen a wave of new reservoirs sweeping across the nation in the recent past. I'd be willing to bet $5 this study was at least partially funded by a wind turbine manufacturer...
Why is this flagged as insightful?
The Russians would be happy if the war ended, but only if Assad remains in power. Their military budget is limited, and the longer they're there, the heavier the price they're paying.
America would be happy if the war ended. I have no idea what the hell you mean by "politically unpopular compromise". Current leadership has done plenty of "politically unpopular" compromising already. See the Iran deal for reference.
The Turks would be happy if it ended because it would bring much needed stability along their border.
The Kurds would be happy because it would mean they're not fighting daily for their very survival. Claiming they're happy with the current situation shows you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what they're facing.
ISIS is probably the only group that would want the war to continue and spread.
Israel wants the war to end because Assad, Russia, and Iran are allied. Ending the war now would be advantageous to Israel. Allowing it to continue will likely mean an eventual victory for Assad and a reunified Syria allied with Iran on Israel's border.
Iran would like the war to be over, but only with a decisive defeat of the Sunni groups participating
Ah, so we have two scientific studies that contradict each other. No consensus! And the scientists of both studies can point to why the other study is inaccurate. So given the fact that there is no consensus on this subject, why then do you choose to support one study over the other, especially when there isanother study that seems to support the other?
" If the losses...continue to increase...the losses will catch up in 20 or 30 years"
"I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses"
Way to argue factual data with ifs and I thinks
"the same way that I take accusations against Clintons to be overblown and likely unfounded"
And this statement here strongly suggests that your belief and support of the AGW theory is ideologically grounded, and not actually based on any facts or investigation that you may have seen.
Did I state that all science must be a scam? Did I state that random blogs should be trusted over "all scientists in the field"? No, I didn't. I posted some links that should make you question how accurate their theory is. Just because there's a large group of scientists supporting a theory doesn't mean the theory is sound. And when there's evidence that maybe it's not as sound as they're claiming it to be, perhaps you should be just a bit skeptical and not buy in 100% without doing some more investigating. Just for the record, you did exactly as predicted, dismissing the evidence provided with those links because they're from "random blogs". Even though those links contain actual data.
First reply, and it's a post that completely ignores all links provided and instead tries to deflect attention to a different site. FYI, the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature project used the same adjusted temperatures the links I provided call into question. They didn't use the original data as recorded. Nice try though, "bitch".
Oh the irony! A consensus of scientists agreed that fat was the culprit for heart disease and obesity. The consensus scientists, led by Ancel Keys, verified time and again through peer-reviewed experiments and studies (albeit with falsified data) that fat was the problem. They destroyed the life and work of John Yudkin, the lone scientist who disagreed with the consensus and had the research and data to prove that sugar, not fat, was the culprit. And now you're here in slashdot posting about another consensus of scientists who must be believed because they've verified time and again that their theory is valid. http://thedogatemydata.blogspo... http://www.climate-skeptic.com... https://notalotofpeopleknowtha... https://stevengoddard.wordpres... https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
I look forward to the dozens of responses my post will generate in which all of these links are denounced and dismissed because the authors are hacks, frauds, not real scientists, or whatever else in order to justify ignoring the actual data.
Intermittency of wind power in the UK for 2013 and 2014: http://www.caithnesswindfarms....
The analysis showed:
-average capacity factor across the UK was less than a third of maximum capacity
-average capacity in any given month varied from 16.2% to 50.8%
-total time during which turbines produced less than 10% of rated capacity totaled 3165 hours (131.8 days!)
-total time during which turbines produced less than 5% of rated capacity totaled 1200 hours (50 days!)
-output from wind turbines was extremely intermittent
Conclusions drawn from this study are that increasing wind turbine capacity DOES NOT increase the average capacity, DOES NOT reduce the periods of low or very low output, and DOES NOT reduce intermittentcy or variability in an hourly period. What this means is that MORE windmills do not provide any possibility of closing conventional fossil-fuel power stations. All wind power potential must have an alternative source of backup for when the wind isn't blowing. The costs of these backup plants are NOT being included in the true cost of wind power. Also not being included in the numbers are the cost of premature failure of turbines, which is proving to be much higher than originally estimated: http://www.nawindpower.com/onl...
