PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Mase on December 03, 2016, 08:12:53 PM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/03/hawaii-could-get-another-foot-snow-sunday/94890212/?AID=10709313&PID=6147082&SID=iwa2n9tayb001o4p00dth (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/03/hawaii-could-get-another-foot-snow-sunday/94890212/?AID=10709313&PID=6147082&SID=iwa2n9tayb001o4p00dth)
"Hawaii's highest peak could get up to another foot of snow Sunday, on top of the 2 feet that have fallen since Thursday, the National Weather Service says.
A winter storm warning is in effect for the summits of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea through Saturday evening."
-
We are due for a real cold snap next week. I guess these losers will have to cancel any man made global warming rallies due to the cold. MMGW/MM Climate Change died with the election of Donald Trump. Fossil fuel is still the way to go, and we have plenty of it domestically.
-
Global Warming died a long time ago, it is now all about Global Climate Change.
When the facts don't fit, change the name :)
-
Global Warming died a long time ago, it is now all about Global Climate Change.
When the facts don't fit, change the name :)
Yes, and perhaps the next stage is irrelevance, with respect to humans controlling it! My husband studies the issue extensively, and this is a wonderful website.
https://wattsupwiththat.com
-
Yes, and perhaps the next stage is irrelevance, with respect to humans controlling it! My husband studies the issue extensively, and this is a wonderful website.
https://wattsupwiththat.com
Is this also a wonderful website?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
-
Is this also a wonderful website?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
No.
-
No.
Why?
-
Why?
From my viewpoint, because it asserts the undeniable truth of the science without presenting the science. It universally condemns the questioning.
-
From my viewpoint, because it asserts the undeniable truth of the science without presenting the science. It universally condemns the questioning.
But I thought the science was SETTLED, and no more debate was allowed?
-
To understand that the entire MMGW charade is nothing but a money grab, look at who is pushing it and what 'solutions' they propose. It is very much about taking from the people to enrich and empower government and the muslim/communist UN.
That...
and the fact that they've never yet had one of their predictions turn out to be true.
-
Why?
Seriously? Looks like you forgot the laughing smiley there.
-
Never trust any organization whose name ends in "...Defense Fund."
(http://static.skepticalscience.com/images/CSLDF_LOGO_lg_sks.png)
-
But I thought the science was SETTLED, and no more debate was allowed?
And of course, no science is ever settled.
But MMGW people are afraid to open their work to the scientific community in general and to defend it. I suspect that is because it doesn't really rely on science but more of a pseudo science using (bad) computer models in place of actual experiments. If you take the best model and use the extreme lowest end of it's predictions about temperature, they're almost in line with actual data.
I think the climate is changing. Man may or may not have something to do with it, but I think it's likely that we have an impact. However Florida is not going to be flooded in 20 years. Polar bears are not going to die off because the ice cap is melting. Weather is not more extreme. 80% of all the species on earth have not become extinct. The oceans are not boiling off. No human sacrifice, dogs and cats are not living together and there's little mass hysteria (outside the Leftie camps).
-
I let my membership to APS (American Physical Society) lapse about 9 years ago due to two sentences they put in a 2007 policy statement on Climate Change:
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."
Turns out I wasn't the only member who objected to the use of "incontrovertible". After much argument and ugliness, they finally changed the policy statement in 2015 so that unscientific language was eliminated; their statement is now more reasonable: https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_3.cfm (https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_3.cfm)
Ironically, though they annoyed me at the time, I never doubted that human activity is affecting the climate. In fact I would be surprised if we had little or no effect.
I remember first reading about the carbon dioxide green-house effect as a teenager in the early 1970s - it came up often in SF stories set on Venus. I presume the authors were using the theories of 19th century scientist Svante Arrhenius as the scientific foundation. In those fictions, Venus was often depicted as a verdant hothouse.
