Wind turbines at their best are uneven suppliers of electricity. They are are also eye sores.
Maybe compared to Glacier National Park they are eyesores, but compared to coal and nuclear power plants, they are scenic beauty!
Also, what you said about wind power being inherently uneven is a lie.
It just requires a modicum of intelligence.
There is no reward being offered, just the knowledge that you may be solving an intriguing murder mystery, the FBI stated.
Core price indices: because food and oil prices can change quickly due to changes in supply and demand conditions in the food and oil markets, it can be difficult to detect the long run trend in price levels when those prices are included. Therefore most statistical agencies also report a measure of 'core inflation', which removes the most volatile components (such as food and oil) from a broad price index like the CPI. Because core inflation is less affected by short run supply and demand conditions in specific markets, central banks rely on it to better measure the inflationary impact of current monetary policy.
I think they should learn how to extract patterns from noisy data (or stop pretending to be "experts")! What is more "core" than food and energy? But those are exactly what are removed from the equation to get the economists' definition of "core" price indices. It really is an abysmal "science."
All in all, GE receives quite a lot in tax credit in the US for green subsidies every year. Now, is it the only thing they do to avoid tax burden? Absolutely not, but it is a significant part of the equation. I can't find the total, but I believe it's in the hemisphere of about a billion dollars a year
But you expect us to just take you at your word, and blame environmentalists for corporate abuse. Who signs your paychecks, shill?
Nearly every letter ends in E.
You see, international laws, which are basically a collections of treaties countries may have signed but enough have and they have been around long enough that it's expected to be the norm in the world community. The problem comes because they do not spell out specific infractions, they spell out specific results of actions. Take crimes again humanity which is fully included in the ICC jurisdictional mandate for instance, It has an open ended clause that states
"Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."
You can only run afoul of that clause by "intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health." If that clause, as written, is broad enough to include what you're doing, then you are violating human rights. No, it does not matter where the person was apprehended or what they were doing. Torture is always a human rights violation and that is just the definition of torture.
LoL! And Friss-Christensen -- stop, you're killing me!
Oh, wait. It's not really funny, because you actually are killing me (slowly). And in the meantime, you're killing 300,000 people every year who don't have the good luck of being born in the United States. Go read some real climate scientists. Go read as much climate science by legitimate scientists who are not climate science deniars as you have already read by climate "scientists" like Svensmark and Friis-Christensen who are in fact climate science deniars, and in the meantime,
SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP.
You are telling lies that are literally killing people. You are an accomplice to mass murder, you brainless waste of carbon.
So, where is the evidence for the well established man-made part, along with the data so it can be reproduced and verified?
I appreciate the wisdom of your reasoning. It is an effective way to deal with incomplete information. But the crucial part of what you consider unknown about climatology is not unknown. It is known, knowable, proven fact.
"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide ( CO2), are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.(9)
This kind of intuitive physical reasoning had already appeared in the earliest speculations on how atmospheric composition could affect climate. It was in the 1820s that a French scientist, Joseph Fourier, first realized that the Earth's atmosphere retains heat radiation. He had asked himself a deceptively simple question, of a sort that physics theory was just then beginning to learn how to attack: what determines the average temperature of a planet like the Earth? When light from the Sun strikes the Earth's surface and warms it up, why doesn't the planet keep heating up until it is as hot as the Sun itself? Fourier's answer was that the heated surface emits invisible infrared radiation, which carries the heat energy away into space. But when he calculated the effect with his new theoretical tools, he got a temperature well below freezing, much colder than the actual Earth.(9a*)
The difference, Fourier recognized, was due to the Earth's atmosphere. Somehow it kept part of the heat radiation in. He tried to explain this by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape.(10) This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (The main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away, although the glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping.) Nevertheless, trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect."(11*)
Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this. Visible sunlight penetrates easily through the air and warms the Earth’s surface. When the surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, this radiation too easily penetrates the main gases of the air. But as Tyndall found, even a trace of CO2 or water vapor, no more than it took to fill a bottle in his laboratory, is almost opaque to heat radiation.
This can now be proved in any respectable chem lab.
Roger Wilco:
There are also clues that there is a cause and effect relationship between the two, but as I understand that's less clear.
Marc Morano, Jim Inhoffe and the Viscount #3 of Brenchley, so-called "Christopher Monckton" and their corporate overlords would very much like for us to believe that, but it simply isn't so. As in any field of science broad enough to be its own field, some things remain to be determined. Some of the coupling constants in the Global Circulation Models are known with higher confidence than others. But the first order effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is absolutely not one of the things that remains to be determined. It is known, and has been a known fact since the 19th century. Later, quantum mechanics told us why this is so; certain wavelengths correspond to heat, and carbon dioxide refuses to emit wavelength at a significant portion of the wavelengths corresponding to heat, ergo, carbon dioxide traps heat.
Within the special topic "tropical storms" for example the open question is not "will there be more?" The open question on that sub-topic is, "will there be more in number, more events or only more in intensity?" The available data suggest there will be more in intensity, but the same or slightly fewer in number. But the Law of Conservation of Energy, combined with what we know beyond a shadow of a doubt about carbon dioxide do not leave open any question that there will be "more."
CO2 = more thermal energy, simple as that. There will be more thermal energy on Earth because of higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, absolutely without any ambiguity. Only some second- and higher-order effects are open questions, and the answers to those questions don't truly matter to policy because whatever the answer to those open questions, the outcomes are all bad. Very, very bad, like whether mass starvation or the resulting mass violence will kill you, or if you live in the northern half of Western Europe, maybe you'll "get lucky" and freeze to death instead due to interruptions of the North Atlantic current from the melting of Greenland, and from what I've read that's not likely for tens of thousands of years, regardless of what we do to the atmosphere.
The only option that is not mass suicide is solar and wind energy all around ASAP. Sorry, no, I am not exaggerating. The science is settled.
When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy
