I’ve always left my gear on until recently with the purchase of my Kinki EX-M1. The reason is it’s too tight of a fit in my media stand and it gets too hot if left on overnight. It needs proper and better ventilation. If I had it out, in the open, then I’d leave it on all the time like the rest of my gear.
Besides, it sounds it’s best in about 15 minutes so it’s no biggie. That, and if you're really concerned about the environment, turn that cable box off as it's the real power hog. 👍
All the best,
Nonoise |
@n80,
It's just as shocking that some folks will keep on drinking the kool-aid and and equate something as sensible as science based observations as some sort of religious dogma that cannot be believed, or even entertained. To pigeon hole such things can be so convenient and yet so short sighted.
By the way, the actual results are proceeding faster than the models predicted, so on that point, I can see why one would question things, but not outright dismiss them.
Being skeptical is fine and good as long as it isn't a given and required to be in a political gang.
To outright dismiss something because it's based on science and not politics, is not what I'd call being scientific, unless you can scientifically demonstrate otherwise. Just pulling a political talking point out of your hat doesn't qualify.
The Pentagon, DOD, and every insurance company out there believes in it and are preparing for it. Heck, even the fossil fuel industry believes it and has since the '70s. Their own scientists agreed that what they were doing was adding to global warming. They just sat on the info, waiting for the poles to melt so they can drill some more up north. Their own inter office memos that were recently made public stated so, and they're being sued for it.
For others who brought up nuclear, environmentalists didn't kill off the industry. It was the insurance companies who refused to insure them and the financial backers who pulled out. As for coal, natural gas is the one killing them off. That, and the coal mine owners laid off all the workers due to automation. All is takes is about 7 miners and some machinery to do what 30-40 miners use to do.
As for that time when liberals "questioned everything", we still do.
All the best,
Nonoise |
It's amazing how some, who can be so bright when it comes to science and how it relates to audio, can be so dense when applied to something as straightforward as climate since that denseness is based solely on a tribally derived, political belief system that abhors science and math, when it suits them, which is what the forecast models are based on.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Um, when it comes to nuclear, The Price-Anderson ActThe Price-Anderson Act is a key piece of legislation for the nuclear industry. The consequences of an attack or an accident at a nuclear power plant are so staggering that insurance companies won't fully insure them. Unfortunately, Congress isn't so cautious. It passed a law in 1957, the Price-Anderson Act, that established a taxpayer-backed insurance scheme for nuclear power. This law limits the amount of insurance nuclear power plant owners must carry and caps their liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or attack at dollar amounts that fall far, far short of the actual financial consequences that could be incurred. Even nuclear power executives acknowledge that their industry is financially dependent on Price-Anderson to shield nuclear power from free market forces. Congress reauthorized the Price-Anderson subsidy for another 20 years as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. and, The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.” The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.
With this track record, it’s not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing—so the industry has looked to government for subsidies, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate. When nuclear energy was an emerging technology, public support made some sense. But more than 50 years (and two public bailouts) after the opening of the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant, nuclear power is a mature industry that should be expected to stand on its own. Instead, the industry has responded to escalating costs with escalating demands for government support. A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized
.Then there's the latest fiasco to consider: http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-south-carolina-nuclear-reactors.html
All the best, Nonoise |
|
Human civilization will have become a World wide 1/4 mm wide black mark in the geological record. Yes, it will be black from all the carbon we generated. 😄 All the best, Nonoise |
Geoff is right: fossil fuel industry nowadays is nothing more than a filthy way of making money. Their time has come and gone but does anyone think the shareholders are going to actually go out and work for a living? They are a propped up aristocratic class that still owns enough politicians to ensure their survival for the foreseeable future.
Our grandchildren will curse this generation.
All the best,
Nonoise |
|
|
Kooty_amojan, Talk about cherry picking! I'd like to draw attention to the fact you've cherry picked your facts. The irony is that 40 years ago Scientific American was publishing articles doomsaying the impending ice age. That old "meme" has been thoroughly debunked years ago. If you bother to stop cherry picking data you'd see that it was only two articles that mentioned it and when confronted with it, the "scientists" who stated it quickly backed off as the overwhelming majority of the climate scientists at the time denounced those findings. It's good to know your recent history, at least. As for your cyclic trend of CO2 levels, no one is disputing that. Just go over to Wikipedia and note how you've left off the human contribution to the cycle. How convenient of you to do so. And if you're so inspired, feel free to rewrite the findings there as they're peer reviewed, which would subject you to so pretty serious oversight, unlike here, where you can spout off right wing talking points that have been laid bare as the lies that they are. All the best, Nonoise |
millercarbonO2,
Okay now....
