Elon to dump Trump over climate bump Elon Musk says he will cut ties with President Trump, should the US walk away from the Paris Climate Accord. The billionaire tech investor said Wednesday that if things go as rumored and the White House pulls out of the Paris Agreement, he will recuse himself from the President's Business Advisory Council. Musk broke the news …
@ Triggerfish
"Fascinating how people can post on a tech site, using tech that comes from things like the scientific process and consensus, and then can so blatantly ignore anything like that when it impinges on their own world view."
People still defend windfarms, especially on shore! Some people still defend the Eurozone. Unfortunately the consensus of like minds seems to be enough for some without the need for facts or reality.
People still defend windfarms, especially on shore! Some people still defend the Eurozone.
Windfarms
Are they not controversial? There seems to be no consensus on them yet.
Although worth noting a lot of the rabid supporters tend to ignore the science and engineering side because it doesn't fit into their world view.
Eurozone
What the heck has that got to do with scientific consensus?
@ Triggerfish
"Although worth noting a lot of the rabid supporters tend to ignore the science and engineering side because it doesn't fit into their world view."
I responded to your message of- "Fascinating how people can post on a tech site, using tech that comes from things like the scientific process and consensus, and then can so blatantly ignore anything like that when it impinges on their own world view."
That would seem to come under people (as you call them "rabid supporters") ignoring anything impinging on their world view.
"Eurozone
What the heck has that got to do with scientific consensus?"
And repeat.
People still defend windfarms
Do they? Do they really? How completely bizarre, people liking a cheap carbon-free source of power, Whatever has got into them to make them start behaving rationally?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wind-power-now-the-cheapest-source-of-electricity-but-the-government-continues-to-resist-onshore-a6685326.html
@ Tom Paine
"Do they? Do they really? How completely bizarre, people liking a cheap carbon-free source of power, Whatever has got into them to make them start behaving rationally?"
Thank you for demonstrating the existence of such people. But in no way is wind power cheap, it is more expensive than nuclear in some estimates but certainly much higher than fossil fuel consistently. Certainly requiring both subsidy through tax and increased energy prices.
Also with the severe problem of requiring a fossil fuel gas power plant to support the irregularity of power generation it is a high polluter with high energy manufacturing required to make the generally non-recyclable technology. Unfortunately insanely high quotes for power generation were used to sell wind power while providing far less.
There is little rational about wind farm power.
How completely bizarre, people liking a cheap carbon-free source of power
Carbon free? How stupid can you get?
Tell me - what are they made from? Are there any metals or oils used in their manufacture? Any steel? Any plastics? Well there's a few tons of carbon there.
Tell me - do they just magically appear on site, or is there a very large amount of heavy machinery to transport them the thousands of miles from where they are made to where they are installed? A hell of a lot of carbon there.
Tell me - do the cables and switchgear that link them to the national grid use any metals, any rubbers, any plastics or other mined/refined materials? Much more carbon.
Tell me - do the sites the windfarms magically appear on magically appear by themselves, or is a lot of heavy machinery used in building the necessary roading to said sites, getting the cables to the sites, and doing the groundwork (lots of carbon in concrete!)? A few metric tonnes of carbon involved there, thousands of litres of oil burned per site etc. (well, given the roading needed for some of the sites I've seen I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least 2,000l/diesel per site)
Tell me - when the windfarm's gearbox fails after a very short time, is there a lot of carbon used in the production of a new gearbox, transporting it to site, replacing the old, transporting the old away?
Tell me - when your wind turbines stop spinning a second generator must already be up to speed before the wind turbine stops producing power - is there a lot of carbon involved in the manufacture, transport, installation, cabling etc of that generator? And there's a good chance that said backup generator would be coal, gas, oil, or "biomass" (ie wood chips shipped in from another country1 - no there's no carbon involved in that really!)
Tell me - when a wind turbine in the country has one of those spectacular fieiry failures you see on youtube, what's the black smoke? No carbon in that? What about when they fail somewhere where there's no fire appliances nearby and a lot of ground gets burnt as a result - any carbon released there? No?
Wind is probably the worst polluter of any, and has a very high carbon footprint. People promoting it are either misled, totally stupid, or in it for the money. Saying it's "carbon-free" suggests you may be in the 2nd camp, though hopefully the first and hopefully you'll sit down and do the math yourself and figure this out. That's why I am now very much against wind when I used to be someone who promoted it! Oh, and if you're in the 3rd camp, well what I have to say to those people is probably illegal so I won't say it here.