Although I managed to earn an undergraduate degree in physics, I would not pretend to have the kind of knowledge and expertise needed to make any sort of sound conclusions on my own on the subject climate change. I make do with the usual heuristics most people are forced to apply when pondering these sorts of questions. So unless someone can reasonably show they have some expertise on the subject I tend to not pay much attention to claims they make on forums like this one.
-
Ironically, though they annoyed me at the time, I never doubted that human activity is affecting the climate. In fact I would be surprised if we had little or no effect.
Why? Man pales in comparison to natural weather changes caused by the SUN, volcanoes, El Nino, etc.
I remember first reading about the carbon dioxide green-house effect as a teenager in the early 1970s - it came up often in SF stories set on Venus. I presume the authors were using the theories of 19th century scientist Svante Arrhenius as the scientific foundation. In those fictions, Venus was often depicted as a verdant hothouse.
The undisputable science of that time said we were in for an ICE AGE well before our current time period.
So unless someone can reasonably show they have some expertise on the subject I tend to not pay much attention to claims they make on forums like this one.
Well, I may not be a climate scientist, but I do know unfettered politics when I see it. The Man Made Climate Change movement is PURE POLITICS. It isn't science based except for the fact that data has been falsified, and computer models skewed to get the results the politicians want. And yes, the politicians OWN THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
-
Why? Man pales in comparison to natural weather changes caused by the SUN, volcanoes, El Nino, etc.
Among the relevant physical drivers, measurements of atmospheric CO2 show an increase over time that dwarfs the annual variation. (The isotopic ratio is said to be consistent with it originating from hydrocarbon combustion and not from volcanic out-gassing.)
The undisputable science of that time said we were in for an ICE AGE well before our current time period.
Science and SF writer Isaac Asimov had been arguing as early as 1971 that increasing CO2 would cause global warming. So that claim founders immediately. Besides, "indisputable" is as unscientific as "incontrovertible". No reputable scientist would use those words. The main person I'm aware of who popularized the possibility of an ice age was Betty Friedan (a feminist,) back in 1958; looks like her article is even online: http://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm (http://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm).
I found a good, though long, history of the understanding of climate science (including the debate on ice age vs warming) here: http://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm (http://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm)
[...] data has been falsified, and computer models skewed to get the results the politicians want.
The best criticism I've seen of the computer models was an APS committee report that pointed out that despite improvements in weather measurements, faster computers, and better models, the rather large width of the error bars on the output results hadn't changed in the last two decades.
Claims of falsified data are supposed to come with supporting evidence. I don't expect you to actually ever back that claim up.
Claims of skewed models should not be too hard to prove since the source code and data sets are generally available for asking from the researchers.
-
Why? Man pales in comparison to natural weather changes caused by the SUN, volcanoes, El Nino, etc.
You think that deforestation has no impact?
-
You think that deforestation has no impact?
Not to the degree it is happening. No, I don't. Compared to natural changes, what man does is INSIGNIFICANT. When we have notable changes due to man like we had prior to man, and prior to man's industrialization, let me know.
-
)Science and SF writer Isaac Asimov had been arguing as early as 1971 that increasing CO2 would cause global warming.
Are you really quoting a science fiction writer to prove your case?
In 1970, as a sophomore in college, I wrote a "scientific research paper" that I have been embarrassed about ever since. I used the latest research available at the Ga. Tech library, complete with footnotes, that described how the ice age was going to ravage our planet in the foreseeable future. I made an A+ on that paper and an A for the course. I am both glad and sorry that I didn't save that paper, but I remember the conclusions well. And I remember how wrong I, and current science, at the time, was.
-
Well, I may not be a climate scientist, but I do know unfettered politics when I see it. The Man Made Climate Change movement is PURE POLITICS. It isn't science based[...]
A slightly tardy response to this part of your post: I essentially agree with it. There is effectively one or more "Climate Change" political movements with some degree of coordination with each other. And the movements don't appear to be motivated or driven by science. They have other unrelated social and political goals in mind.
I have noticed that technical solutions, such as carbon sequestration, are dismissed by the people who have political goals in mind. It is a good way to find out if they are part of the political movement or are genuinely concerned about the alleged problem.
