SI
SI

 Politics | Politics of Energy


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Land Shark who wrote (30780)4/17/2012 6:00:17 PM
From: Brumar893 Recommendations   of 40810
 
You're sounding like your climate concerns are driven by your resentment and rage. What I've come to expect from liberals.

Oh yeah, those climate events you're hoping will kill us, aren't driven by climate change. They're natural parts of earth's climate.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (30785)4/17/2012 6:06:48 PM
From: Land Shark   of 40810
 
Oh that's really brilliant (not).

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Land Shark who wrote (30778)4/18/2012 12:18:38 AM
From: Hawkmoon4 Recommendations   of 40810
 
And where is the utter environmental catastrophe that was predicted for the BP spill?? Oil slicks driving up on the beaches for years.. devastation of all life in the area?

All of the hoopla and fear-mongering seems to have been consumed by microbial lifeforms that have thrived on leaking hydrocarbons for millions of years.

And btw, this is NOT to exonerate BP for their criminal negligence that led to the deaths of those workers.

But it does demonstrate that nature has it's own natural systems for maintaining equilibrium.

This is REAL SCIENCE that you and your "sock puppets" fail to recognize, let alone understand.

Hawk

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (30787)4/18/2012 12:48:49 AM
From: Land Shark   of 40810
 
Thanks for your half baked analysis.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Land Shark who wrote (30788)4/18/2012 1:49:19 AM
From: Hawkmoon3 Recommendations   of 40810
 
Far better than your half-@ssed voodoo environmentalism..

Help the natural systems to contend with extreme shifts in the natural balance, whether derived from natural or anthropogenic sources..

I opined from the beginning of the BP spill that using natural microbes to consume the oil was a far better solution than spreading dispersing agents. But in the end, it seems that existing microbial life was able to deal with the oil spill just fine.

Just as I've stated that fertilizing the oceans with Iron and Silica is likely a far better solution in reducing CO2 than pumping it underground. We release it, so we should assist the oceans in sequestering it via phytoplankton fertilization. And besides, it supports the depleted marine food chain, feeding both marine life and humanity.

Nature has been destroying and rebuilding life on this planet for billions of years before mankind ever arrived.. And will continue to do so for millions of years after we depart. Nothing wrong with use attempting to restore imbalances where possible by assisting natural mechanisms.

Hawk

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (30785)4/18/2012 8:08:05 AM
From: FUBHO1 Recommendation   of 40810
 
Solar factories have expanded faster than demand and will be able to make as much as 38 gigawatts of panels this year, about 54 percent more than estimated demand, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

bloomberg.com 

Solar Glut

That excess supply will arrive on the market as Europe’s largest economies, including Britain, Spain and France, follow Germany and Italy in scaling back incentives to curtail installation of power systems that are paid above-market rates.

“Demand is falling as governments, particularly in Europe, lose appetite for subsidizing the industry,” said Theodore O’Neill, an analyst at Wunderlich Securities Inc. in New York.

The shifting support in Europe is particularly painful to First Solar because it favors rooftop power systems, which are more likely to use Chinese polysilicon panels. First Solar focuses instead on ground-mounted utility-scale plants that use its thin-film products, he said.

The U.S. Commerce Department, responding to complaints from U.S. solar manufacturers that Chinese competitors receive unfair government support, imposed tariffs last month of as much as 4.73 percent on panels made in China.

First Solar’s EdgeFirst Solar’s thin-film technology, which helped it become the lowest-cost panel manufacturer, generates less electricity than traditional polysilicon panels and doesn’t perform as well for rooftop installations that are widely used in Europe.

“They don’t have a good product for the rooftop market, and Europe doesn’t have the big open spaces where their panels make sense,” said Wunderlich’s O’Neill.

First Solar said it will close its factory in Frankfurt an der Oder, Germany, in the fourth quarter. The company completed a 170 million-euro ($223 million) expansion there in November that doubled production capacity to about 560 megawatts of panels a year. It will idle four production lines in Kulim, Malaysia, this month, with about 144 megawatts of capacity.

The closures come about six months after First Solar ousted Chief Executive Officer Rob Gillette. Chairman and co-founder Mike Ahearn took over as interim CEO and announced plans to scale back or delay expansion plans in Vietnam and Arizona.