1 Maybe instead of shipping wood pellets or whatever, they could a ) site the power station near the coast and b) build wooden ships and sail them right into the power plant... Sails could be made of wood fibres (something closer to sail canvas than paper though) and could be burnt as well (if this would be a net saving of course)
People still defend windfarms, especially on shore!
Yes, that is astonishing since some have been fighting them since the early 1600s..
:)
People still defend windfarms
I've been touring the American West for 4-1/2 months. Out here there are wind farms that stretch from horizon to horizon. Their locations make them hazardous to migrating birds, to which I object. But I find it hard to believe corporations would invest the billions of dollars these farms cost if they weren't efficient. Even states like Wyoming and North Dakota, major coal suppliers, have massive wind farms. Seems to me that energy companies know the coal isn't going to last forever. Oh, and I've seen huge solar installations, too. Tree huggers clearly aren't the only ones defending alternative energy sources.
@ Florida1920
"But I find it hard to believe corporations would invest the billions of dollars these farms cost if they weren't efficient"
The corporations dont do it for the efficiency, they do it for the money. If efficiency was to increase their profits then they will do it for efficiency. Except that only works in market conditions. If the gov is dishing out money to people to make and run these things with no regard for them working efficiently or with any good reason then the company will still build them.
This is an amusing problem for Germany who now not only gives subsidy to 'Green energy' but also pays subsidy to fossil fuel plants to keep them open or the lights would certainly go out. Unfortunately the monuments to the sky dont work on a large scale. That is why it is reportable news when for an hour of its existence it produces some electricity. Maybe because of a storm (here in the UK).
"Oh, and I've seen huge solar installations, too"
Solar is different. In the right places and built correctly it works. Yet again governments have subsidised it and here in the UK we had a massive mis-selling problem because the installer got paid by the customer and gov for something that was pointless and in some cases not even installed correctly. Then the huge outcry when the subsidies were to be removed because then installation companies would fall. They required the gov money to stay in business, not because they sold a good product.
But I find it hard to believe corporations would invest the billions of dollars these farms cost if they weren't efficient.
[cough]massive subsidies[cough]
Why make something beneficial and efficient when you can make utter crap for 1,000 times the profit? And since when do these people care more about the environment than their back pocket?
"from things like the scientific process and consensus"
Yes we all need to be as convinced as the guy questioned here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
Look at religions, people will believe any old shit without a shred of evidence as long as they think enough other people believe the same thing. That is why the 97% fabrication is so often stated and so important to this religion.
It takes all of two seconds to google "how does co2 trap heat," and come up with results, like this from some left-wing rag called the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2968987/Scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air.html
But of course you don't care if this happens to be true or not: somehow (*) global warming got mixed up into the overall culture war, so your post is merely virtue signalling to other useful idiots.
(*) Money.
"It takes all of two seconds to google "how does co2 trap heat,""
But the important question is not how but how much. CO2 is responsible for a tiny proportion of the greenhouse effect. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is narrow, once you have absorbed all the heat in that narrow part of the spectrum higher CO2 proportions will make no difference.
All the predictions of catastrophic temperature increases assume small rises from CO2 force much larger rises from increased water vapour which is all guesswork and frankly bollocks. The global climate system can not possibly have an overall +ve feedback effect. If it did a single dinosaur fart would have us burnt to a crisp by now.
Umm
Bombast
CO2 levels and heat absorption.
Although your may have *one* element of *physics* on your side in that rant, you're missing about 10 other elements to the equation. Take off your blinders and understand about thermal envelopes. Oh, and you might want to ask someone about the *cough* Carboniferous Period. While you're asking about that, ask how long the thermal cycles took in the past.
I'll agree the carbon tax credit scheme is bullshit. it makes money. For *someone*. Might want to check out *who* it makes the most money for.
You know it's pretty DAMN COLD out there right now
Now now BB. You know that even if every country on earth was several degrees colder for several years ina row it'd still be "conclusive proof of global warming" or "that's just weather, not climate" or "well, when we adjust the figures properly you'll find that when those thermometers said last decade was warmer than this one it was because no one knew how to read thermometers back then" or some other bullshit like that.
Oh hang on, it's "climate change" now, not "global warming" because they realised they could only lie to people for so long (except the terminally stupid who actually do believe this shit!) before it would be noticed that we're not drowning under hundreds of metres of sea-level rises. Oh hang on that's explained by "isostatic rebound which just happens to coincidentally magically exactly match sea level rises".
Everything in the US government is just following money and power around. Trump would burn the world to ashes if it game him a moment of fame and fortune. Musk's money and power happens to be more in line with what's good for the US - materials R&D, advanced manufacturing, working solar power, and maybe even modernizing transportation.
