deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Despite some odd posts in this thread, you can purchase panels anywhere you want and attach to the Calgary grid, as long as a specified process is followed. Generated energy does not earn as much in Alberta (compared to some other places) because you get paid for generation exactly what you are paying for energy. Other provinces pay a higher rate for generation, some significantly higher. The rate is set by the province, so you are not better off elsewhere in Alberta. With that said, you can still do alright.

Enmax does allow you to pay off the panels over a very long period, and I don't think there is much in the way of interest. You can shop around for cheaper panels or more expensive panels, but I think Enmax has the best of all the options.

What you generate and sell is dependent on what is on your roof, sun, roof and how much energy you use yourself.

I always tell friends that are interested to reduce their overall use before they even consider panels. A well 'designed' home can use significantly less energy when not at home - once they add panels they can see several hundred KWh in generation produced monthly, on top of their daytime use.

So is it worth it? I've got lots of south and west exposure on my roof. Should I consider this?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by troutman

Solar Roads Could Power An Entire Country

http://www.iflscience.com/technology...entire-country

A small US-based company called Solar Roadways are developing a solar road surface that, if installed nationwide, has the potential to produce more renewable energy than the entire country uses. In fact, they’ve actually already developed a working prototype that’s been installed in a parking lot, and they’re now crowdsourcing funds in order to tweak the design and move towards production.

The team have done some calculations; there’s approximately 31,000 square miles of usable surfaces in the US, and if all of these were covered the Solar Roadways system could produce over three times the electricity that is used by the entire country. That’s an incredible potential that could lead to a huge decrease in dependence on foreign oil. It would also cut CO2 emissions by a considerable amount.

At this point this would be extremely expensive. Perhaps in the future though.

Either way, its nice to see that solar seems to be doing pretty good.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by 4X4

So is it worth it? I've got lots of south and west exposure on my roof. Should I consider this?

Read this article that has dissuaded me from doing this. At least now.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.1156817

Essentially. Very good economically for ENMAX

[ken0042]

^^^ That's the thing- there are always numbers missing from the equation. Looking at 8¢ per KWH, what they are showing will give 10 KWH per day back to the grid. However does that make it a 1 KW system, 2 KW, or 3 KW? If it's 3 KW, that's a pretty good deal. If it's 1 or 1.5; not so much. Without looking hard you can get 1.5 KW panels for around $2000. Factor in another $2000 for installation; that's 1/2 of Enmax's price.

Nage Waza- you've looked into it; do you have the numbers?

[Red Slinger]

There is very little reason why most new homes aren't built with solar panels, a wind turbine or both. It should at least come as an option. It would increase the costs a little bit but if it was a standard feature the economies of scale would keep the prices down. I'd also like to see hot water tanks replaced with the heat exchanger system if what I've read about them is true.

There are so many ways for most people in the first world to live "off the grid". I don't think we've even scratched the surface of the possibilities yet on a mass scale.

[Thor]

This is why the government needs to lead the way, the push and incentives for innovation need a good kick in the butt.

There is a ton of money to be made here, screw the politics and debate on the existence of the problem, lets work on making money on this and making a better world for our stupid spoiled children

[Thor]

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by photon

That, ken0042, I think is why the responses go the way they do. When someone shows an honest willingness to engage and consider things then (most) people will be reasonable. When someone doesn't want to be engaged, that's fine too. But when someone isn't willing to even examine their own statements to correct them over a long period of time, or when they're just driving by and tossing an insult at everyone, they deserve what they get.

What did I get exactly? Certainly not my feelings hurt. There were insults but they were tossed in my direction. Ken is right here and honestly if you guys really wanted to help the cause you simply aren't going about it the right way behaving like this.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Thor

Honestly this kind of stuff doesn't help at all and if anything provokes and fuels the fire. It's my biggest issue with the pro-global warming/climate change people.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Honestly this kind of stuff doesn't help at all and if anything provokes and fuels the fire. It's my biggest issue with the pro-global warming/climate change people.

There's a reason people take this stance.

When it comes to climate change, to deny it's impact or severity is to either a) be ignorant of science, or b) be wilfully ignorant of science. There is no middle ground here. Either you believe in fact or you don't. Based on your long posting history of being contrarian, it's the latter. It isn't hard to see why someone may take liberties with your stance.

There isn't anything anyone can say that would sway you from your stance as it's all out there already. So instead, people have a laugh at it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What did I get exactly? Certainly not my feelings hurt. There were insults but they were tossed in my direction.

Actually if you read your post and the responses, the only insult directed to individuals is the one you made, no one directed a responding insult towards you.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Ken is right here and honestly if you guys really wanted to help the cause you simply aren't going about it the right way behaving like this.

But you've demonstrated that a reasonable response doesn't work. I and others addressed your post directly and reasonably, and you ignored those, choosing instead to introduce some other topic and to focus on a specific set of posts. Same as you've done many times over.

Like I said, if you do actually care, you would approach with a willingness to understand what science is actually saying. You don't have to agree, but at this point you aren't even disagreeing with science, you're disagreeing with a made-up version of it.

Or if you don't care, you wouldn't post in the threads to begin with.

Trying to say you're doing one while you're actually doing another is disingenuous and disruptive.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Do you believe smoking causes cancer?

If the answer is yes, then I have to question why you wouldn't believe in human caused climate change.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...d-lung-cancer/

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-conten...at-We-Know.pdf

Why would you believe the scientific community consensus in one respect but not another?