-
Are you really quoting a science fiction writer to prove your case?
In 1970, as a sophomore in college, I wrote a "scientific research paper" that I have been embarrassed about ever since. I used the latest research available at the Ga. Tech library, complete with footnotes, that described how the ice age was going to ravage our planet in the foreseeable future. I made an A+ on that paper and an A for the course. I am both glad and sorry that I didn't save that paper, but I remember the conclusions well. And I remember how wrong I, and current science, at the time, was.
Um, Isaac Asimov had a Phd in biochemistry.
As to proving the case of what people believed (warming vs cooling) - well, my data exceeded the amount of supporting data you supplied for your claim by an infinite amount. From what I gathered, scientists were unsure of the general climate change, mostly because of the unknown effects of aerosols, otherwise the general view since the 19th century had been that CO2 would cause warming. I gave a link that gave a history of the views of scientists. It is on as reputable a site as I know of.
-
Seriously? Looks like you forgot the laughing smiley there.
Nope. Not that I frequent either site, but I am interested in why you believe one to be a wonderful website, and the other not?
-
The globe was cooling and an ice age was 'inevitable' according to the same clowns that now claim the globe is warming and a melt down is inevitable.
If the science was legitimate liberals wouldn't have to force schools to parade their nonsense non-stop. People would respond if there was anything resembling truth to the MMGW lies. It is just like obamacare. IF it was anything like it was said to be, then people wouldn't have to be forced to sign on it.
If the MMGW clowns weren't lying out their asses, then the facts would speak for themselves but they don't.
If there was any truth to the MMGW scam then Iran, India and China wouldn't have been exempted from the last clown car treaty.
Today marks the end of the world prediction from the MMGW 'profit" Al Gore.
It was several years ago that NYC was supposed to be under water according to another 'respected' MMGW clown.
The truth is that MMGW is a topic only because there is so much graft and corruption possible when liberals start imagining how they could tax and scam Americans out of their incomes.'If there was any truth to the MMGW screed, then people wouldn't get their panties in such a twist trying to force people to stop questioning the science.
-
Ok, here's an example of why I question the climate change science. First, I get this image from https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm, which is attempting to explain (unconvincingly to me) why man's 2% contribution to CO2 is going to cause the arctic to become the new tropical zone. Of course, this is a website that claims to be ready to debunk all the climate change deniers, so their bias should have been readily revealed at the outset.
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1732.0;attach=393;image)
Ok, I can see what they're saying. Plants and the oceans take in and give off CO2, so if man creates some CO2 then it becomes excess in the atmosphere. But the trouble is that it is simplistic at best. Because I have already read http://newatlas.com/nasa-climate-co2-plants/43037/, which says that because of increased CO2, there are new plants growing, enough to cover the land mass of the United States. So, all that extra CO2 created a more hospitable environment for plants. As you may recall from your 2nd grade science class, plants "breathe" CO2, so more plants mean more CO2 removed from the atmosphere. Not in 20 or 30 years, but right now. So that first article just doesn't hold sway because it fails to account for the new plants and the amount of CO2 being removed by them. The earth is a dynamic system, it is not a zero sum puzzle.
-
Ok, here's an example of why I question the climate change science. First, I get this image from https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm, which is attempting to explain (unconvincingly to me) why man's 2% contribution to CO2 is going to cause the arctic to become the new tropical zone. Of course, this is a website that claims to be ready to debunk all the climate change deniers, so their bias should have been readily revealed at the outset.
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1732.0;attach=393;image)
Ok, I can see what they're saying. Plants and the oceans take in and give off CO2, so if man creates some CO2 then it becomes excess in the atmosphere. But the trouble is that it is simplistic at best. Because I have already read http://newatlas.com/nasa-climate-co2-plants/43037/, which says that because of increased CO2, there are new plants growing, enough to cover the land mass of the United States. So, all that extra CO2 created a more hospitable environment for plants. As you may recall from your 2nd grade science class, plants "breathe" CO2, so more plants mean more CO2 removed from the atmosphere. Not in 20 or 30 years, but right now. So that first article just doesn't hold sway because it fails to account for the new plants and the amount of CO2 being removed by them. The earth is a dynamic system, it is not a zero sum puzzle.