"swayed by the crazy religious groups who think trashing the planet is OK"
yes, everyone who does not agree with the doom/gloom climate change FASCISM is OBVIOUSLY wanting to just *WRECK* the planet, irresponsibly throw trash everywhere, pollute deliberately whenever possible, dump toxic waste into fishing and swimming areas, throw trash all over the beaches (especially glass and hypodermic needles) yotta yotta yotta.
(I can't believe some people might actually think I wasn't being facetious)
/me facepalming
Careful now, el reg seems to have turned into the tech wing of the Guardian. Mass extinctions aren't going to happen due to temperature rises, all the world's creatures have been through worse and date back millions of years considerably longer than humans, when the world was a lot hotter. Worse case they drink a bit more water.... but they aren't all going to keel over because its a bit hot, we have 20+ deg swings already it's called the four seasons
all the world's creatures
All the worlds creatures, are you sure on that? are you saying there have been no extinctions since year dot?
What about the Permian extinction?
Also some creature will definitely die if the temperature changes that much, we have a advantage being quite an adaptable mammal, and also being able to shed clothing or put it on as necessary. Not all animals handle temperature ranges so well.
Also the equatorial regions you don't get four seasons, you get hot, and wet and its damn hot then as well.
Also have you heard of drought? How are they going to drink more water? An elephant drinks something like 30 gallons a day.
What about deserts?
Do you think evaporation might be a concern?
all the world's creaturesAll the worlds creatures, are you sure on that? are you saying there have been no extinctions since year dot?
I think the OP was referring to the fact that every species around today has been around for a long time, in some cases for millions of years (if you believe that stuff) or since Creation (if you believe that stuff). We have species here in NZ that were around when the dinosaurs were around, they've obviously gone through all those extremes. Without the benefits of clothing etc.
Also some creature will definitely die if the temperature changes that much, we have a advantage being quite an adaptable mammal, and also being able to shed clothing or put it on as necessary. Not all animals handle temperature ranges so well.
It is true that a significant change in climate could lead to the loss of some species or variants. But then we've had much colder periods not so long ago, and much warmer ones as well.
What about deserts?Do you think evaporation might be a concern?
Maybe. But just maybe.. Higher amounts of carbon in the atmosphere mean one of the key components of plant material is increased, more readily available. Of course plants need other nutrients to grow but an increase of carbon should help them. And higher temperatures are supposed to mean increased rainfall and certainly will mean increased humidity - you simply cannot possibly increase the amount of heat in the atmosphere without increasing the amount of water vapour, and that will spread (not evenly but it will spread) even to the dryer regions.
If "global warming" does actually somehow happen to follow the often-falsified climate models (or some close facsimile), it is possible that initially we'll see some increase to desertification, but later see deserts reduce and crops increase.1 Maybe more flooding, maybe not.
Increased evaporation also means increased cloud. Increased cloud means more heat radiated out into space before it reaches the lower atmosphere or the earth. Increased heat radiating out into space means things start cooling down.
1 NOT an excuse to waste resources or increase your "carbon footprint". Believe in AGW/MMCC/WTCIT2 or not as you wish, but look after the damned planet anyway!
2 Whatever They're Calling It Today
Another moron who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. All he's missing is the caps lock key.
Said by someone who seems to be lacking the intelligence to notice the point made that most of the world's lifeforms go through considerable temperature changes on a regular basis, and survive.
"Careful now, el reg seems to have turned into the tech wing of the Guardian"
- opinion, we all have them
"Mass extinctions aren't going to happen due to temperature rises"
- poorly informed opinion, we all have them but some of us don't shout out our ignorance so much.
"all the world's creatures have been through worse and date back millions of years considerably longer than humans, when the world was a lot hotter"
- irrelevant to topic but you might want to see how adaptation might work in a very short period of time.
"Worse case they drink a bit more water.... but they aren't all going to keel over because its a bit hot,"
- More mass oversimplification than extinction this one.
"we have 20+ deg swings already it's called the four seasons"
- you do understand it's about the climate not just the heat? My son, according to his school, can now name and describe the four seasons. I thought to myself, "Wow! I can't tell where they start and end anymore. Son, you're a genius".
'Mass extinctions aren't going to happen due to temperature rises'
Your reading for tonight is to learn about the cause and effects of the carbon isotope excursion during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. If you have time, the Permo-Triassic Mass Extinction is also available.
why focus on carbon? I have a reasonable suspiction that during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that atmospheric humidity was very VERY high. Earth swampy much?
