“Oh I know it is different. You don't like utility companies so you don't like anything they do. You do like solar companies so even if they do the same thing you don't have a problem with it. I just am not sure if you are blind or a hypocrite.”
“So when the solar panel companies/installers have to advertise or spin - it must be a sign that the link between what is good for them and good for you has diverged.”
dbackl on Nov 17, 2013 at 08:51:23
“You don't know anything about me and what is hypocritical is you think you do. I like effeciny and independence -thus type of advertising and objective creates barriers and increases costs - there are better ways to fix our decaying grid - however one way is to decrease reliance on it.”
dbackl on Nov 16, 2013 at 14:09:48
“They are selling product that you don't have to buy - even if your neighbor does or wants you too - and the solar companies can't use your money to pay for advertising (if you don't buy) - very different”
“LOL! Please show me where I jump to any conclusion. I gave you a link to the ICRW which clearly says what I said it does. So don't lie.
And I clearly said International regulations. I guess reading isn't your strong suit.
Try reading the actual Australian court ruling. The judge said in his ruling that it was unenforceable because except for 4 countries no one recognizes Australia's claim to the waters around Antarctica. It would be like the US finding someone in Peru guilty of not paying US taxes.”
Genders on Nov 15, 2013 at 16:33:29
“It say the countries that isue the exception can set the rules.
You didn't prove anything. ”
“The energy companies can (and do) have to maintain and staff power plants that aren't selling power as back up so they don't have brown outs when the feed in solar drops or completely stops. So unless you have actual figures showing it to be a win-win, I will continue to doubt that it really frees up any money for them.”
“Well, given that the AZ power company has to keep extra power plants active but offline, making no money but paying salary, maintenance and fuel costs, so when the feed in solar goes away they don't have brown outs. They have a valid reason to whine.
And solar only goes away at night? Really? It isn't affected by cloudy days and storms?”
ThinkCreeps on Nov 15, 2013 at 12:14:43
“When there's cloud there's less AC demand, so the AZ utility is coining it in. They should be careful what they wish for. A fixed grid charge might be met by the demand that they employ true cost spot net metering, and they wouldn't like that.”
“Well Johnny Boy, those solar panels don't generate power at night but I bet their owners wants lights, TV, refrigerators, etc. So they used the grid when there oh so inefficient panels are just so much roof decoration. But then on the occasions when they have a little extra they want to get paid for it and they want the utilities to pay for the grid that allows them to deliver it.”
ThinkCreeps on Nov 15, 2013 at 11:40:39
“Well, given that the AZ power company gets the solar power when it's expensive at midday and gives bad power when it's cheap at night, they might be best advised to be a little more careful with what they're whining about.”
cbungart on Nov 15, 2013 at 11:25:38
“The energy companies can (and do) sell that home made energy to other's and reduce the amount of fuel that's needed to generate that energy. I think, buy in large we have a win-win situation, at least a break even for the energy company. Instead of buying fuel, that money can now be INVESTED in infrastructure. Maybe that just makes the energy companies have to think too hard. On the other hand, if they were smart, I know they could keep the current system and figure out a way to turn a profit. I truly believe they are just trying to keep the statue quo - bilking the customers.”
“You claim that the increased heat content in the oceans causes more and stronger storms. It is a simple fact that the record shows that there aren't more storms and storms aren't stronger. No amount of tap dancing will make your false claim true.
And sorry but lying about what the current models predict won't make your claims true either. They do not claim that the amplitude and frequency of storms will oscillate more. IPCC AR5 says "There is low confidence in basin-scale projections of changes
in intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones (TCs) in all basins to the mid-21st century.". Doesn't take a genius to understand that low confidence in changes in frequency and amplitude means they don't believe that either will change in either direction. That would be the opposite of predicting oscillations.”
Despite your attempts to change your claim, it remains that you hold that increased heat content results in more and stronger storms. While the real world data shows that there aren't more storms and that the storms that do occur aren't stronger.
Let's look at the 2nd and 3rd sentence from the linked citation, shall we?
"In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has
decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low."
Hmmm. Total cyclone energy has decreased dramatically, for your simple mind that means the storms aren't stronger.
Ahhh. Global frequency of tropical cyclones is at historical lows, even you should understand that to mean there are less storms.”
NTodd on Nov 13, 2013 at 15:20:07
“Which suggests, as do the current climate change models, that the amplitude and frequency of the oscillations in weather patterns are increasing. Perhaps you should review your wave theory to understand that dynamic.
Your childish jibes at my intellect are wasted, and at the same time typical of the denier debating style. I can't imagine carrying on a conversation with you is going to suddenly become productive. I'm out. Muted.”
“Wow. You didn't debunk anything. Well except maybe the belief that you have any intelligence.
"Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE)
has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability
during the past 40 years."
That statement doesn't say anything about the number of cyclones of the power of cyclones increasing with increased heat.”
NTodd on Nov 12, 2013 at 17:13:16
“Of course it does. Climate scientists have for years been saying that accumulating heat in the global climate system will result in greater oscillations in cycles which affect things like extreme weather events. This means that periods of unusual calm are followed much more quickly by periods of unusually extreme weather events as the oscillations increase in frequency and amplitude. The quote confirms that we’ve observed the kind of variability that gives rise to unusually extreme weather events. Of course it is common knowledge that hurricanes and tropical storms gain intensity when they form over warm ocean water, that’s not even a matter of conjecture.”
“ah dayala, see you still deal in ad homs and fairy tales. Don't let facts and proof get in the way.
It is an IWC document, SC indicates the IWC Scientific Committee, 57 indicates the meeting number and 01 indicates the first document submitted that year.
Now if your claims had any validity you could go to the IWC site and look at their versions, then prove that the ICR is showing a faked document. You could also show that their statistical math is incorrect. Both of those actions would score major points for the anti-whaling cause. Yet you make no effort to do either one.
I wonder why you pass up such a great opportunity?
Could it be that you claim is a red herring and you know it?”