olofscience
-
Content
2,538 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11 -
Feedback
N/A
Everything posted by olofscience
-
Sometimes when they do make fun of Biden, they do end up being funny: for example, Larry Kudlow mocks his carbon policy and says people will have to drink plant-based beer (rather than meat-based ones?) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/26/trump-larry-kudlow-biden-plant-based-beer
-
Like how making something electric or renewable automatically makes it expensive and unreliable?
-
You can't explain much because you usually have no idea what you're talking about. Or you just make stuff up. I'm in Europe. The cold is not extreme, it's pretty average temperatures right now. (Of course, because the past few years have been so far ABOVE average that actually being average is less expected, except for brent crowing about how it's been colder than the past 7 years, dishonestly twisted for good measure)
-
Like a certain person who kept insisting 11ng/ml of fentanyl was a lethal dose despite not having any medical background?
-
Back on topic, Texas is on track to add record solar power capacity by next year: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-solar-power/texas-on-track-to-add-record-solar-power-capacity-by-end-of-2022-idUSKBN2C81UZ
-
So?
-
It was already profitable before that. The AU government wanted it upgraded so they gave a grant (not subsidy, chose the wrong word) alongside other private funding. So there goes your argument that it's not profitable without subsidy. Anything else? Edit to add: It paid for itself in 2.5 years (built in 2017)
-
This was brent's go-to thread when he lost the argument in the other ones, so you didn't really need to reply. He's saying that now but he'll be back next month with some cherry-picked and wildly misinterpreted data saying the climate isn't changing, as if he's forgotten what he said just before. It's sad to watch...
-
It wasn't. What makes you think it was subsidized? It's because you're so biased you're against anything electric or renewable, that you say stupid things about them no matter their actual characteristics. Edit to add: The Australian government did fund a small subsidy for the 2020 upgrade of the HPR from 100 to 150 MWh after being impressed by its performance, but the original 100 MWh installation built in 2017 was entirely privately funded.
-
I literally just posted how profitable it was in the post above yours. Given that batteries are easily recyclable, "environmental time bomb" is just you grasping desperately at straws.
-
The economics argument seems compelling given that the Tesla battery in South Australia has delivered stunning profits to its owner: https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-in-south-australia-delivers-stunning-windfall-profits-77644/ Of course it was a matter of luck as well that a storm blew down a power link, but they've already decided to upgrade the facility and start several more similar projects. With California's susceptibility to natural disasters Apple might have been thinking of the events that delivered these profits.
-
More lies. For the Hornsdale power reserve, the warranty is 15 years, and will probably last more than that. https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/faqs/
-
Fixed it for you. You just shared it and refused to discuss it, now you're crying victim? Posting and refusing to discuss says more about you that it does about us. (namely...someone's scared) And next month you'll do the same thing, run away at the first suggestion to discuss whatever stuff you posted. I don't expect anything different.
-
It's sad to see someone lose their mind and just repeat the same mantra over and over... Let me help you here. you can replace the word "many" with "eight". No sense in using "many" when we know the exact number. You can do it!
-
You can read the date anything else? How about the fact that the first number from their model, 1.4 K, is ALREADY wrong. We've blown past that for several years now and we're nowhere near 800ppm.
-
There's a reason why brent posted an arXiv link, it's because the paper hasn't passed peer review and been published in a journal. Happer is a well known climate skeptic. It would have been interesting to peer review it here, but clearly it's quite a bit beyond brent's ability to even read, much less discuss.
-
But with the prediction of 800ppm warming by 2.2 C, and without the humidity adjustment their model's prediction is 1.4C - and we're already at 1.7ish, the first prediction is already wrong and I've got a bad feeling we'll blow past the second figure without even hitting 600ppm.
-
It's a pity that the thread starter is too scared to actually discuss the paper he posted at the top of this thread, because it's actually quite interesting! Anyone else want to discuss it?
-
And the fact that you actually can't answer my questions Let me try again: shall we discuss that preprint paper you posted a link to at the top of this thread?
-
The top 10% of the past 2 decades is 2 years. Nice goalpost setting, especially because you know it's in the top 9 years. Now you're just making stuff up. Does the lying ever get tiring?
-
Ah, so "the coldest this century" is actually the 21 years since 2000? You must have had so many jokes back in 2000... And by the way, it was colder than eight of those 21 years at the most. What a slimy misrepresentation...
-
He's not even nitpicking now, he's blatantly lying. It's not even remotely the coldest first quarter of the year in a century, and even the NOAA page says that quite clearly - it's the 9th warmest first quarter of the year in the NOAA 142-year record.
-
You're afraid to discuss that paper you posted about. What's wrong, you think people will realise you don't understand it?
-
It's the 9th warmest in 142 years as per your NOAA link. So it can be coldest in the past eight years, at the most. Last time I checked, eight years is a lot shorter than a century. Can you even count?
-
Wow he turned and ran pretty quick If there's nothing to debate, time to delete this thread then