A site on Mauna Lao has been recording atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the late 1950s. According to their measurements, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 25% in the last 50 some years. The graph below is from this site:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html)
So plants may be increasing their intake, but due to either latency or something else, the content keeps increasing. And that isn't the only site that has measured an increase - it just happens to be one of the oldest that has continuously monitored CO2. I've known about that measurement site for about 25 years, so if it is part of some conspiracy, it is one that goes way back.
(http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png)
-
Measurement of C02 is not related to heat. It would be far more impressive to show temperatures modeled from actual trend lines. It is upon the failure of such models that skepticism is justified.
-
A site on Mauna Lao has been recording atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the late 1950s. According to their measurements, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 25% in the last 50 some years. The graph below is from this site:
Some comments:
Extrapolation is quite the temptress.
That site is recording CO2 at that location, yes? But CO2 concentrations are not uniform across the globe, correct? Assuming that is correct, what is the variation of CO2 concentrations across the globe?
Note: I'm not dismissing the idea of change, rather I poking at the evidence that is presented to back the claims of change.
-
IF, as so many activists claim, global warming is either real, or man made, then what is the actual 'correct' temperature for the globe?
What makes the current temperature wrong and the temperatures in the last decade right?
By who's reckoning is any temperature right, or wrong?
Other than as a means to tax and control the populace, how is any of the 'solutions' forwarded by the alarmists of any use what-so-ever?
If MMGW is such an obvious 'crisis' how come the scientific community is under such pressure to conform to the political agenda whenever questioning of the sources, methods, or integrity of the 'science' occurs?
How is the pressure against denying the claims of the MMGW fanatics any different than the abuse of scientists in past centuries, who brought great breakthroughs forward even though their contemporaries tried to stifle free thought every way possible?
Isn't this entire charade just a return to past extremes forced on people by those with a different agenda that has nothing to do with science?
-
The correct temperature is 73°.
End of discussion.
-
Doesn't the planet have this nice balancing thing going on? Humans, animals, (and their machines) use O2, give off CO2. Plants use CO2, give off O2. If there is more CO2 available, more plants will grow, thus using the excess CO2. Is this too simplistic?
-
Doesn't the planet have this nice balancing thing going on? Humans, animals, (and their machines) use O2, give off CO2. Plants use CO2, give off O2. If there is more CO2 available, more plants will grow, thus using the excess CO2. Is this too simplistic?
Another question: is this planet's system inherently stable or inherently unstable?
-
Doesn't the planet have this nice balancing thing going on? Humans, animals, (and their machines) use O2, give off CO2. Plants use CO2, give off O2. If there is more CO2 available, more plants will grow, thus using the excess CO2. Is this too simplistic?
Stop it!! Don't you realize the $$$$ potential of MMGW? It's another "problem" that can be solved using taxation!
-
Stop it!! Don't you realize the $$$$ potential of MMGW? It's another "problem" that can be solved using taxation!
It isn't only more taxes, surcharges, and fees on energy. It is the artificial limiting of access to energy by forcing a CAP on usage, and limits on the use of fossil fuels. Remember when gasoline prices spiked to $4.00/gal +. Obama was interviewed and said he didn't have a problem with the high costs, just how fast they went up. To these people, high energy costs are great because it will reduce demand. Never mind that the economy gets destroyed, but the elite have their Millions, so they don't care.
-
It is exceedingly odd how fast MMGW activists stop debating whenever the topic changes to base line factors such as what is the 'right' temperature for the entire earth and why?
Who decides what is the 'right' temperature for the entire earth and what gives them the right to determine it for the entire planet?
Why is any discussion of MMGW always accompanied by demands for draconian taxation and loss of liberty for citizens?
