“More Americans say Republicans would be better for the economy, taking a position Democrats had held through Barack Obama’s presidency, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research poll out Friday.”
“Forty-eight percent of the 1,009 adults surveyed nationwide said Republicans would “do a better job” of dealing with the economy, topping Democrats by three percentage points. “
“Most of the indicted militia members accused of being anti-government extremists have active voting records, a check with area voter registration offices showed yesterday.”
“One is a registered Democrat, and the party affiliations of the rest could not be determined.
Jacob J. Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio, voted as a Democrat in the 2004 and 2008 primary elections. He also voted in 10 other elections since 2000. Party affiliation in Ohio is determined by which party’s ballot they requested in the most recent primary election.”
I find it hard tobelieve that only one lone Democratic voter is going to be hanging with Conservative Republican Voters in an intense Ideological Atmosphere…So in other words the media is spewing pur propoganda….I know…I know.. Shocking?
So who is lieing here? Is it Mike Pence or Barack Obama?
“As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you’re going to increase production.
“The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.
“Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President’s national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate. At the end of the day this Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs oversees at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”-Representative Mike Pence
OR,
“So today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence.”
“That’s why my administration will consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic. That’s why we’ll continue to support development of leased areas off the North Slope of Alaska, while protecting Alaska’s Bristol Bay.
“There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling. But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long run. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.”
“We have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves; we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil.”-President Barack Obama
Question: how does ensuring we can’t get to the most furtile areas, while opening the most expensive and least efficient areas only for exploration not drilling equate to the security of oil reserves for the future?
I just couldn’t resist this one. Rmember last Fall when we were assailed with the assurance that the Arctic Sea Ice was on the decline? Well, guess what? Arctic Sea ice extent has reached the average. Amazing what happens when the winds shift to allow for the Sea Ice to remain in the Arctic ocean instead of being blown out to sea. Graph is below.
I just couldn’t resist this one. Remember last Fall when we were assailed with the assurance that the Arctic Sea Ice was on the decline? Well, guess what? Arctic Sea ice extent has reached the average, which is a major increase. Amazing what happens when the winds shift to allow for the Sea Ice to remain in the Arctic ocean instead of being blown out to sea. Graph is below.
“In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007. Ice extent was unusually low in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, and above normal in the Bering Sea. Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice reached its summer minimum, near the average for 1979 to 2000.
Overview of conditions Arctic sea ice extent averaged for February 2010 was 14.58 million square kilometers (5.63 million square miles). This was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for February, but 220,000 square kilometers (85,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in February 2005.
Conditions in context During February 2010, ice extent grew at an average of 25,700 square kilometers (9,900 square miles) per day. Sea ice extent increased at a fairly steady rate in the early part of the month and then slowed after the middle of February. Ice extent remained more than two standard deviations below the 1979 to 2000 average throughout the month.”
Joel, you’ve missed the whole point. Instead of disappearing the annual average Arctic Sea ice extent has been growing since it’s low in 2007. But, why are you referring to the past month’s measurement? The chart clearly relates to March, 2010, not Feb. If you wish to show a low, why not quote the August 2009 data?
And to what were you referring, when saying this: “Actually, no.”?
Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs. People are moving away from oil. You can stop running interference for the oil companies. People dont give a shit anymore about warming or not they just want to be free from oil producers holding the rest of the world hostage. Everyone knows we can heat/power our houses and run our cars without oil. The technology is there it only takes money which we have plenty of.
Greg, I agree that: “People dont give a shit anymore about warming or not they just want to be free from oil producers holding the rest of the world hostage.”
But this one I doubt: “Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs.” Do you have a cite that shows anything other than talking stage planning?
“And to what were you referring, when saying this: “Actually, no.”?
If you go to the link I provided, you will see an oscillatory trend that both explains the transient increase over 2007 and clearly demonstrates a shrinking trend since 1978. It is obvious that the trend to shrinkage is continuing apace: http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png Your use of 2007 as a selective reference point when (1) we already know the trend is oscillatory and (2) the net overall trend for 30 years has been shrinkage is either ignorant or dishonest.
Joel, what’s your point? For the past 30 years Arctic Sea Ice extent oscillates? Yup! For the past 30 years there is a slow downward trend? Yup! That’s what the satellite data shows us.
Here’s another oscillation. While the Arctic Sea Ice has a trend that shows ~ 4% downward trend (from NSIDC) the Antarctic show a less, but still substantial trend gain. Ho Hum!
Death spiral? Ice free Arctic by 2013 or 2020 or (you can pick a year.) Nature has a funny way of humbling man’s puny efforts at prediction.
So, I ask again. What’s your p[oint? Are you supporting those above referenced views? If so, why? With what evidence?
Before you go on about short term trend lines, I want you to know some recent history. In 1905, in the 1930s and in 2008 the Arctic Sea Ice was predicted to disappear.
Talking stage and planning is the first step and Price Waterhouse is looking at costs. The important part is that they recognize it can be done and they desire it. It will happen because they WANT it to happen. The rest of the world recognizes the limits of our current energy model and wants off the train. Only here do we have neanderthals like Cheney who still want oil companies to write our energy policies and want to pretend like burning shit doesnt send stuff into the atmosphere which will eventually turn around and harm us in some way. Nahhhhhhhh couldn’t happen. Its just a myth.
They (Europe) are already going to have FIFTEEN PERCENT of their electricity needs met by solar from a project to be completed in 2012 in Morroco.
The fight is over CoRev. Oil lost. The world is moving on. The ENTIRE anti AGW movement was funded by big oil and they could have actually done something productive with their money instead of funding a lot of argumentative pseudoscientists. Sure the details of how carbon in the atmosphere affects our life are unclear but most everyone realizes that burning all that crap CANT be good or harmless.
Greg, when have I supported big oil? Where di that come from? More over, where do you come up with this kind of silliness: “The ENTIRE anti AGW movement was funded by big oil and they could have actually done something productive with their money instead of funding a lot of argumentative pseudoscientists.” I’m anti-AGW and I have yet to get my share of that ole Big Oil money supporting that movement. A matter of fact, oil money invested in AGW is miniscule compared to the “official” funding. Please note in that comment I did not discriminate against which side the oil money was invested because much of their investment has been secular.
Europe has a unique political reaason for investing in other than carbon energy investment. They have little, and what they import is from sources with which there have been several conflicts. EU’s energy policies are as much driven by politics as science.
At least you make this observation: “Sure the details of how carbon in the atmosphere affects our life are unclear …” with which I can whole heartedly agree.