No, renewables are not cheaper than nuclear. Hydroelectric is cheaper. Solar is more expensive. Onshore wind on it's own is cheaper, but wind power requires backup generation, and when the backup costs are factored in, nuclear is still cheaper. Offshore wind is more expensive. And onshore wind requires a massive amount of land in order to match the output of a single nuclear plant.
First off, nuclear isn't renewable. Second, there are plenty of environments where fossil fuels are actually the best option. Think arctic/antarctic, mountains, remote areas. Renewable energy sources tend to be non-portable, or far less portable than gasoline.
With all the music streaming options available, and all most of the radio stations offering free apps, there's no need for FM radio. There's also no static with streaming and apps.
3-4% is NOT a massive difference when you're using the excuse of a sun that is "quite a lot colder than it is now" to explain away CO2 concentrations 10x or more higher than today. And it's not just in the Cretaceous that CO2 levels were much higher, there are other time periods as well that don't fit the flawed narrative.
Inconvenient facts? The sun was NOT quite a lot colder during the Cretaceous, in which CO2 levels are said to have been in the 2000-4000ppm range. Your cold sun theory is only valid for precambrian eons. By the Phanerozoic, solar output would only have been 3~4% less on average than our modern sun.
Carbon Dioxide is the foundation of the world's food chain. It's not pollution. Try studying some geology courses. The earth has had climates in the past with CO2 concentrations 10x higher or more than current levels, and life was thriving. Our planet is still stuck in a glacial climate. People don't realize how close our planet actually came to complete extinction a mere 20,000 years ago when the CO2 concentration was under 200ppm. This is approaching the lower boundary for plant life to survive.
wtf are you talking about? Hillary and her crimes has nothing to do with Bush, but way to try and misdirect everyone's attention from the subject at hand. "Look! Bush! War crimes!".
1st, Comey is no longer a registered Republican.
2nd, Obama appointed Comey to the position, so mentioning his previous affiliation with the Republicans carries no weight whatsoever.
3rd, insufficient evidence to secure a conviction is a falsehood. They have proof of multiple transmissions of classified information. There's absolutely zero chance that they couldn't get a conviction on the charge of mishandling classified information. They don't need to prove intent to mishandle or any other difficult to prove charges. Mishandling of classified information is pretty cut and dried. Did her emails contain classified information? Absolutely 100% yes. Was the information marked as classified? Absolutely 100% yes.
your analysis is total horseshit. My wife switched from Apple to Samsung because of the cost savings. She thinks the Samsung is an inferior product. It glitches and crashes occasionally, and the auto-correct is horrible compared to the older Apple version she had been using. I'm sticking with Apple because:
1. I own a Mac, and the apps integrate well
2. I like my current iTunes setup, playlists, etc
3. I was impressed by the camera on the current model
4. I agree with my wife about the auto-correct sucking on her Samsung
5. All 5 of my kids own iPods, and I can text them and facetime them, my wife can't
6. I prefer iOS to Android as far as ease of use
7. I don't like the fractured Android versions market.
8. Better games in Apple store
9. Development looks easier for iOS than for Android (I haven't actually gotten around to serious development on either yet)
On one hand you argue about the efficiency of hydrogen versus helium in terms of atomic weight, but then you propose a solution to the volatility of hydrogen by proposing all cells are surrounded by an envelope of N2, which is far heavier than Helium and would likely undo any advantage gained by using hydrogen over helium. It's also worth pointing out that there's nothing stopping your "protective" envelope from being punctured, allowing the hydrogen to mix with oxygen, kind of like how the iceburg punctured enough of the watertight compartments on the Titanic to sink the "unsinkable" ship.
Slashdot Mirror
Suddenly? I haven't seen a wave of new reservoirs sweeping across the nation in the recent past. I'd be willing to bet $5 this study was at least partially funded by a wind turbine manufacturer...
Knowing China, dump it in the ocean...