-
Who decides what is the 'right' temperature for the entire earth and what gives them the right to determine it for the entire planet?
Why is any discussion of MMGW always accompanied by demands for draconian taxation and loss of liberty for citizens?
My power company mandated our electric meters be switched to a "Smart Meter". We had no choice. It was either get the new meter (we had to pay for it) or not get any electrical power. They are a monopoly, so there is no choice. It is another form of GOVERNMENT. The Smart Meter allows them to "see" where and when I use power, and for what usage. It also gives them the ability to shut down what they don't think is necessary, like air conditioning in the warmest periods when you really need it. They haven't done that yet, but it is coming if the man made global climate change activists get their way.
-
My power company mandated our electric meters be switched to a "Smart Meter". We had no choice. It was either get the new meter (we had to pay for it) or not get any electrical power. They are a monopoly, so there is no choice. It is another form of GOVERNMENT. The Smart Meter allows them to "see" where and when I use power, and for what usage. It also gives them the ability to shut down what they don't think is necessary, like air conditioning in the warmest periods when you really need it. They haven't done that yet, but it is coming if the man made global climate change activists get their way.
That is horrifyingly scary and invasive! Has no one raised objections?
-
Measurement of C02 is not related to heat. It would be far more impressive to show temperatures modeled from actual trend lines. It is upon the failure of such models that skepticism is justified.
The most intelligent position on AGW is skepticism.
-
That is horrifyingly scary and invasive! Has no one raised objections?
Yes, see here:
https://www.stopsmartmetersinpa.com/services.html
Here's the PROPAGANDA from the power company on Smart Meters, and how they will "help" the consumer.
https://www.peco.com/SmartEnergy/SmartMeterSmartGrid/Pages/AdvancedMeterTechnology.aspx
-
That is horrifyingly scary and invasive! Has no one raised objections?
Problem is the objectors are "RF allergy" kooks. The privacy and potential control aspects are pushed aside as paranoia.
I've been getting monthly mailings (from the same company that wants to charge for paper billing statements) alleging how low my "green" neighbors' energy bills are compared to mine, which are typically $2x. I must be a bad Citizen of the Earth.
-
I live in Minnesota and use a very low tech method of measuring if we are warming. When is it safe to drive out on the ice and fish. In my life it has gotten later in the year. So my little place on the earth has been warming.
As for what is the correct temperature I am getting old so I like warmer longer and less cold.
So the earth is aging just right in my mind :)
-
Yes, see here:
https://www.stopsmartmetersinpa.com/services.html
Here's the PROPAGANDA from the power company on Smart Meters, and how they will "help" the consumer.
https://www.peco.com/SmartEnergy/SmartMeterSmartGrid/Pages/AdvancedMeterTechnology.aspx
Anthony, in all due respect……
We share the same power district (PECO) so here is my take on the Smartmeter issue. The primary difference between a Smartmeter and the conventional meter is the ability of the Smartmeter to send the readings over a radio frequency. A Smartmeter can indeed send a meter reading without the power company having to send a person door-to-door to take the reading, they can simply drive down the street, interrogate the meter and get your usage, this saves a considerable amount of labor and is more accurate. A Smartmeter can detect tampering and it can indeed shut off power remotely, I do not believe this is a negative and the power company already has that ability. It can also detect problems with the line. I had a personal experience with this when the squirrels decided to sharpen their teeth on the neutral line. This caused flickering of lights and different voltage readings in different outlets in the house. The PECO technician was able to do diagnostics to quickly isolate and fix the problem.
A Smartmeter in and of itself, cannot determine what loads are being used by different appliances. While this is technically possible, it takes a LOT of effort to figure out your water heater came on at 10PM. If a power company wanted to do that, they can do that with or without a Smartmeter. A Smartmeter cannot control individual appliances in your home without additional wiring and special devices AND requires consent by the property owner.