The bottomline? I believe you are arguing with yourself re: energy policies and not me. My original comment related to Arctic Sea Ice.
Corev, “Here’s another oscillation. While the Arctic Sea Ice has a trend that shows ~ 4% downward trend (from NSIDC) the Antarctic show a less, but still substantial trend gain. Ho Hum!”
Exactly as climate models predicted! Thank you for pointing out evidence that climate models are accurate! However, lets also remember that antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate.
“So, I ask again. What’s your p[oint? Are you supporting those above referenced views? If so, why? With what evidence?”
I’m sorry this is so hard for you, CoRev. Clearly, you haven’t even a vestigial grasp of science, or you would understand (a) that the graph I linked to shows an overall monotonic trend of decreasing Arctic sea ice, superimposed upon an oscillatory pattern, and (b) the prediction of the precise year in which the Arctic will be free of ice is utterly irrelevant to the inescapable fact that the sea ice melting in the Arctic is evidencing global warming.
I don’t believe you are as stupid as your posts in this thread make you seem, CoRev. I believe you are simply trolling.
1) he will have great charisma & speaking ability, “a mouth speaking great things”.Check.
2) Daniel also tells us that he will have a “fierce countenance” or stern look,and will be “more stout than his fellows”–more proud and boastful. Check.
3) The Antichrist will rise to power on a wave of world euphoria, as he temporarily saves the world from its desperate economic, military & political problems with a brilliant 7 year plan for world peace, economic stability & religious freedom. TBD, but looks doubtful.
4) According to prophecy the Antichrist will not only be a master of political intrigue, but also a military genius.Uh, no.
5) For awhile, most of the world is going to think the Antichrist is wonderful, as he will seem to have solved so many of the world’s problems.Not currently happening.
6)At this time he will make Jerusalem his world capitol & outlaw all religions, except the worship of himself & his image. The Bible says that the Antichrist will sit in the Jewish Temple exalting himself as God & demanding to be worshipped.This could happen.
However, overall conclusion: Obama NOT the Antichrist.
Four eyes, dunno bout that ole modle prediction. There seems to be some contradiction in your two sources. One says Antarctic Ice should expand and the other says the mass of the “land ice” is diminishing. Which is it?
Re: the Vestigona studies referenced, land ice mass reduction, I would be leery of any study using a proxy (gravity) for a mass measurement. Earth is after all a ,molten iron core planet with eddies and currents in that core. Changes in any core component would overwhelm any satellite proxy measurement used to measure surface changes. Are we talking about the difference in total gravity to the 99th or 100th or even higher decimal point? Remember the difference in ice measured would have to be in yards compared to 1/2 the diameter of the planet.
Sorry, for me it is too much of a stretch, and using a proxy at that, to consider Antarctic Ice Mass a valid measurement. Also the source is a known pro-AGW site with a well known agenda.
Four eyes, dunno bout that ole model prediction. There seems to be some contradiction in your two sources. One says Antarctic Ice should expand and the other says the mass of the “land ice” is diminishing. One says more the other says less. Which is it?
Re: the Vestigona studies referenced, land ice mass reduction, I would be leery of any study using a proxy (gravity) for a mass measurement. Earth is after all, a molten iron core planet with eddies and currents in that core. Changes in any core component would overwhelm any satellite proxy measurement used to measure surface changes. Aren’t we talking about the difference in total gravity to the 99th or 100th or even higher decimal point? Remember the difference in ice measured would have to be in yards compared to 1/2 the diameter of the planet.
Sorry, for me it is too much of a stretch, and using a proxy at that, to consider Antarctic Ice Mass a valid measurement. Also the source is a known pro-AGW site with a well known agenda.
Joel, what about these statments do not support the ?value? of your graph? I said: “For the past 30 years Arctic Sea Ice extent oscillates? Yup! For the past 30 years there is a slow downward trend? Yup!”
It looks like today’s sea ice (the blue line) has gone back to within the 95 percent confidence interval of the 20 year average for sea ice thickness (ie. has returned to its long term average). The blue line going below the green line would have supported the radical environmentalist position. But this is not what the data is telling us.
1) he will have great charisma & speaking ability, “a mouth speaking great things”.Check.
2) Daniel also tells us that he will have a “fierce countenance” or stern look,and will be “more stout than his fellows”–more proud and boastful. Check.
3) The Antichrist will rise to power on a wave of world euphoria, as he temporarily saves the world from its desperate economic, military & political problems with a brilliant 7 year plan for world peace, economic stability & religious freedom. TBD, but looks doubtful.
4) According to prophecy the Antichrist will not only be a master of political intrigue, but also a military genius.Uh, no.
5) For awhile, most of the world is going to think the Antichrist is wonderful, as he will seem to have solved so many of the world’s problems.Happening on Angry Bear, but not widespread elsewhere
6)At this time he will make Jerusalem his world capitol & outlaw all religions, except the worship of himself & his image. The Bible says that the Antichrist will sit in the Jewish Temple exalting himself as God & demanding to be worshipped.This could happen.
However, overall conclusion: Obama NOT the Antichrist.
I don’t know about that. It seems he fit the definition in several places. Perhaps if they graded on a curve for Antichrist he could pass the test. It worked getting him elected.
As always the nuisance escapes you. Obama has many but not all of the given characteristics of the Antichrist. So the real question is about the criteria and not the fit.
By the way, 100 percent of democrats are fools, and 110% or libearls are fools.
This week-end the New York Times finally out does itself and publishes two excellent articles, as Op-Eds, in a section that is likely to drasw wide spread attention. My compliments to the Op-Ed editor. Read them yourself. Too much good information to sumarize here.
Then, even better, a quartet of legal scholars, “Susan P. Koniak is a law professor at Boston University. George M. Cohen is a law professor at the University of Virginia. David A. Dana is a law professor at Northwestern University. Thomas Ross is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh” gives us this excellent and damning review of the total and comprehensive lack of over sight while the ship of state was sinking into a financial disasture. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04koniak.html?ref=opinion This particular article is depressing fromr the light it sheds on how cow towed our supposed regulators have become.
Those are good articles you linked to. I would add this one to make it a trio:
Don’t Trust the Regulators
Financial reform can’t be left to those who failed us before. Here’s my problem with the financial-regulation package that Sen. Chris Dodd has proposed: it hands the very regulators who failed us in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and 2008 the responsibility for saving us next time. ….
Anyone who remembers Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke dismissing the housing bubble knows that’s not quite right. But regulator failure is a fact of life, or at least of bubbles: it’s pretty much in the definition of a bubble that the relevant regulators don’t believe there is a bubble…. The trick is building protections that work even when the people in charge don’t realize they’re needed.
