Do you have any references to back up that claim with?
The fact that you closed with an ad hominem barb leaves me doubtful. More referenced research and less willfully ignorant babble please.
Energy pay-back time and CO2 emissions of PV systems "energy pay-back time was found to be 25-3 years for present-day roof-top installations and 3-4 years for multi-megawatt, ground-mounted systems. [...] This leads to the conclusion that in the longer term grid-connected PV systems can contribute significantly to the mitigation of CO2 emissions."
(found by typing 'photovoltaic payback time' into google)
Other factors can cause a temperature change - e.g. solar intensity variation. All the lag proves is that the previous temperature fluctuations were caused by solar intensity or other factors such as Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns. The solar intensity has been long-term decreasing over the past few cycles, and we are only year out from the last solar minima. However, the temperature is still increasing.
An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a test that measures and records the electrical activity of your brain by using sensors attached to your head and connected by wires to a computer.
More facts please; less FUD. All the PV detractor statements revolve around the concept that PV cells are dirty to produce and never produce more energy than is required to create them. No references are ever provided. It is all nothing more than "it's obvious" FUD.
Based on models and real data, the idea that PV cannot pay back its energy investment is simply a myth. [...] During its projected 28 years of clean energy production, a rooftop system with a 2-year energy payback and meeting half of a household's electricity use would avoid conventional electrical-plant emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides, and 100 tons of carbon dioxide
Major limitations to the accuracy of this assessment are the difficulties in determining realistic energy conversion factors, and in determining realistic energy values for human labour. For this reason an allowance of up to 100% has been allowed, thus the range of payback is between 2-8 years. Thus small-scale roof mounted PV systems have a positive energy payback and are capable of contributing to a sustainable energy future.
Wormhole travel is not FTL. You are entering a hole in spacetime and emerging out of another some distance away. At no point did you travel faster than c; regardless of how far the distance between the points is and the travel time.
No. The moral of the story was don't expect inordinate praise for deigning to throw your table scraps, when others are giving their all.
Give as much or as little as you want. Don't expect your $1000 (which you casually throw from a $50,000 wad in your pocket) to be received with effusiveness and then become indignant when a beggar hands over their only quarter and is highly praised.
This applies to all charity, not just religious-based.
Stow the righteous indignation and try to think for a second.
The rich man was chastised for giving "only a small amount" because he expected to blessed for his show of philantropy. Hw wasn't showing good will, he was attempting to surreptiously purchase grace.
So it's another "can't look past the quarterly profit reports" problem.
Scenario A will cost us $100 million up front with a $100,000 annual upkeep. Scenario B will cost us $10 million up front with a $1 million annual upkeep.
Scenario B it is, because we must make our quarterly profit projections.
You need to get a sense of geologic time scales. Those historical wild flucuations occured over millions of years. The current flucuation is over a span of decades.
Could it be that they are well versed in the scientific method of drawing conclusions?
They view the data available from other researchers (e.g. climatologists) efforts and come to a similar conclusion because it's what the scientific conclusion is.
It doesn't require some grand conspiracy or "peer pressure".
I can't find the reference anywhere either. Pat Michaels is still spewing half-truths, myths & canards. Ironically, he is also saying that we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases [which aren't a problem in the first place].
I think the worn-out funding source "argument" needs to be given a rest and the science objectively evaluated instead.
Their opinion pieces are objectively evaluated and found to be nothing more than half-truths, myths & canards wrapped in a good amount of politicizing and hype.
The funding sources are very relevant. Would you trust the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company to give you an accurate report on the health benefits of smoking cigarettes? How about Microsoft-funded studies on the security of *nix OSes?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any references to back up that claim with?
The fact that you closed with an ad hominem barb leaves me doubtful. More referenced research and less willfully ignorant babble please.
Energy pay-back time and CO2 emissions of PV systems
"energy pay-back time was found to be 25-3 years for present-day roof-top installations and 3-4 years for multi-megawatt, ground-mounted systems. [...] This leads to the conclusion that in the longer term grid-connected PV systems can contribute significantly to the mitigation of CO2 emissions."
(found by typing 'photovoltaic payback time' into google)
The same identifier can have multiple meanings. Hooray for overloading! Is that covered in the test?
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
Humans and plants are made of the same building blocks.
Think about that the next time you eat a salad.
Why point to a second-level effect when a primary source is readily & easily measurable?