There was a lot of concern over the radio frequency exposure risk. This is way overblown. At the power level the meter operates at, I see no increased risk. I believe the opponents of the Smartmeter cherry-picked and drastically over-emphasized the RF risk and presented it poorly.
I understand you believe this to be an intrusion of some type, but I'm obviously not of the same opinion. While there may be some potential negatives, the benefits clearly outweigh the negatives. Of all the risks we face of having personal information being revealed, this is WAY down the list of things to worry about.
I do not remember having to pay for the Smartmeter, if I did, it sure didn't make much of an impression.
-
Anthony, in all due respect……
.
.
.
While I like a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone else, I do agree with you. Smart Meters are an efficiency boost; they are not part of Big Brother.
In our area, we were given the option to "opt out", but we had to pay extra do do so. People complained because they had to PAY to NOT get the new equipment. But the real point was they had to pay if they wanted to keep having a human come on to their property every month to manually read the stupid meter. There have been many fewer dog bites since this happened, and many fewer calls to 911 from people that stayed home sick and saw the meter reader for the first time.
-
Another question: is this planet's system inherently stable or inherently unstable?
The entire universe is unstable. Entropy rules!
-
Actually the smart meter is a portal into your home for the electric company. National Grid has been sending info about programs where you can save money by basically allowing them to shut down your AC compressor during peak times, or pool pumps or whatever. Obviously the meter alone can't do this, other equipment is required, but the meter is the interface to the other equipment. Here is a link that generically touches on the programs. I basically don't pay much attention since I am on a municipal system and have one of the cheaper electric rates in our area.
https://www.nationalgridus.com/MA-Home/Smart-Energy-Solutions/FAQs
-
I've had a smart meter for a number of years. The utility company recently sent me a solicitation to install a device on my central air unit that would allow them to monitor (and control) use, in exchange for lower rates and a cap on how often they could do that. I declined.
If the AlGores of the world were in charge, this deal would eventually become mandatory.
-
I've had a smart meter for a number of years. The utility company recently sent me a solicitation to install a device on my central air unit that would allow them to monitor (and control) use, in exchange for lower rates and a cap on how often they could do that. I declined.
If the AlGores of the world were in charge, this deal would eventually become mandatory.
I have had that device installed for about 15 years; long before I had a Smart Meter. It has saved me $4/month and it has NEVER been used, but it does give the power company an option in times of extremely high usage, or in the event of any limited production outage. I have saved around $750 for doing nothing (which is actually a pittance, but it is not any sort of aggravation either).
-
Anthony, in all due respect……
We share the same power district (PECO) so here is my take on the Smartmeter issue. The primary difference between a Smartmeter and the conventional meter is the ability of the Smartmeter to send the readings over a radio frequency. A Smartmeter can indeed send a meter reading without the power company having to send a person door-to-door to take the reading, they can simply drive down the street, interrogate the meter and get your usage, this saves a considerable amount of labor and is more accurate. A Smartmeter can detect tampering and it can indeed shut off power remotely, I do not believe this is a negative and the power company already has that ability. It can also detect problems with the line. I had a personal experience with this when the squirrels decided to sharpen their teeth on the neutral line. This caused flickering of lights and different voltage readings in different outlets in the house. The PECO technician was able to do diagnostics to quickly isolate and fix the problem.
A Smartmeter in and of itself, cannot determine what loads are being used by different appliances. While this is technically possible, it takes a LOT of effort to figure out your water heater came on at 10PM. If a power company wanted to do that, they can do that with or without a Smartmeter. A Smartmeter cannot control individual appliances in your home without additional wiring and special devices AND requires consent by the property owner.
There was a lot of concern over the radio frequency exposure risk. This is way overblown. At the power level the meter operates at, I see no increased risk. I believe the opponents of the Smartmeter cherry-picked and drastically over-emphasized the RF risk and presented it poorly.
I understand you believe this to be an intrusion of some type, but I'm obviously not of the same opinion. While there may be some potential negatives, the benefits clearly outweigh the negatives. Of all the risks we face of having personal information being revealed, this is WAY down the list of things to worry about.