Greg – “Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs.”
Greg – “They (Europe) are already going to have FIFTEEN PERCENT of their electricity needs met by solar from a project to be completed in 2012 in Morroco.”
Both of these claims appear to be false based on what I have read.
Last July it was reported that the “Desertec initiative launched this week in Germany could allow Europe to source 15 percent of its power from mirrors that gather sunlight in the vast southern desert by 2050.”
Greg appears to be taking great liberty with European nations’ projections and facts.
Greg – “Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs.” Greg – “They (Europe) are already going to have FIFTEEN PERCENT of their electricity needs met by solar from a project to be completed in 2012 in Morroco.”
Both of these claims appear to be false unless Greg can back them up.
Last July it was reported that the “Desertec initiative launched this week in Germany could allow Europe to source 15 percent of its power from mirrors that gather sunlight in the vast southern desert by 2050.”
One source says SEA ice should expand the other says LAND ice is declining. There is a difference between sea and land. There is no contradiction. Is there a published reason to doubt the validity of the satellite observations or is it just your conjecture? This isn’t meant to be attacking or anything I would just like to know. Finally you say, “Also the source is a known pro-AGW site with a well known agenda.” This is stupid. Do not pretend that attacking a source is the same thing as attacking an argument, its dumb, please don’t do it again.
Greg – “Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs.” Greg – “They (Europe) are already going to have FIFTEEN PERCENT of their electricity needs met by solar from a project to be completed in 2012 in Morroco.”
Both of these claims appear to be false.
Last July it was reported that the “Desertec initiative launched this week in Germany could allow Europe to source 15 percent of its power from mirrors that gather sunlight in the vast southern desert by 2050.”
Four eyes, I’m sorry, but many sources are obvious fronts masguerading as sources of truth for each side. Skeptical Science is one of them. At least you did not cite Climate Progress, a site so bad that I stopped going there and referencing their articles so none of my readers would add to their traffic.
Anyway, regarding the Antarctic Ice mass study, after years of studiying these kinds of reports, it stretches my personal level of credibility. I admit that I did not do a doc review to find contrary analyses. There are however, some interesting comments re: her earlier report, 2006-7. In it she admits that most of the mass is lost from the W. Antarctic, which almost certainly makes it Sea Ice.
The Antarctic is so cold that most land ice does not melt. It does sublimate, but is that rate faster than it forms? Dunno.
So I have my personal doubts over the findings. Proxies have proven to be somewhat problematic when first used, (that includes the early satellite temp data now 30 years old), and this methodology using the GRACE satellite is only a few years old.
I don’t knkowthat Newsweek is the right source for opinion on regulation of the financial industry, but the authors in the second Times Op-Ed provide us with a clear caurionary note. From Koniak et al, “As Congress now considers reforming the financial industry, it needs to take into account how abysmally our regulators performed when they coordinated their efforts and how insular their decision-making has been on matters that affect the entire economy. Congress needs to recognize that “regulatory capture,” in which an agency becomes a pawn of the industry it is supposed to oversee, is real.”
Regulatory capture says it all. When the regulators are more concerned with the profitability of the regulated there’s going to be a bad result. Koniak and her co-authors make clear that there was insufficient independence of the several regulating agencies from those businesses they were intended, if not intending, to regulate. It is not the concept of government regulation that is the problem. It is the intentions of those given the responsibility and how the legislative and executive branches relate to that need for regulation that is the key to effective over sight.
At least I was able to use sammy’s proof to support my corollary to sammy’s proposition,
I think Sammy was screwing around as was I. It looks like you missed this. Nobody can prove that Obama is the Antichrist, and its not like Gibbs is going to confirm it one way or another.
Corev, Its true that radar observations found that E. Antarctic ice shelves has been generally in balance with ice “flowing” off the edges equaling the snow accumulation in the interior. This is uncontroversial. When they say W. Antarctica is retreating they are talking about the islands that are covered by ice sheets; some of these ice sheets actually hit the southern ocean floor- these ice sheets are considered land ice because they are not made from salty ocean water. When Chen or Vestigona are describing ice loss from W. Antarctica they are describing land ice loss not sea ice loss.
Anyway, the point is that even if you do not count recent gravity based satellite observations there are still radar observations which show a steady East An. and decreasing West Ant. land ice which means overall decreasing land ice mass in the Antarctic.
Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII), the largest solar energy project, has recently gained the support of the US company First Solar and both the Tunisian and Algerian governments. The announcement of the Joining of First Solar on 16 March has propelled Desertec into soon becoming a reality providing solar energy, up to 15 percent of Europe’s energy. If completed by the PROJECTED DATE in 2012, this would create a network of sustainable energy regions not only in Europe but in North Africa and the Middle East as well.
We should put it into the “possible, but not likely” category. The “military genius” and “beloved by all” thing make it a long shot. Hopefully the prophecies are not mistranslations of “international doormat” or “beguiling to ideologues,” or we are in trouble.
I was on sabbatical the last time catus tried to show how derivatives hurt the overall economy. Can you summarise the argument. I don’t believe none have been articulated. Rather out of obligation to cause some lefties have gone on their bicycle and tried to fake an argument. Its hard to make legislation based on faked arguments from loons on bicycles.
“Europe has a unique political reaason for investing in other than carbon energy investment. They have little, and what they import is from sources with which there have been several conflicts. EU’s energy policies are as much driven by politics as science”
Gee Ya think?? And the US energy policy on the other hand is completely free of political influence.
“At least you make this observation: “Sure the details of how carbon in the atmosphere affects our life are unclear …” with which I can whole heartedly agree.”
Yes the details might be unclear but it IS clear that carbon has an affect even at low concentrations. Here’s how http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/8/2818/47625
And I’m sorry you’re right about big oil. If they havent sent YOU any money than they must not be funding any anti AGW “research”. How silly of me.
In the US the only problem is money, and NIMBYism. Build the transmission lines from the Great Plains East and West, and put up the wind turbines and all indications are that a lot of electrcity can be generated. FYI Texas this weekend has off and on run at 20% wind on the Ercot Grid. In addition we have the deserts that Europe has to cross the Mediteranian to get to, in the Southwest. (If Ca doesn’t want to use its deserts, then in NM and West Texas theres a lot of pasture land that can do both wind and solar). In addition the offshore wind is really only waiting because some people don’t like the looks of the wind turbines. A large part of the problem is people don’t like the looks of power lines, one way is to buy senic easments and add that to the cost so everyone pays for the easement. Its just like the wind farms near Roscoe Tx, when the farmers/ranchers heard 5k/year/turbine of free money, loosing maybe 1 acre out of 320 or so they said where do I sign. Pay people off for their opposition.