The whole Pepe as a racist meme was a prank by two twitter users trolling a reporter: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09...
Why is this flagged as insightful? The Russians would be happy if the war ended, but only if Assad remains in power. Their military budget is limited, and the longer they're there, the heavier the price they're paying. America would be happy if the war ended. I have no idea what the hell you mean by "politically unpopular compromise". Current leadership has done plenty of "politically unpopular" compromising already. See the Iran deal for reference. The Turks would be happy if it ended because it would bring much needed stability along their border. The Kurds would be happy because it would mean they're not fighting daily for their very survival. Claiming they're happy with the current situation shows you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what they're facing. ISIS is probably the only group that would want the war to continue and spread. Israel wants the war to end because Assad, Russia, and Iran are allied. Ending the war now would be advantageous to Israel. Allowing it to continue will likely mean an eventual victory for Assad and a reunified Syria allied with Iran on Israel's border. Iran would like the war to be over, but only with a decisive defeat of the Sunni groups participating
Ah, so we have two scientific studies that contradict each other. No consensus! And the scientists of both studies can point to why the other study is inaccurate. So given the fact that there is no consensus on this subject, why then do you choose to support one study over the other, especially when there isanother study that seems to support the other?
" If the losses...continue to increase...the losses will catch up in 20 or 30 years"
"I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses"
Way to argue factual data with ifs and I thinks
It seems the majority of Antarctica is gaining more ice faster than the peninsula is shedding it... http://www.nasa.gov/feature/go...
"the same way that I take accusations against Clintons to be overblown and likely unfounded"
And this statement here strongly suggests that your belief and support of the AGW theory is ideologically grounded, and not actually based on any facts or investigation that you may have seen.
Did I state that all science must be a scam? Did I state that random blogs should be trusted over "all scientists in the field"? No, I didn't. I posted some links that should make you question how accurate their theory is. Just because there's a large group of scientists supporting a theory doesn't mean the theory is sound. And when there's evidence that maybe it's not as sound as they're claiming it to be, perhaps you should be just a bit skeptical and not buy in 100% without doing some more investigating. Just for the record, you did exactly as predicted, dismissing the evidence provided with those links because they're from "random blogs". Even though those links contain actual data.
First reply, and it's a post that completely ignores all links provided and instead tries to deflect attention to a different site. FYI, the Berkely Earth Surface Temperature project used the same adjusted temperatures the links I provided call into question. They didn't use the original data as recorded. Nice try though, "bitch".
Oh the irony! A consensus of scientists agreed that fat was the culprit for heart disease and obesity. The consensus scientists, led by Ancel Keys, verified time and again through peer-reviewed experiments and studies (albeit with falsified data) that fat was the problem. They destroyed the life and work of John Yudkin, the lone scientist who disagreed with the consensus and had the research and data to prove that sugar, not fat, was the culprit. And now you're here in slashdot posting about another consensus of scientists who must be believed because they've verified time and again that their theory is valid.
http://thedogatemydata.blogspo...
http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
https://notalotofpeopleknowtha...
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
I look forward to the dozens of responses my post will generate in which all of these links are denounced and dismissed because the authors are hacks, frauds, not real scientists, or whatever else in order to justify ignoring the actual data.
Intermittency of wind power in the UK for 2013 and 2014: http://www.caithnesswindfarms....
The analysis showed:
-average capacity factor across the UK was less than a third of maximum capacity
-average capacity in any given month varied from 16.2% to 50.8%
-total time during which turbines produced less than 10% of rated capacity totaled 3165 hours (131.8 days!)
-total time during which turbines produced less than 5% of rated capacity totaled 1200 hours (50 days!)
-output from wind turbines was extremely intermittent
Conclusions drawn from this study are that increasing wind turbine capacity DOES NOT increase the average capacity, DOES NOT reduce the periods of low or very low output, and DOES NOT reduce intermittentcy or variability in an hourly period. What this means is that MORE windmills do not provide any possibility of closing conventional fossil-fuel power stations. All wind power potential must have an alternative source of backup for when the wind isn't blowing. The costs of these backup plants are NOT being included in the true cost of wind power. Also not being included in the numbers are the cost of premature failure of turbines, which is proving to be much higher than originally estimated: http://www.nawindpower.com/onl...