And if "all that CO2" only changed temperatures by "that much", we're gonna be JUST! FINE!!!
besides, I'd like some warmer weather than we're seeing right now. You know, being at cos(60) of the estimated maximum temperature swing. That would be about 50% off of maximum for those who believe in global warming.
* I came up with that number based on a peak in 2005 with a 35 year half-cycle and 12 years, about 1/3 of that, being 1/3 of the 180 degrees of the cycle, or about 60 degrees. The current value relative to the peak would then be about cos(60) or 0.5 . If the peak is +/- about 2.5 degrees C, that would be an average worldwide temperature drop of a bit over 1 deg C, or as much as 3F. The difference between a 67F day and a 70F day is enough to make me feel cold. Funny how facts like that all line up so well...
** don't forget, "consensus" among "scientists" forced Gallileo to recant his non-geo-centric model of the universe. Just sayin'
*** As far as I'm concerned, "consensus" means "peer pressure". Not a good way to do SCIENCE.
You appear to be completely ignorant of the topic. Some introductory texts that might save you from embarrassment in future,
From the site you linked :
"and well-funded science deniers"
Shouldn't you be embarrassed linking your name to those who make comments such as this? Hell. they even promote the very much debunked "hockey stick"! Talk about stuff that should be embarrasing!
And you claim these clowns are somehow a reliable source of information on climate change?
For shame!
>we have 20+ deg swings already it's called the four seasons
Good god! How did someone as ignorant as you manage to switch on a computer?
We're looking at 2degC average (best case). That's not just 2degC warmer weather. That's a huge input of energy into an already chaotic system. Your local 'seasons' could easily move to a 40degC swing.
And that 2degC rise depends on us doing something pretty drastic about CO2 - now. There's no reason we couldn't proceed to 4degC or beyond.
Trump will probably be swayed by the crazy religious groups who think trashing the planet is OK.
One in seven Americans think it is definitely (7%) or probably (9%) true that “God controls the climate, therefore people can’t be causing global warming.”
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warming-god-end-times/
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told constituents last week that he believes if climate change is a real problem, God can fix it.“I believe there’s climate change,” Walberg said at a town hall last Friday in Coldwater, Mich., according to the Huffington Post, which obtained video of the exchange.
“I believe there’s been climate change since the beginning of time. I think there are cycles. Do I think that man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No.
“Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/335886-gop-rep-on-climate-change-god-will-take-care-of-it
Scott Pruitt, Trump's pick for head of the Environmental Protection Agency: “There are scientists that agree, there are scientists that don’t agree, to the extent of man’s contribution and whether it is even harmful that this point. We do not know if the trajectory is on an unsustainable course. Nor do we know the extent by which the burning of fossil fuels, and man’s contribution to that, is making it far worse than it is.”
Scientists do not disagree whether climate change is happening, nor do they disagree about the main cause. An overwhelming majority of currently publishing climate scientists — 97 percent — say climate change is real and is primarily driven by human activities, the most salient being the burning of fossil fuels. That’s about the same level of consensus that the medical community has about the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.
https://thinkprogress.org/scott-pruitt-epa-radio-show-comments-c88820974ce7?gi=a9bf2f263b40
> Trump will probably be swayed by the crazy religious groups
Trump and the Republicans _are_ "the crazy religious groups".
Trump's religion is 'eliminate everything that Obama did'. Obama signed the Paris Agreement so Trump has to get rid of that. In announcing that he also said he will renegotiate to get back into it. This is just so it will be 'Trump Saving The World' rather than Obama's legacy.
The same with health care. He only cares that it is no longer Obama's but has the Trump name stamped on it. Cutting 800 billion to give to the rich is just a bonus.
The Republicans don't want the Paris Agreement and claim that "God will fix the problems":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1sEbUdl5r0
The Republicans don't want the Paris Agreement and claim that "God will fix the problems":
God can fix the problems, no doubt about that. He's plenty able to.
But.
When so many who claim to worship Him go out of their way to deliberately mess up this planet to satisfy their greed, the question must become "Why should God save us from ourselves?".
God can easily replenish oil fields, inspire someone on how to turn water into energy ala "Chain Reaction", inspire someone else on how to have "cold fusion" working by the end of the month. Or He could change our physiology so we have our own portable source of solar energy, residing in our backsides, if He wanted to.
But so many of us spit in His face and go out of our way to ruin the things He gives us.
So why should He step in?
Oh, and if the republicans et al were to get to know their Bibles a bit, they might have to change their tune. And their lives. "I don't think those words mean what they think they mean".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