Whether you and Sammy were “screwing” around or not the fact still remains that the Republican base has shown itself to be largely made up of bigoted fools with too much time to think of such important issues as the “anti Christ.”
Cantab, Read your comment a lilttle more carefully. You’re not making any more sense than usual. “ I don’t believe none have been articulated.” Is that some new form of code you’re using in hopes of confusing the socialists that hang out at this blog?
“Rather out of obligation to cause some lefties have gone on their bicycle and tried to fake an argument.” An interesting point. I’ll ponder it for a while. Possibly some of our fellow readers can lend some insight as to its actual meaning.
This Q&A info, as good as it is, does not support either of your claims.
“According to the TRANS-CSP study by the DLR, imported solar energy from the entire MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) could cover approximately 17% of Europe’s energy requirements by 2050.”
The projection breaks down this way:
Year 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Renewables in EU 2% 8% 20% 27% 35% 46% Hydro-energy 18% 18% 17% 16% 17% 18% Crude oil and natural gas 21% 24% 22% 23% 18% 9% Coal 30% 28% 26% 23% 17% 9% Nuclear energy 29% 22% 14% 6% 1% 0% Imported solar energy 0% 0% 2% 5% 11% 17% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
The following DESERTEC Foundation Q&A, as good as it is, does not support either of your claims.
While bringing the Morroco operation on line in 2012 is noteworthy, there is no likelihood that the source will provide Europe with 15 percent of its power needs in 2012. The overall goal is to provide a maximum 17% of Europe’s power by 2050. Getting to that level will not occur instantly, as you indicate.
“According to the TRANS-CSP study by the DLR, imported solar energy from the entire MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) could cover approximately 17% of Europe’s energy requirements by 2050.”
The European energy source projection breakdown: Year………. 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
The following DESERTEC Foundation Q&A, as good as it is, does not support either of your original claims.
While bringing the Morroco operation on line in 2012 is noteworthy, there is no likelihood that the source will provide Europe with 15 percent of its power needs in 2012. The overall goal is to provide a maximum 17% of Europe’s power by 2050. Getting to that level will not occur instantly, as you indicate.
“According to the TRANS-CSP study by the DLR, imported solar energy from the entire MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) could cover approximately 17% of Europe’s energy requirements by 2050.”
You’re getting warmer. But regulatory capture by industry explains only a small part of the problem. The bigger problem was the regulators were “captured” by the same data as the participants.
You’re getting warmer. But regulatory capture by industry explains only a small part of the problem. The bigger problem was the regulators were “captured” by the same data as the participants. The banks biggest wish would be to have had stronger regulations!
I never claimed the would be 100% SOLAR in 35 yrs but 100% renewable. With tidal and wind energy sources in northern Europe being developed and solar to the south and in Africa that is not an unreasonable goal at all.
Yes a review of all the literature shows some divers responses but there ARE those suggesting that the project in Morroco is due to be COMPLETED in 2012 and could provide 15% of energy needs.
I cant remember when I heard it and who it was being interviewed (on NPR I think) but this European politician, was talking about the DESERTEC project and made the statement that at current production levels and with current technology it would easily be completed by 2050 BUT he reminded the host that with better technology (very likely to be available given the efforts underway now) the number of panels may be able to be reduced by 20-25% (meaning less installation time) and that he saw a very likely reduction of maybe ten yrs til completion.
I believe I saw that harvesting less than 1% of the annual solar energy which strikes N Africa would power all of Europe and N Africa.
Now that people are putting their effort toward these technologies they are going to explode.
Sammy, Now you are grasping at straws to make a point as the point you’re trying to make has no validity. “The banks biggest wish would be to have had stronger regulations!” That’s a sentence that needs explication.
“More Americans say Republicans would be better for the economy, taking a position Democrats had held through Barack Obama’s presidency, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research poll out Friday.”
“Forty-eight percent of the 1,009 adults surveyed nationwide said Republicans would “do a better job” of dealing with the economy, topping Democrats by three percentage points. “
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35326.htmlDemocrats are in good shape for November….Trust Me!
“Most of the indicted militia members accused of being anti-government extremists have active voting records, a check with area voter registration offices showed yesterday.”
“One is a registered Democrat, and the party affiliations of the rest could not be determined.
Jacob J. Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio, voted as a Democrat in the 2004 and 2008 primary elections. He also voted in 10 other elections since 2000. Party affiliation in Ohio is determined by which party’s ballot they requested in the most recent primary election.”
http://toledoblade.com/article/20100401/NEWS16/4010369
I find it hard tobelieve that only one lone Democratic voter is going to be hanging with Conservative Republican Voters in an intense Ideological Atmosphere…So in other words the media is spewing pur propoganda….I know…I know.. Shocking?
So who is lieing here? Is it Mike Pence or Barack Obama?
“As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you’re going to increase production.
“The President’s announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.
“Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President’s national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate. At the end of the day this Administration’s energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs oversees at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”-Representative Mike Pence
OR,
“So today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence.”
“That’s why my administration will consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic. That’s why we’ll continue to support development of leased areas off the North Slope of Alaska, while protecting Alaska’s Bristol Bay.
“There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling. But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long run. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.”
“We have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves; we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil.”-President Barack Obama
Question: how does ensuring we can’t get to the most furtile areas, while opening the most expensive and least efficient areas only for exploration not drilling equate to the security of oil reserves for the future?
I just couldn’t resist this one. Rmember last Fall when we were assailed with the assurance that the Arctic Sea Ice was on the decline? Well, guess what? Arctic Sea ice extent has reached the average. Amazing what happens when the winds shift to allow for the Sea Ice to remain in the Arctic ocean instead of being blown out to sea. Graph is below.
I just couldn’t resist this one. Remember last Fall when we were assailed with the assurance that the Arctic Sea Ice was on the decline? Well, guess what? Arctic Sea ice extent has reached the average, which is a major increase. Amazing what happens when the winds shift to allow for the Sea Ice to remain in the Arctic ocean instead of being blown out to sea. Graph is below.
@ CoRev,
Actually, no.
“In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007. Ice extent was unusually low in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, and above normal in the Bering Sea. Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice reached its summer minimum, near the average for 1979 to 2000.
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for February 2010 was 14.58 million square kilometers (5.63 million square miles). This was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for February, but 220,000 square kilometers (85,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in February 2005.