No, renewables are not cheaper than nuclear. Hydroelectric is cheaper. Solar is more expensive. Onshore wind on it's own is cheaper, but wind power requires backup generation, and when the backup costs are factored in, nuclear is still cheaper. Offshore wind is more expensive. And onshore wind requires a massive amount of land in order to match the output of a single nuclear plant.
First off, nuclear isn't renewable. Second, there are plenty of environments where fossil fuels are actually the best option. Think arctic/antarctic, mountains, remote areas. Renewable energy sources tend to be non-portable, or far less portable than gasoline.
Not to mention the potential of nuclear energy dwarfs the potential of all fossil fuels known to exist...
Your favorite radio station very likely has a free app that will allow you to listen in.
With all the music streaming options available, and all most of the radio stations offering free apps, there's no need for FM radio. There's also no static with streaming and apps.
3-4% is NOT a massive difference when you're using the excuse of a sun that is "quite a lot colder than it is now" to explain away CO2 concentrations 10x or more higher than today. And it's not just in the Cretaceous that CO2 levels were much higher, there are other time periods as well that don't fit the flawed narrative.
Inconvenient facts? The sun was NOT quite a lot colder during the Cretaceous, in which CO2 levels are said to have been in the 2000-4000ppm range. Your cold sun theory is only valid for precambrian eons. By the Phanerozoic, solar output would only have been 3~4% less on average than our modern sun.
Carbon Dioxide is the foundation of the world's food chain. It's not pollution. Try studying some geology courses. The earth has had climates in the past with CO2 concentrations 10x higher or more than current levels, and life was thriving. Our planet is still stuck in a glacial climate. People don't realize how close our planet actually came to complete extinction a mere 20,000 years ago when the CO2 concentration was under 200ppm. This is approaching the lower boundary for plant life to survive.
wtf are you talking about? Hillary and her crimes has nothing to do with Bush, but way to try and misdirect everyone's attention from the subject at hand. "Look! Bush! War crimes!".
1st, Comey is no longer a registered Republican.
2nd, Obama appointed Comey to the position, so mentioning his previous affiliation with the Republicans carries no weight whatsoever.
3rd, insufficient evidence to secure a conviction is a falsehood. They have proof of multiple transmissions of classified information. There's absolutely zero chance that they couldn't get a conviction on the charge of mishandling classified information. They don't need to prove intent to mishandle or any other difficult to prove charges. Mishandling of classified information is pretty cut and dried. Did her emails contain classified information? Absolutely 100% yes. Was the information marked as classified? Absolutely 100% yes.
your analysis is total horseshit. My wife switched from Apple to Samsung because of the cost savings. She thinks the Samsung is an inferior product. It glitches and crashes occasionally, and the auto-correct is horrible compared to the older Apple version she had been using. I'm sticking with Apple because: 1. I own a Mac, and the apps integrate well
2. I like my current iTunes setup, playlists, etc
3. I was impressed by the camera on the current model
4. I agree with my wife about the auto-correct sucking on her Samsung
5. All 5 of my kids own iPods, and I can text them and facetime them, my wife can't
6. I prefer iOS to Android as far as ease of use
7. I don't like the fractured Android versions market.
8. Better games in Apple store
9. Development looks easier for iOS than for Android (I haven't actually gotten around to serious development on either yet)
I know they used to offer good roaming plans, covering Canada and Mexico...is that still the case?
On one hand you argue about the efficiency of hydrogen versus helium in terms of atomic weight, but then you propose a solution to the volatility of hydrogen by proposing all cells are surrounded by an envelope of N2, which is far heavier than Helium and would likely undo any advantage gained by using hydrogen over helium. It's also worth pointing out that there's nothing stopping your "protective" envelope from being punctured, allowing the hydrogen to mix with oxygen, kind of like how the iceburg punctured enough of the watertight compartments on the Titanic to sink the "unsinkable" ship.