I do not remember having to pay for the Smartmeter, if I did, it sure didn't make much of an impression.
Thanks for your perspective Gary, and I agree with much of the above. However, it does open the door to devices on Heat Pumps, Water Heaters, and other high draw appliances to shut them down during PEAK DEMAND. I believe the goal of some is to have this additional wiring, and devices as MANDATORY eventually. Yes, now we can decline, but I do fear constant over reach by government, and quasi government in the name of THE PUBLIC GOOD. It has been happening a lot for the last fifty years, so I see it as a legitimate trend.
I like new technology that makes people's jobs easier, and allows the consumer to benefit. However, if we allow mandates to power reduction in our homes because of the Smart Meters, I have a problem with that.
Yes there is a Smart Meter charge that consumers pay. I am researching the exact amount I pay, but we will be paying a SURCHARGE at least through 2023. From the PA PUC:
IS THERE CURRENTLY A SMART METER CHARGE ON MY BILL?
Yes. The charge will be included as a separate line item or in your electric utility’s base rate. You can confirm that information by contacting your utility. This charge covers the costs of assessing and deploying smart meter technology in accordance with Act 129. Under the law, utilities may begin assessing the surcharge for the work being done prior to actual installation of the meter. This charge applies to all customers.
HOW LONG WILL I PAY FOR THE SMART METER SURCHARGE THAT APPEARS ON MY BILL?
This surcharge is reviewed and approved by the PUC annually, and is subject to change. While there is no definitive timeframe to date, the surcharge is expected to remain on customers’ bills as utilities work to achieve full smart meter deployment by 2023.
CAN I OPT OUT OF THE CHARGE IF I DON’T WANT A SMART METER?
No. State law does not allow a customer to “opt out” of their EDC’s smart meter program or surcharge. Installation of a smart meter is a condition of service to more accurately reflect rates and usage, and will ensure no disruption to your service. Questions concerning the process or timetable for the installation of your metering equipment should be directed to your electric utility.
http://www.puc.pa.gov/General/consumer_ed/pdf/13_Smart%20Meters.pdf
-
IF, as so many activists claim, global warming is either real, or man made, then what is the actual 'correct' temperature for the globe?
What makes the current temperature wrong and the temperatures in the last decade right?
By who's reckoning is any temperature right, or wrong?
My variant of your first question to someone advocating government intervention is:
If the climate was discovered to be changing naturally rather than human caused, would the person still consider it proper to intervene in a "natural" change?
As to what climate is "right" - one answer may be "The one we have today" because that is the expectation everyone currently assumes in their future plans. But I don't think they have any "right" to that expectation - it is up to them to either plan for the unexpected or they have to work on making the climate not change. Maybe find people with similar expectations and persuade them to help fund a giant nuclear powered carbon sequestration plant - or whatever.
As a libertarian I'm very reluctant to employ government solutions - though our atmosphere, as a shared commons, may be one of the few legitimate areas that government has more than the usual scope to police than they should with private property.
-
We had a switch on our air conditioning compressor in the last house we were in. The power company was a cooperative. During peak use they would cycle the compressor. I can't say we ever felt a difference in the house and we saved some money.
-
My variant of your first question to someone advocating government intervention is:
If the climate was discovered to be changing naturally rather than human caused, would the person still consider it proper to intervene in a "natural" change?
As to what climate is "right" - one answer may be "The one we have today" because that is the expectation everyone currently assumes in their future plans. But I don't think they have any "right" to that expectation - it is up to them to either plan for the unexpected or they have to work on making the climate not change. Maybe find people with similar expectations and persuade them to help fund a giant nuclear powered carbon sequestration plant - or whatever.
As a libertarian I'm very reluctant to employ government solutions - though our atmosphere, as a shared commons, may be one of the few legitimate areas that government has more than the usual scope to police than they should with private property.