Conditions in context
During February 2010, ice extent grew at an average of 25,700 square kilometers (9,900 square miles) per day. Sea ice extent increased at a fairly steady rate in the early part of the month and then slowed after the middle of February. Ice extent remained more than two standard deviations below the 1979 to 2000 average throughout the month.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Go to Hudson’s Bay and reasure the polar bears.
What was the poll question?
Good for the economy on Wall St?
29 years ago……..
Before Reagan/monetarism, the US had a stable currency and not endured a financial crisis since 1933.
28 years of republican pandering to Wall St has been really good for the economy.
In serf nation.
Worthy of a main post:
H. Edward Roberts, PC Pioneer, Dies at 68
April 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03roberts.html
.
ILSM, you mean that ever increasing (not diminishing) population of PBs?
Joel, you’ve missed the whole point. Instead of disappearing the annual average Arctic Sea ice extent has been growing since it’s low in 2007. But, why are you referring to the past month’s measurement? The chart clearly relates to March, 2010, not Feb. If you wish to show a low, why not quote the August 2009 data?
And to what were you referring, when saying this: “Actually, no.”?
Let it go CoRev. Your “mission” has failed.
Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs. People are moving away from oil. You can stop running interference for the oil companies. People dont give a shit anymore about warming or not they just want to be free from oil producers holding the rest of the world hostage. Everyone knows we can heat/power our houses and run our cars without oil. The technology is there it only takes money which we have plenty of.
Greg, I agree that: “People dont give a shit anymore about warming or not they just want to be free from oil producers holding the rest of the world hostage.”
But this one I doubt: “Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs.” Do you have a cite that shows anything other than talking stage planning?
“And to what were you referring, when saying this: “Actually, no.”?
If you go to the link I provided, you will see an oscillatory trend that both explains the transient increase over 2007 and clearly demonstrates a shrinking trend since 1978.
It is obvious that the trend to shrinkage is continuing apace:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100303_Figure3.png
Your use of 2007 as a selective reference point when (1) we already know the trend is oscillatory and (2) the net overall trend for 30 years has been shrinkage is either ignorant or dishonest.
Joel, what’s your point? For the past 30 years Arctic Sea Ice extent oscillates? Yup!
For the past 30 years there is a slow downward trend? Yup!
That’s what the satellite data shows us.
Here’s another oscillation. While the Arctic Sea Ice has a trend that shows ~ 4% downward trend (from NSIDC) the Antarctic show a less, but still substantial trend gain. Ho Hum!
BTW, I do not use 2007 as a selective reference point, the “Warmists” do because it is the low point since the satellite data began. From that data point many ?climatologists? have predicted an ice free Arctic. Some have predicted an ice free Arctic by 2013. While your referenced NSIDC has made predicitions such as: “Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat June 5, 2009″.
Death spiral? Ice free Arctic by 2013 or 2020 or (you can pick a year.) Nature has a funny way of humbling man’s puny efforts at prediction.
So, I ask again. What’s your p[oint? Are you supporting those above referenced views? If so, why? With what evidence?
Before you go on about short term trend lines, I want you to know some recent history. In 1905, in the 1930s and in 2008 the Arctic Sea Ice was predicted to disappear.
Talking stage and planning is the first step and Price Waterhouse is looking at costs. The important part is that they recognize it can be done and they desire it. It will happen because they WANT it to happen. The rest of the world recognizes the limits of our current energy model and wants off the train. Only here do we have neanderthals like Cheney who still want oil companies to write our energy policies and want to pretend like burning shit doesnt send stuff into the atmosphere which will eventually turn around and harm us in some way. Nahhhhhhhh couldn’t happen. Its just a myth.
They (Europe) are already going to have FIFTEEN PERCENT of their electricity needs met by solar from a project to be completed in 2012 in Morroco.
The fight is over CoRev. Oil lost. The world is moving on. The ENTIRE anti AGW movement was funded by big oil and they could have actually done something productive with their money instead of funding a lot of argumentative pseudoscientists. Sure the details of how carbon in the atmosphere affects our life are unclear but most everyone realizes that burning all that crap CANT be good or harmless.
Greg, when have I supported big oil? Where di that come from? More over, where do you come up with this kind of silliness: “The ENTIRE anti AGW movement was funded by big oil and they could have actually done something productive with their money instead of funding a lot of argumentative pseudoscientists.” I’m anti-AGW and I have yet to get my share of that ole Big Oil money supporting that movement. A matter of fact, oil money invested in AGW is miniscule compared to the “official” funding. Please note in that comment I did not discriminate against which side the oil money was invested because much of their investment has been secular.
Europe has a unique political reaason for investing in other than carbon energy investment. They have little, and what they import is from sources with which there have been several conflicts. EU’s energy policies are as much driven by politics as science.
At least you make this observation: “Sure the details of how carbon in the atmosphere affects our life are unclear …” with which I can whole heartedly agree.
The bottomline? I believe you are arguing with yourself re: energy policies and not me. My original comment related to Arctic Sea Ice.
Greg, you made this statment: “Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs.” Which appears to be a Greg pipe dream. The latest 3/7/2010 here’s my google results: http://www.google.com/search?q=EU+and+Morocco+renewable+energy+plan&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a presser makes claims that Morocco plans to replace 42% of its energy needs with solar (and other) renewables by 2030.
Where are you getting your info?
Corev,
“Here’s another oscillation. While the Arctic Sea Ice has a trend that shows ~ 4% downward trend (from NSIDC) the Antarctic show a less, but still substantial trend gain. Ho Hum!”
Exactly as climate models predicted! Thank you for pointing out evidence that climate models are accurate!
However, lets also remember that antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate.
“So, I ask again. What’s your p[oint? Are you supporting those above referenced views? If so, why? With what evidence?”
I’m sorry this is so hard for you, CoRev. Clearly, you haven’t even a vestigial grasp of science, or you would understand (a) that the graph I linked to shows an overall monotonic trend of decreasing Arctic sea ice, superimposed upon an oscillatory pattern, and (b) the prediction of the precise year in which the Arctic will be free of ice is utterly irrelevant to the inescapable fact that the sea ice melting in the Arctic is evidencing global warming.
I don’t believe you are as stupid as your posts in this thread make you seem, CoRev. I believe you are simply trolling.
CoRev is a regular comment poster at AB.
How does someone troll on an open thread?
One in four Republicans in America thinks President Barack Obama “may be the Antichrist,” according to a startling new poll. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7517186/Quarter-of-Republicans-think-Barack-Obama-is-the-Antichrist.html
Is he? Let’s put it to the test: http://www.countdown.org/armageddon/antichrist.htm
1) he will have great charisma & speaking ability, “a mouth speaking great things”. Check.