The chart you first posted was addressed and discounted as misleading. Just go back and read up on it.
As for you first link, you have to keep in mind that when NASA states the upper atmosphere is getting warmer, they are speaking of the Exosphere and the Thermosphere, which account for distances that are 50 to 6,220 miles above the surface of the Earth.
Think about that for a minute and you may see the obvious.
As for your second link to, of all places, The New York Post, that piece of Yellow Journalism is owned by Rubert Murdoch. ’nuff said.
All the best,
Nonoise |
How that equates to climate change is anyone's guess. |
You are fortunate, indeed. Be also thankful that a certain someone in the White House hasn't noticed that as he's already forced two areas of the country to use coal fired power when it wasn't financially feasible but it did help out his contributor, a guy named Murray.
Also, one of the Dakotas, (North, South, is there really a difference?) passed a law that makes locals buy from a money losing coal fired plant.
Colorado, on the other hand, did an audit and found that they could close 13 of 22 coal fired plants that are losing money and if replaced with wind and a bit of solar, could save 2.5 billion dollars. Go figure.
All the best,
Nonoise |
@shadorne , You must have missed this link or simply ignored it, but it completely discounts your assertions: https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htmIn fact, any strange and tired argument that has already been thoroughly debunked can be found there for your enjoyment. Thanks? Don't mention it. 👍 By they way, when plants can absorb that much CO2, humans start to have headaches, insomnia, and nausea, kind of like listening to your "facts". All the best, Nonoise |
Like I said before, it's a tribal thing. Science and math can serve their needs when it comes to their arguments on cabling, fuses, and what have you but when it creeps into the lizard area of their brains, all bets are off.
There have been tons of studies that show how differently our brains are wired and how we take in information; how fear dominates one camp to the point where it precludes rational judgement. I'm glad I'm in the other camp. 👍
All the best,
Nonoise
|
To say that climate scientists have ignored "Paleoclimatolgoy" is the height of ignorance (as if you only know of this). It's rather sad that you think they are not aware of climate history when if fact, they've forgotten more than you'll ever know.
As I've said of others: where are your peer reviewed, published studies?
So far, all I see are uniformed, right wing talking points that strive to sound academic and even somewhat scientific, but are nothing more than cherry picked name droppings that strain credulity.
"Whataboutisms" don't work when they are so painfully and obviously contrived.
All the best,
Nonoise |
That's about as hyperbolic a rebuttal as any I've heard. All noise, and no substance. |
@shadorne , Again, that has already been addressed: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htmYou need to fully investigate the sources of your claims. They have been around like, forever, and have been debunked, like, forever. What all the false claims have in common is that they've been scrubbed of all context that disputes them. Just the "facts" and statements that support them are mentioned. All the best, Nonoise |
|
The world is full of scientists of one field or another that don't have expertise in "climate" science that hold contrary thoughts in their heads at the same time due to a political belief system that demands they do.
To say that site is "complete and utter unfounded nonsense and hyperbole" without seriously taking it to task is a pretty sad thing to observe by someone with serious credentials in another field. And yet, it happens all the time.
As I've told someone else here, get yourself over to Wikipedia where all the info is peer reviewed and where you're free to edit what you "know" to be true and see how far you get. Waving your creds around here won't amount to much of anything until you do that.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Repeating ad hominem attacks (Cargo cult is another, great, right wing meme) from a soapbox coupled with dire warnings of some cult tampering with evidence sounds a little like black helicopters, the dark internet and Comet Ping Pong Pizza parlors. You’re playing fast and loose with the facts. Not very scientific.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Right wing has nothing to do with science but it has everything to do with political views. I guess you are tacitly admitting that the whole basis for your belief in man-made Global Warming is founded upon left wing politics! Nope. I believe in it because the vast, overwhelming, majority of those who's expertise is in climate science (97%) believe it. It's just that for the right wing kooks it's required for them to hawk that garbage. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that has nothing to do with science. Science doesn’t have a political view because it isn’t based upon beliefs about how things should be but simply observations of how things actually are. My point exactly, so thank you for agreeing with me. Politics should stay out of science but pray tell me, which party goes to great lengths to poison the discussion, stifle commentary, inhibit public debate, and openly denounce science? Quiz at 11:00! All the best, Nonoise |
Cue the black helicopters...... |
|
My perspective is actually that of a highly educated critical thinking adult who has actually investigated all the science behind these ridiculous end of the world claims. Who, by the way, cherry picked what he wanted to believe and tossed aside that which he didn't. All of it to fit his own peculiar world view. I think I get it. All the best, Nonoise |
Signal anxiety....had to look that one up.