Is "correlation does not imply causation" that easy to forget when the cause supports your preconceived notions?
Other factors can cause a temperature change - e.g. solar intensity variation. All the lag proves is that the previous temperature fluctuations were caused by solar intensity or other factors such as Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns. The solar intensity has been long-term decreasing over the past few cycles, and we are only year out from the last solar minima. However, the temperature is still increasing.
6 mar_solarminimum.htmli f
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/0
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/zurich.g
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
The joy of FUD. "Who needs facts? I've got dismissive quips!"
'Non-invasive' is probably being redundantly used to quickly describe an EEG - given that most people don't know what one is.
Medical Encyclopedia - EEG
Electroencephalogram (EEG)
An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a test that measures and records the electrical activity of your brain by using sensors attached to your head and connected by wires to a computer.
Ignorant, trolling and/or confusing /. with digg.
ahhh... The joy of semantics.
What is the Energy Payback for PV?
Energy Payback of Roof Mounted Photovoltaic Cells
Wormhole travel is not FTL. You are entering a hole in spacetime and emerging out of another some distance away. At no point did you travel faster than c; regardless of how far the distance between the points is and the travel time.
You did tell it better. Some people just need a direct & blunt clue by four upside their head.
No. The moral of the story was don't expect inordinate praise for deigning to throw your table scraps, when others are giving their all.
Give as much or as little as you want. Don't expect your $1000 (which you casually throw from a $50,000 wad in your pocket) to be received with effusiveness and then become indignant when a beggar hands over their only quarter and is highly praised.
This applies to all charity, not just religious-based.
Stow the righteous indignation and try to think for a second.
The rich man was chastised for giving "only a small amount" because he expected to blessed for his show of philantropy. Hw wasn't showing good will, he was attempting to surreptiously purchase grace.
It's raspberry, sir.
Oh, for the want of a mod point. My thoughts exactly.
How is HD-DVD misleading when it stands for High Density Digital Versatile Disk?
Yes. It can also stand for High Definition Digital Video Disk, as well as Haughty Dumbass Decrying Versimilitude Debate.
So it's another "can't look past the quarterly profit reports" problem.
Scenario A will cost us $100 million up front with a $100,000 annual upkeep.
Scenario B will cost us $10 million up front with a $1 million annual upkeep.
Scenario B it is, because we must make our quarterly profit projections.
You need to get a sense of geologic time scales. Those historical wild flucuations occured over millions of years. The current flucuation is over a span of decades.
When it doesn't happen in a long-tail fashion but rather back-to-back-to-back.
Could it be that they are well versed in the scientific method of drawing conclusions?
They view the data available from other researchers (e.g. climatologists) efforts and come to a similar conclusion because it's what the scientific conclusion is.
It doesn't require some grand conspiracy or "peer pressure".
I can't find the reference anywhere either. Pat Michaels is still spewing half-truths, myths & canards. Ironically, he is also saying that we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases [which aren't a problem in the first place].
Patrick J. Michaels - SourceWatch
Patrick J. Michaels - Cato Institute
I think the worn-out funding source "argument" needs to be given a rest and the science objectively evaluated instead.
Their opinion pieces are objectively evaluated and found to be nothing more than half-truths, myths & canards wrapped in a good amount of politicizing and hype.
The funding sources are very relevant. Would you trust the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company to give you an accurate report on the health benefits of smoking cigarettes? How about Microsoft-funded studies on the security of *nix OSes?
No argument, here. However, the Canadian Dollar is close to reaching parity with the US Dollar.
Canadian Dollar to U.S. Dollar Exchange Rate
Do you have any facts to offer, or are you just another ignorant nihilist?
You can't infer any correlation [...] with the limited dataset provided above.
Exactly. So let's fill out the known facts in that situation.
Planetary Fact Sheet
Venus
- CO2 by volume: 96.5% (965,000ppm)
- Surface Pressure: 92 Bars
- Distance from Sun: 108.2 million km
- Average temperature: 464C
Earth- Distance from Sun: 149.6 million km
- Surface Pressure: 1 Bar
- CO2 by volume: 350ppm
- Average temperature: 15C
MarsGiven those facts, it is very easy to come to substantiated conclusions about CO2's effect, as well as solar intensity's effect, on temperature.
My point is that there are more factors affecting temperature than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Your point was made by ignoring key facts and going "well, gee... what if?"