2) Daniel also tells us that he will have a “fierce countenance” or stern look, and will be “more stout than his fellows”–more proud and boastful. Check.
3) The Antichrist will rise to power on a wave of world euphoria, as he temporarily saves the world from its desperate economic, military & political problems with a brilliant 7 year plan for world peace, economic stability & religious freedom. TBD, but looks doubtful.
4) According to prophecy the Antichrist will not only be a master of political intrigue, but also a military genius. Uh, no.
5) For awhile, most of the world is going to think the Antichrist is wonderful, as he will seem to have solved so many of the world’s problems. Not currently happening.
6) At this time he will make Jerusalem his world capitol & outlaw all religions, except the worship of himself & his image. The Bible says that the Antichrist will sit in the Jewish Temple exalting himself as God & demanding to be worshipped. This could happen.
However, overall conclusion: Obama NOT the Antichrist.
Four eyes, dunno bout that ole modle prediction. There seems to be some contradiction in your two sources. One says Antarctic Ice should expand and the other says the mass of the “land ice” is diminishing. Which is it?
Re: the Vestigona studies referenced, land ice mass reduction, I would be leery of any study using a proxy (gravity) for a mass measurement. Earth is after all a ,molten iron core planet with eddies and currents in that core. Changes in any core component would overwhelm any satellite proxy measurement used to measure surface changes. Are we talking about the difference in total gravity to the 99th or 100th or even higher decimal point? Remember the difference in ice measured would have to be in yards compared to 1/2 the diameter of the planet.
Sorry, for me it is too much of a stretch, and using a proxy at that, to consider Antarctic Ice Mass a valid measurement. Also the source is a known pro-AGW site with a well known agenda.
Four eyes, dunno bout that ole model prediction. There seems to be some contradiction in your two sources. One says Antarctic Ice should expand and the other says the mass of the “land ice” is diminishing. One says more the other says less. Which is it?
Re: the Vestigona studies referenced, land ice mass reduction, I would be leery of any study using a proxy (gravity) for a mass measurement. Earth is after all, a molten iron core planet with eddies and currents in that core. Changes in any core component would overwhelm any satellite proxy measurement used to measure surface changes. Aren’t we talking about the difference in total gravity to the 99th or 100th or even higher decimal point? Remember the difference in ice measured would have to be in yards compared to 1/2 the diameter of the planet.
Sorry, for me it is too much of a stretch, and using a proxy at that, to consider Antarctic Ice Mass a valid measurement. Also the source is a known pro-AGW site with a well known agenda.
Thanks for the support MG!
Joel, what about these statments do not support the ?value? of your graph? I said: “For the past 30 years Arctic Sea Ice extent oscillates? Yup!
For the past 30 years there is a slow downward trend? Yup!”
CoRev,
It looks like today’s sea ice (the blue line) has gone back to within the 95 percent confidence interval of the 20 year average for sea ice thickness (ie. has returned to its long term average). The blue line going below the green line would have supported the radical environmentalist position. But this is not what the data is telling us.
I wonder why anyone objected to your post.
One in four Republicans in America thinks President Barack Obama “may be the Antichrist,” according to a startling new poll. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7517186/Quarter-of-Republicans-think-Barack-Obama-is-the-Antichrist.html
Is he? Let’s put it to the test: http://www.countdown.org/armageddon/antichrist.htm
1) he will have great charisma & speaking ability, “a mouth speaking great things”. Check.
2) Daniel also tells us that he will have a “fierce countenance” or stern look, and will be “more stout than his fellows”–more proud and boastful. Check.
3) The Antichrist will rise to power on a wave of world euphoria, as he temporarily saves the world from its desperate economic, military & political problems with a brilliant 7 year plan for world peace, economic stability & religious freedom. TBD, but looks doubtful.
4) According to prophecy the Antichrist will not only be a master of political intrigue, but also a military genius. Uh, no.
5) For awhile, most of the world is going to think the Antichrist is wonderful, as he will seem to have solved so many of the world’s problems. Happening on Angry Bear, but not widespread elsewhere
6) At this time he will make Jerusalem his world capitol & outlaw all religions, except the worship of himself & his image. The Bible says that the Antichrist will sit in the Jewish Temple exalting himself as God & demanding to be worshipped. This could happen.
However, overall conclusion: Obama NOT the Antichrist.
Sammy,
I don’t know about that. It seems he fit the definition in several places. Perhaps if they graded on a curve for Antichrist he could pass the test. It worked getting him elected.
Proposition I:
“One in four Republicans in America thinks President Barack Obama “may be the Antichrist,” according to a startling new poll.”
Sammy subsequently provides a six point proof regarding Propostion I.
Sammy’s conclusion resulting from hhis proof:
“However, overall conclusion: Obama NOT the Antichrist.”
Corollary A of Propostion I, subsequent to Sammy’s proof:
One in four Republicans are fools.
Thank you Sammy.
Jack,
As always the nuisance escapes you. Obama has many but not all of the given characteristics of the Antichrist. So the real question is about the criteria and not the fit.
By the way, 100 percent of democrats are fools, and 110% or libearls are fools.
This week-end the New York Times finally out does itself and publishes two excellent articles, as Op-Eds, in a section that is likely to drasw wide spread attention. My compliments to the Op-Ed editor. Read them yourself. Too much good information to sumarize here.
First Michael J Burry takes Greenspan to task for being myopic to the financial catastrophy and continuing to claim that it was unforeseeable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04burry.html?ref=opinion
Then, even better, a quartet of legal scholars,
“Susan P. Koniak is a law professor at Boston University. George M. Cohen is a law professor at the University of Virginia. David A. Dana is a law professor at Northwestern University. Thomas Ross is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh”
gives us this excellent and damning review of the total and comprehensive lack of over sight while the ship of state was sinking into a financial disasture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04koniak.html?ref=opinion
This particular article is depressing fromr the light it sheds on how cow towed our supposed regulators have become.
Jack,
Those are good articles you linked to. I would add this one to make it a trio:
Don’t Trust the Regulators
Financial reform can’t be left to those who failed us before.
Here’s my problem with the financial-regulation package that Sen. Chris Dodd has proposed: it hands the very regulators who failed us in 2005 and 2006 and 2007 and 2008 the responsibility for saving us next time. ….
Anyone who remembers Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke dismissing the housing bubble knows that’s not quite right. But regulator failure is a fact of life, or at least of bubbles: it’s pretty much in the definition of a bubble that the relevant regulators don’t believe there is a bubble…. The trick is building protections that work even when the people in charge don’t realize they’re needed.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235816
Welcome back Cantie. Hope your comment is allowed to stay.