Apropos. |
All of this reminds me of the old Gahan Wilson cartoon where the president is being told by one of his staff: "It's those damned environmentalists again, sir." while they're both wearing gas masks with bloodshot eyes and the sky outside the window is a filthy grey.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Good luck with that.
Have you ever noticed how they just can't help themselves and have to spew bile and vitriol when an opposing point of view presents itself? It's Pavlovian and part of a necessary, but needless, defense mechanism.
Polite public comportment is not one of their skillsets.
All the best,
Nonoise
|
I saw something about plastic eating bacteria on cable (used to call it TV) but it's still in it's infancy. That reminded me of something else I saw on VICE over at HBO about our CO2 problem and there's three different companies with three distinct methods. The only one I can remember is this one: https://carbonengineering.com/It still has a ways to go but it's a start. All the best, Nonoise |
Here comes Space Force! 🚀 |
When Germany started subsidizing solar panels for home owners they figured it would negate the need for one nuclear reactor. So many people took up the offer that the count is, or was, up to nine nuclear reactors not being needed to be built. And this is from a country who shares the same latitude with southern Canada. When you travel using their trains, all you see are solar panels on rooftops.
Granted, solar, like wind, won't replace all fossil fuels (yet), so why the hell give up on them as an adjunct to fossil fuels as a means of weening us off them? I'm surprised that some here aren't advocating for more whale oil for their lamps.
Solar and wind are now the equal or in some instances, are cheaper than fossil fuels, in some locations. This is like being on the Titanic and alerting everyone to the fact that we're sinking only to have some here proclaim from the opposite end of the ship, "nonsense, look how high we are right now."
All the best,
Nonoise |
How is it any different from the subsidies paid to the fossil fuel industries?
They make around 6-8 Billion a year in profits and still get about 2 billion in subsides. If they're so efficient and able to make it on their own, then why the subsidies?
What is not addressed in that article is that the homeowners make more electricity than they need for most of the year and they sell any excess back to the utility that's agreed to pay them at a decent rate.
As for the downsides of how to dispose of all the toxic waste when they get old, compare that to your average toxic coal ash pond (actually, they're small lakes). Or to the over 2000 highly toxic chemicals that fracking companies pump back into the groundwater to replace the gas they extracted. I bet you can't wait to drink that.
It's just a matter of take your pick and proceed from there. It's all about policy: who you like, who supports you and how you support them in return. Does anyone actually think it's "free market"?
All the best,
Nonoise |
@csmgolf , I never said you believed in fracking or that fossil fuel is good. It was just a counterpoint to the downsides you cited of solar production. It was meant as a point that all forms of energy use subsidies. Sorry if there were any misunderstandings. Also, I found this http://euanmearns.com/the-causes-of-the-differences-between-european-and-us-residential-electricity-rates/ which does a fairly good job of explaining why rates for renewables are higher in Europe than here, stateside. This summation pretty much sums it up: This post addresses the question of the causes of the differences between European and US retail electricity rates. The answer is clear – the costs of Europe’s transition to renewables are borne at least in part by the consumer while in the US it is not, or at least not directly. And when this cost burden is removed Europe’s residential electricity rates fall much more closely into line with US rates. Without the Energiewende charges shown in Figure 4 the residential electricity rate in Germany in 2016 would have been 16.23 eurocents/kWh, or about 19.8 US cents/kWh, the same as Massachusetts and less than Vermont. And if government-imposed taxes and fees indeed amount to 52 percent of the monthly power bill for German retail consumers, as Deutsche Welle claims, the rate drops to 13.78 eurocents/kWh, or about 16.8 US cents/kWh, on a par with California. The US electricity consumer, however, does not get off scot-free. The money the US has spent on renewables in the form of subsidies and tax credits is offset by adjustments elsewhere in the federal budget that will ultimately be paid for in one form or another by the US taxpayer. But the taxpayer does not get to see the impacts in his or her electricity bill. And US utilities don’t get off scot-free either. They are absorbing the costs of balancing ever-increasing levels of intermittent renewables generation without adequate compensation. But that’s another story. All the best, Nonoise
|
Funny how none of the people who think we should turn everything off ever seem to want to sacrifice the electricity to run their computers, let alone all the servers spreading their posts around the world. That’s virtue-signaling! Spare no expense! Lol! This must be a hard room: I hear no one laughing. |
@nonoise. It’s just like when cables are proved to have no directionality, no break in time, no effect on soundstage, just no no no. It’s been tested with instruments orders of magnitude more sensitive than human hearing, but it is still swore to by many. So it’s no surprise when there is little to no evidence that global warming has anything to do with people, that many question it How on earth can you make such a statement in such a way as to suggest it's factually correct and accepted? |
|
@bac2yinyl,
Getting your drink on there, dude?