*********

Note: When I say "you" I mean in a general sense I'm not referring to anyone in this thread.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Honestly this kind of stuff doesn't help at all and if anything provokes and fuels the fire. It's my biggest issue with the pro-global warming/climate change people.

I agree with you there, rejecting AGW doesn't necessarily say something about their intelligence. Science denial is rarely about understanding the facts, it's usually about much more basic beliefs.

But so what, someone wrote a comic. For every comic about AGW deniers, there's a comic about AGW accepters. For every comic about dumb Republicans, there's a comic about dumb Liberals.

Some comics their whole reason for existing is to evoke a response and to let people nod their heads and say "yeah, those that don't agree with me are stupid". That's a very human thing.

But accepting or rejecting science because some people act poorly doesn't make any sense. It's like rejecting religion because Westboro are jerks.

Each of us have a choice who to interact with. I can choose to watch the media, read political cartoons, read extreme responses on forums, and tell myself that those interfere with my ability to come to a reasoned position. Or I can ignore the noise and interact with those that promote a reasoned position. Read what the scientists actually say rather than what the media and political comics say they say.

[troutman]

I think we have reached a tipping point. I see less posts from denialists across the internets. I see more people shouting them down. That battle is not over, but the focus can soon turn to possible solutions.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Honestly this kind of stuff doesn't help at all and if anything provokes and fuels the fire. It's my biggest issue with the pro-global warming/climate change people.

Its pointing out the absurdity of using the weather as a indicator of climate, and the frustration I and so many others feel when this is commonly brought up in defense of the denial-ism so rampant by politically right groups.

I used to spend a lot of effort arguing and doing my best to provide the best arguments and evidence to counter these people, but I'm starting to think the way we have started to deal with anti vaxx people is to mock them and ridicule their stance is the only way to get them to realize how wrong they are.

I can provide charts, facts, argue at length the strength of which my side stands against the deniers, but I have found in my experience this rarely puts a dent in anyone who's denying at this point what is clear and irrefutable science.

You see now how the anti vaxxers are being openly mocked on more mainstream TV, magazines, talk shows, and especially more so now on social media. I have noticed a noticeable decrease in the amount of people arguing for not vaccinating because of this, shame them into questioning their stance because arguing facts is not working for these people.

This cartoon was not for you specifically, albeit Photon did call you out for your comments rightfully so, I don't see you as one of these people who would not change their position given time and facts but these kinds of attempts to shame people who hold ridiculous positions do have their place because it is to me as ridiculous as creationists, flat earthers, etc..

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Why would you believe the scientific community consensus in one respect but not another?

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...ensus_Myth.pdf

And why would you believe a misguided statistic with very little actual grounding in "science"? People believe what they want to believe...the view from your pedestal isn't as based on 'fact' as you think it is.

[Thor]

lol Friends of Science, really?

[In August, 2006] The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper’s role in FoS funding.

In the course of an internal review and audit begun in March of 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science “had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change”, and unspent grant money was returned on September 10, 2007, according to a Calgary Foundation statement. As a consequence, the University advised FoS “that it would no longer accept funds on the organization’s behalf”, according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler sent on December 24, 2007. On February 17, 2008, CanWest News Service reported that U of C officials had shut down Cooper’s “‘Research on Climate Change’ trust account” …

http://deepclimate.org/2009/07/16/fr...e-theyre-back/

[Devils'Advocate]

I wish trout man... I wish. From my readings it is the reverse.

From the Bill Nye Facebook page:
"Of course it's real. The earth's climate has always constantly changed since the beginning."

"More scare tactics. Nothing that extremists haven't used before to further their stupidity. Who benefits by enacting all the legislation and regulations? The rich and the politicians. Does it affect the Earth? Not one iota.

There isn't any rational person who thinks that the climate isn't changing. It happens at least four times a year. But all of Al Gore's and all of his cronies' predictions about the catastrophes that would ensue should our CO2 production be left unchecked have fallen flat on their faces. Every last one of them.

35 years ago it was global cooling. Well, they messed that up so they switched it to global warming. Well, that hasn't panned out either so now they call it climate change. Blah blah blah. We're tired of their extremist stupidity."

"Bill please be so kind as to explain the correlation between CO2 and temperature. The temperature in this graph is from the HADCRUT-4 and CO2 is measured PPM. There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. All of the warming and cooling we have experienced globally can be explained by Milankovitch cycles and fluctuations in solar intensity."

"When in the long history of this planet has the climate NOT been changing? If the science is settled then please point to the single model that is proof of anthropogenic causation?"

"a government report huh? cause the gov't never misleads us on anything...."

"OK BIll, you wanna talk facts. CO2 is less than 4% of total greenhouse gasses (mostly water vapor). Human-produced CO2 is less than 4% of total CO2. So you are quite literally, making a big deal out of 4% of 4%. Do the math, as I'm sure you're capable of doing, and that comes out to about 13.8 ppmv that is human-produced CO2. That's fact. Now, how's about we get politics out of science?"

There are HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS more. It would seem that the anti-AGW crowd is doing the shouting down.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Any comments at theweathernetwork.com is 80% to 90% anti-AGW.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...ensus_Myth.pdf

And why would you believe a misguided statistic with very little actual grounding in "science"? People believe what they want to believe...the view from your pedestal isn't as based on 'fact' as you think it is.

Science needs a restraining order. The "friends" have been thoroughly debunked.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-consensus.htm

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I wish trout man... I wish. From my readings it is the reverse.

I certainly see that too, but I think 5-10 years ago it was worse.