CoRev,
Probably not for long. Bruce as a price for running the site seems to want to make it a lefty playground.
Greg – “Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs.”
Greg – “They (Europe) are already going to have FIFTEEN PERCENT of their electricity needs met by solar from a project to be completed in 2012 in Morroco.”
Both of these claims appear to be false based on what I have read.
Last July it was reported that the “Desertec initiative launched this week in Germany could allow Europe to source 15 percent of its power from mirrors that gather sunlight in the vast southern desert by 2050.”
Greg appears to be taking great liberty with European nations’ projections and facts.
http://news.alibaba.com/article/detail/energy/100137649-1-interview-morocco-wants-leading-role-european.html
.
Greg – “Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs.”
Greg – “They (Europe) are already going to have FIFTEEN PERCENT of their electricity needs met by solar from a project to be completed in 2012 in Morroco.”
Both of these claims appear to be false unless Greg can back them up.
Last July it was reported that the “Desertec initiative launched this week in Germany could allow Europe to source 15 percent of its power from mirrors that gather sunlight in the vast southern desert by 2050.”
http://news.alibaba.com/article/detail/energy/100137649-1-interview-morocco-wants-leading-role-european.html
.
One source says SEA ice should expand the other says LAND ice is declining. There is a difference between sea and land. There is no contradiction.
Is there a published reason to doubt the validity of the satellite observations or is it just your conjecture? This isn’t meant to be attacking or anything I would just like to know.
Finally you say, “Also the source is a known pro-AGW site with a well known agenda.”
This is stupid. Do not pretend that attacking a source is the same thing as attacking an argument, its dumb, please don’t do it again.
Greg – “Europe and N Africa are working on a project to be 100% renewable in 25-35 yrs.”
Greg – “They (Europe) are already going to have FIFTEEN PERCENT of their electricity needs met by solar from a project to be completed in 2012 in Morroco.”
Both of these claims appear to be false.
Last July it was reported that the “Desertec initiative launched this week in Germany could allow Europe to source 15 percent of its power from mirrors that gather sunlight in the vast southern desert by 2050.”
http://news.alibaba.com/article/detail/energy/100137649-1-interview-morocco-wants-leading-role-european.html
.
Four eyes, I’m sorry, but many sources are obvious fronts masguerading as sources of truth for each side. Skeptical Science is one of them. At least you did not cite Climate Progress, a site so bad that I stopped going there and referencing their articles so none of my readers would add to their traffic.
Anyway, regarding the Antarctic Ice mass study, after years of studiying these kinds of reports, it stretches my personal level of credibility. I admit that I did not do a doc review to find contrary analyses. There are however, some interesting comments re: her earlier report, 2006-7. In it she admits that most of the mass is lost from the W. Antarctic, which almost certainly makes it Sea Ice.
The Antarctic is so cold that most land ice does not melt. It does sublimate, but is that rate faster than it forms? Dunno.
So I have my personal doubts over the findings. Proxies have proven to be somewhat problematic when first used, (that includes the early satellite temp data now 30 years old), and this methodology using the GRACE satellite is only a few years old.
Cantab,
At least I was able to use sammy’s proof to support my corollary to sammy’s proposition,
“one in four Republicans….”
Have you proof of anything you’ve just stated?
I don’t knkowthat Newsweek is the right source for opinion on regulation of the financial industry, but the authors in the second Times Op-Ed provide us with a clear caurionary note.
From Koniak et al, “As Congress now considers reforming the financial industry, it needs to take into account how abysmally our regulators performed when they coordinated their efforts and how insular their decision-making has been on matters that affect the entire economy. Congress needs to recognize that “regulatory capture,” in which an agency becomes a pawn of the industry it is supposed to oversee, is real.”
Regulatory capture says it all. When the regulators are more concerned with the profitability of the regulated there’s going to be a bad result. Koniak and her co-authors make clear that there was insufficient independence of the several regulating agencies from those businesses they were intended, if not intending, to regulate. It is not the concept of government regulation that is the problem. It is the intentions of those given the responsibility and how the legislative and executive branches relate to that need for regulation that is the key to effective over sight.
Jack,
At least I was able to use sammy’s proof to support my corollary to sammy’s proposition,
I think Sammy was screwing around as was I. It looks like you missed this. Nobody can prove that Obama is the Antichrist, and its not like Gibbs is going to confirm it one way or another.
Corev,
Its true that radar observations found that E. Antarctic ice shelves has been generally in balance with ice “flowing” off the edges equaling the snow accumulation in the interior. This is uncontroversial. When they say W. Antarctica is retreating they are talking about the islands that are covered by ice sheets; some of these ice sheets actually hit the southern ocean floor- these ice sheets are considered land ice because they are not made from salty ocean water. When Chen or Vestigona are describing ice loss from W. Antarctica they are describing land ice loss not sea ice loss.
Anyway, the point is that even if you do not count recent gravity based satellite observations there are still radar observations which show a steady East An. and decreasing West Ant. land ice which means overall decreasing land ice mass in the Antarctic.
Here
http://allafrica.com/stories/201003200004.html
An excerpt;
Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII), the largest solar energy project, has recently gained the support of the US company First Solar and both the Tunisian and Algerian governments.
The announcement of the Joining of First Solar on 16 March has propelled Desertec into soon becoming a reality providing solar energy, up to 15 percent of Europe’s energy. If completed by the PROJECTED DATE in 2012, this would create a network of sustainable energy regions not only in Europe but in North Africa and the Middle East as well.
cantab,
We should put it into the “possible, but not likely” category. The “military genius” and “beloved by all” thing make it a long shot. Hopefully the prophecies are not mistranslations of “international doormat” or “beguiling to ideologues,” or we are in trouble.
Jack,
I was on sabbatical the last time catus tried to show how derivatives hurt the overall economy. Can you summarise the argument. I don’t believe none have been articulated. Rather out of obligation to cause some lefties have gone on their bicycle and tried to fake an argument. Its hard to make legislation based on faked arguments from loons on bicycles.
“Europe has a unique political reaason for investing in other than carbon energy investment. They have little, and what they import is from sources with which there have been several conflicts. EU’s energy policies are as much driven by politics as science”
Gee Ya think?? And the US energy policy on the other hand is completely free of political influence.
“At least you make this observation: “Sure the details of how carbon in the atmosphere affects our life are unclear …” with which I can whole heartedly agree.”
Yes the details might be unclear but it IS clear that carbon has an affect even at low concentrations. Here’s how http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/8/2818/47625
And I’m sorry you’re right about big oil. If they havent sent YOU any money than they must not be funding any anti AGW “research”. How silly of me.