Or are you normally that messed up?
All the best,
Nonoise |
|
You took the red pill, didn't you? |
Correct. The red pill is the one that lets you see the world as it really is. Then he should have taken two. |
How is peer reviewed science a "politically corrupt process"?
Reading Lomborg's Wiki page shows he's not a climate scientist,
that he believes in global warming,
that he believes what is recommended won't work fast enough,
that we should concentrate on other solutions by adapting to it,
that we should take on AIDS, malaria and malnutrition instead.
Even though he's not legitimately in the 3% of actual climate scientists who don't believe man made global warming is real, at least he's not a dick about it, going around screaming, conspiracy!
As for plants loving CO2, tell us something we don't know. Should we give them preference over us and keep raising the CO2 levels? Why not do what China is doing and start replanting tress on an enormous scale?
As for your either/or temp killer, again, I think you're loosing it.
Any simple google search can slay any argument you care to recite. You could save us a lot of pain by doing it, unless you think Google is in on it too.
All the best,
Nonoise |
|
As soon as scientists can figure out what should be the exact correct natural global temperature to within +/- 0.1 degrees then we can begin to figure the impact of human added CO2. Until that day, it is all entirely conjecture. Says who? Anyone who says there is “no debate” is just expressing an opinion born of closed mindedness. Science is always open to debate and especially when there is so much evidence that throws into question the fundamental basis of for an entire hypothesis The ones with the closed minds constitute the <3% of climate scientists who disagree with the >97%. All of that evidence to the contrary has already been weighed and found to be cherry picked, lame, conspiratorial in nature, and put forth, in large part, by the fossil fuel industry. Heck, a lot of the negative press against man made global warming came from the same "scientists" who said smoking was healthy for you. The two jerks who ran that scam had all the infrastructure in place from their campaign for the tobacco industry and were employed to use it again for the fossil fuel industries. All the best, Nonoise |
A lot of jobs and factories that left here were said to be stolen. They weren't. American owners moved overseas to avoid what they termed "ancillary" reasons along with the lie that American workers earned too much. They still make money from these overseas business deals since they don't have to worry about strict pollution laws. No one here gave the jobs to them without continuing compensation.
Second and third world countries are behind us but are slowly getting the message. What irks me is the lengths companies go to here, since they can't export certain jobs and resources, to pollute. There are areas in this country you couldn't pay me to live in.
All the best,
Nonoise |
To the global warming naysayers here, take your pathetic arguments and high horse attitude to a serious site dedicated to global warming arguments and see how far you get. You'll be laughed off the site.
Every one of your tired, specious, already debunked arguments would have no traction there, just as they have no traction here, to any enlightened, open minded person, of sane mind and judgement.
What you need to do is to come to understand what role politics, the nature of authoritarianism, and how your role fits into it. Hint: you're just the ones in the nest with your beaks agape, being fed regurgitated talking points.
All the best,
Nonoise |
If you answer yes to any of the questions in the first paragraph or no to those in the second, then you need to work on your own wasteful and ecologically destructive habits before pointing fingers at others and calling them names. Putting other people down does nothing for the environment. Who do you think started with the name calling? I just responded in kind, and was better at it, it seems.
All the best,
Nonoise
|
@millercarbon
What a bunch of malarky!
Your points were addressed, and debunked. You had no comeback except to flat out deny the existence or effectiveness of the opposing points. Talk about projection....
Your rant is a boilerplate rebuttal that’s been used for a long, long time. With minor editing, you can say this about any topic you care to choose.
In fact, if one were inclined, with a few edits your rant can be turned against every argument you’ve made in this thread.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Right now, from flooding, there is massive soil erosion (deeper than the height of the average man in some areas) and enormous loss of stored seed and crop (up to 80%). It is predicted that a large amount of small farmers will declare bankruptcy this year.
All the best,
Nonoise
|
All of this talk about the vast lengths of time that we’ve had large differences in climate glosses over the fact that mankind, as we are now, wasn’t the same in those times. We’ve evolved and flourished for about the time span that the scientist use.
Funny that, huh?
Agriculture started about 11,000 years ago in the East and progressed to Europe about 5,000 years later. Then came tribes, communities, cities, and nation states.
It’s that sweet spot that we’ve thrived in which accounts for our present lifestyle, way of living, and so on. Go back half a million years and good luck with any semblance of living as you now know it and oh, we were eating grubs and skimminging up trees when predators came along to ruin our day.
All the best,
Nonoise
|
If you go back to the links I provided, different levels present in the air show what effects they have on our physiology and well being. It doesn't take much to start having deleterious effects, and some of that is in the short term (days to weeks).
All the best,
Nonoise |