We have much more to fear from cold than heat. If we strip away the politics and stick with science, we see that cold must also be considered. The big fallacy I see in things like your carbon sequestion plant is the thinking we can mess with things on that scale and not cause something else that could be worse. Nature is amazingly balanced. That deserves respect.
-
We have much more to fear from cold than heat.
Heat and cold are the same thing, the only difference is the reference point. Both are equally advantageous/disadvantageous depending on what form of life you are talking about.
If we strip away the politics and stick with science, we see that cold must also be considered.
True
The big fallacy I see in things like your carbon sequestion plant is the thinking we can mess with things on that scale and not cause something else that could be worse. Nature is amazingly balanced. That deserves respect.
Yes, nature is delicately balanced. Most forms of life can only survive within a fairly narrow range of parameters, whether that be temperature, pH, salinity, oxygen level....
While we can argue whether man-made climate change (or whatever you wish to call it) causes unusual snow in Hawaii or droughts in California, by all the weight of evidence, the climate is getting warmer. The big question is whether that is man-made. Certainly the climate has changed without the influence of man - that is indisputable. It is also indisputable that man can change micro-climates, see the industrial fogs of London, Pittsburgh or Beijing. I do not believe that we will ever find that Silver Bullet that definitively proves man is the cause. But again, the weight of evidence points in that direction. Quite honestly, I'm not all that worried if Kalamazoo sees a 2 degree F change. Humans are one of the most adaptable species on the planet.
What does worry me is what happens to the oceans. The temperature is rising and the pH is becoming more acidic - at a rate not seen in the past, not to mention we have basically trashed them. Something on the order of 50-70% of the oxygen we breathe comes from oceanic phytoplankton and a significant amount of our food comes from the ocean. Phytoplankton have that fairly narrow range of parameters in which they can survive. Will that be a problem? No one knows for sure with 100% accuracy, but it does seem prudent to avoid the problem if possible.
-
I agree about the change. When you live somewhere that freezes over all winter, a little bit of global warming isn't a bad thing.
I think they don't really understand the oceans well. It was just last year that they announced a discovery of deep ocean currents that move heat from the north to the south pole and vice versa. While one is getting warmer, the other gets colder. But all this time and they never understood that.
Oceans went from a ph of 8.2 to 8.1. I would suspect us dumping stuff into them as the culprit before I'd suspect a changing climate.
-
I agree about the change. When you live somewhere that freezes over all winter, a little bit of global warming isn't a bad thing.
I think they don't really understand the oceans well. It was just last year that they announced a discovery of deep ocean currents that move heat from the north to the south pole and vice versa. While one is getting warmer, the other gets colder. But all this time and they never understood that.
Oceans went from a ph of 8.2 to 8.1. I would suspect us dumping stuff into them as the culprit before I'd suspect a changing climate.
The measurement of pH is logarithmic, a decrease in pH from 8.25 to 8.14 is a 35% increase in acidity. And there is that pesky buffering effect where pH changes slowly at first, then a very rapid change. Suspect the change is more the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere going into solution.
-
Now we have to worry about the weather, unbelievable, this sucks so much energy and resources from real problems, it kills me. Anyway, if you want to cut the co2 output from vehicles by at least 50%? Remove the 3 way catalyst from cars. Simple and effective to solve that "problem".
-
Now we have to worry about the weather, unbelievable, this sucks so much energy and resources from real problems, it kills me.
Everything in the popular news is a diversion. LBGT, gay marriage, unisex bathrooms, Bruce/Katlyn, it's all to divert from the real issues.
Squirrel!!!
-
Everything in the popular news is a diversion. LBGT, gay marriage, unisex bathrooms, Bruce/Katlyn, it's all to divert from the real issues.
Squirrel!!!
For the past eight years, probably more, we've been told by the media, and the Dems what to think about. Not jobs, and the economy, not hidden unemployment, not hidden inflation, not illegal immigration, and people coming here to steal our wealth, and values. It has ALL been a diversion using IDENTITY POLITICS, much of it run by Valerie Jarrett.
Trump is starting to shine the light on what is really important.