In the US the only problem is money, and NIMBYism. Build the transmission lines from the Great Plains East and West, and put up the wind turbines and all indications are that a lot of electrcity can be generated. FYI Texas this weekend has off and on run at 20% wind on the Ercot Grid. In addition we have the deserts that Europe has to cross the Mediteranian to get to, in the Southwest. (If Ca doesn’t want to use its deserts, then in NM and West Texas theres a lot of pasture land that can do both wind and solar). In addition the offshore wind is really only waiting because some people don’t like the looks of the wind turbines. A large part of the problem is people don’t like the looks of power lines, one way is to buy senic easments and add that to the cost so everyone pays for the easement. Its just like the wind farms near Roscoe Tx, when the farmers/ranchers heard 5k/year/turbine of free money, loosing maybe 1 acre out of 320 or so they said where do I sign. Pay people off for their opposition.
Whether you and Sammy were “screwing” around or not the fact still remains that the Republican base has shown itself to be largely made up of bigoted fools with too much time to think of such important issues as the “anti Christ.”
Cantab,
Read your comment a lilttle more carefully. You’re not making any more sense than usual.
“ I don’t believe none have been articulated.” Is that some new form of code you’re using in hopes of confusing the socialists that hang out at this blog?
“Rather out of obligation to cause some lefties have gone on their bicycle and tried to fake an argument.” An interesting point. I’ll ponder it for a while. Possibly some of our fellow readers can lend some insight as to its actual meaning.
Try reading directly from the source:
http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/faq/
This Q&A info, as good as it is, does not support either of your claims.
“According to the TRANS-CSP study by the DLR, imported solar energy from the entire MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) could cover approximately 17% of Europe’s energy requirements by 2050.”
The projection breaks down this way:
Year
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Renewables in EU
2%
8%
20%
27%
35%
46%
Hydro-energy
18%
18%
17%
16%
17%
18%
Crude oil and natural gas
21%
24%
22%
23%
18%
9%
Coal
30%
28%
26%
23%
17%
9%
Nuclear energy
29%
22%
14%
6%
1%
0%
Imported solar energy
0%
0%
2%
5%
11%
17%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Greg,
The following DESERTEC Foundation Q&A, as good as it is, does not support either of your claims.
While bringing the Morroco operation on line in 2012 is noteworthy, there is no likelihood that the source will provide Europe with 15 percent of its power needs in 2012. The overall goal is to provide a maximum 17% of Europe’s power by 2050. Getting to that level will not occur instantly, as you indicate.
http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/faq/
“According to the TRANS-CSP study by the DLR, imported solar energy from the entire MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) could cover approximately 17% of Europe’s energy requirements by 2050.”
The European energy source projection breakdown:
Year………. 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Renewables…. 2% 8% 20% 27% 35% 46%
Hydro-energy.. 18% 18% 17% 16% 17% 18%
Crude oil/NGas 21% 24% 22% 23% 18% 9%
Coal………. 30% 28% 26% 23% 17% 9%
Nuclear energy 29% 22% 14% 6% 1% 0%
Imported solar energy 0% 0% 2% 5% 11% 17%
Year……….. 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Renewables…… 2% 8% 20% 27% 35% 46%
Hydro-energy…. 18% 18% 17% 16% 17% 18%
Crude oil/NGas . 21% 24% 22% 23% 18% 9%
Coal……………. 30% 28% 26% 23% 17% 9%
Nuclear energy.. 29% 22% 14% 6% 1% 0%
Imported solar energy 0% 0% 2% 5% 11% 17%
Year……….. 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Renewables…….2% 8% 20% 27% 35% 46%
Hydro-energy…..18% 18% 17% 16% 17% 18%
Crude oil/NGas ..21% 24% 22% 23% 18% 9%
Coal………………30% 28% 26% 23% 17% 9%
Nuclear energy…29% 22% 14% 6% 1% 0%
Imported solar energy 0% 0% 2% 5% 11% 17%
Greg,
The following DESERTEC Foundation Q&A, as good as it is, does not support either of your original claims.
While bringing the Morroco operation on line in 2012 is noteworthy, there is no likelihood that the source will provide Europe with 15 percent of its power needs in 2012. The overall goal is to provide a maximum 17% of Europe’s power by 2050. Getting to that level will not occur instantly, as you indicate.
http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/faq/
“According to the TRANS-CSP study by the DLR, imported solar energy from the entire MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) could cover approximately 17% of Europe’s energy requirements by 2050.”
The projected European energy source breakdown:
Year……………2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Renewables…….2% 8% 20% 27% 35% 46%
Hydro-energy…..18% 18% 17% 16% 17% 18%
Crude oil/NGas ..21% 24% 22% 23% 18% 9%
Coal………………30% 28% 26% 23% 17% 9%
Nuclear energy…29% 22% 14% 6% 1% 0%
Imported solar energy 0% 0% 2% 5% 11% 17%
No Corev, cantie likes to see himself as a man of principle without the need of table manners or data. He is banned permanently.
Jack,
Regulatory capture says it all.
You’re getting warmer. But regulatory capture by industry explains only a small part of the problem. The bigger problem was the regulators were “captured” by the same data as the participants.
Jack,
Regulatory capture says it all.
You’re getting warmer. But regulatory capture by industry explains only a small part of the problem. The bigger problem was the regulators were “captured” by the same data as the participants. The banks biggest wish would be to have had stronger regulations!
MG
I never claimed the would be 100% SOLAR in 35 yrs but 100% renewable. With tidal and wind energy sources in northern Europe being developed and solar to the south and in Africa that is not an unreasonable goal at all.
Yes a review of all the literature shows some divers responses but there ARE those suggesting that the project in Morroco is due to be COMPLETED in 2012 and could provide 15% of energy needs.
I cant remember when I heard it and who it was being interviewed (on NPR I think) but this European politician, was talking about the DESERTEC project and made the statement that at current production levels and with current technology it would easily be completed by 2050 BUT he reminded the host that with better technology (very likely to be available given the efforts underway now) the number of panels may be able to be reduced by 20-25% (meaning less installation time) and that he saw a very likely reduction of maybe ten yrs til completion.
I believe I saw that harvesting less than 1% of the annual solar energy which strikes N Africa would power all of Europe and N Africa.
Now that people are putting their effort toward these technologies they are going to explode.
Sammy,
Now you are grasping at straws to make a point as the point you’re trying to make has no validity. “The banks biggest wish would be to have had stronger regulations!” That’s a sentence that needs explication.