‘Deteriorated’“After a thorough analysis, it is clear the European market has deteriorated to the extent that our operations there are no longer economically sustainable,” Ahearn said in yesterday’s statement.

For China’s manufacturers, higher domestic demand may help offset declining sales in Europe.

“China will be a very, very important market in 2012,” Chen Kangping, chief executive officer JinkoSolar Holding Co. (JKS), said in interview last week. “Some will gain share as others shut down.”

Jinko, based in Jiangxi, China-based, expects global shipments to rise 50 percent this year from 950.5 megawatts in 2011.

“This is the problem about solar industry economics: there is just too much capacity out there,” Aaron Chew, an analyst at Maxim Group LLC in New York, said in an interview. “In China, they’re not any more competitive, they’re just bankrolled.”

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (30787)4/18/2012 11:04:41 AM
From: Brumar892 Recommendations   of 40810
 
People were saying the BP well would spread oil all over the Gulf coast, around Florida and up the east coast. John Fowler claimed he could smell the fumes from 300+ miles away. Eric said his friends from Seattle were going to vacation in FL like always but told him they wouldn't go near the toxic beach.


NOT to exonerate BP for their criminal negligence that led to the deaths of those workers

IMO they shouldn't have punished the industry, they should have punished BP. And not just monetarily, ban BP from leasing federal lands or serving as operator (in joint ventures) on federal lands for 10 years or more.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Brumar894/18/2012 11:13:01 AM
1 Recommendation   of 40810
 
Broadcast news coverage of "climate change" down drastically:


blogs.dailymail.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Brumar894/18/2012 11:20:12 AM
1 Recommendation   of 40810
 
The journal Science: Computer source code s/b req'd to be made available as a condition of publication. Sounds like a victory for those who've sought to audit climate studies and a big setback for those con artists who demand secrecy.

The Journal Science – Free the code
Posted on April 17, 2012 by Anthony Watts

In my opinion, this is a testament to Steve McIntyre’s tenacity.

Via the GWPF: At Last, The Right Lesson From Climategate Fiasco




Monday, 16 April 2012 11:21 PhysOrg




A diverse group of academic research scientists from across the U.S. have written a policy paper which has been published in the journal Science, suggesting that the time has come for all science journals to begin requiring computer source code be made available as a condition of publication. Currently, they say, only three of the top twenty journals do so.



The group argues that because computer programs are now an integral part of research in almost every scientific field, it has become critical that researchers provide the source code for custom written applications in order for work to be peer reviewed or duplicated by other researchers attempting to verify results.




Not providing source code, they say, is now akin to withholding parts of the procedural process, which results in a “black box” approach to science, which is of course, not tolerated in virtually every other area of research in which results are published. It’s difficult to imagine any other realm of scientific research getting such a pass and the fact that code is not published in an open source forum detracts from the credibility of any study upon which it is based. Articles based on computer simulations, for example, such as many of those written about astrophysics or environmental predictions, tend to become meaningless when they are offered without also offering the source code of the simulations on which they are based.

The team acknowledges that many researchers are clearly reticent to reveal code that they feel is amateurish due to computer programming not being their profession and that some code may have commercial value, but suggest that such reasons should no longer be considered sufficient for withholding such code. They suggest that forcing researchers to reveal their code would likely result in cleaner more portable code and that open-source licensing could be made available for proprietary code.

They also point out that many researchers use public funds to conduct their research and suggest that entities that provide such funds should require that source code created as part of any research effort be made public, as is the case with other resource materials.

The group also points out that the use of computer code, both off the shelf and custom written will likely become ever more present in research endeavors, and thus as time passes, it becomes ever more crucial that such code is made available when results are published, otherwise, the very nature of peer review and reproducibility will cease to have meaning in the scientific context.

More information: Shining Light into Black Boxes, Science 13 April 2012: Vol. 336 no. 6078 pp. 159-160 DOI: 10.1126/science.1218263

Abstract
The publication and open exchange of knowledge and material form the backbone of scientific progress and reproducibility and are obligatory for publicly funded research. Despite increasing reliance on computing in every domain of scientific endeavor, the computer source code critical to understanding and evaluating computer programs is commonly withheld, effectively rendering these programs “black boxes” in the research work flow. Exempting from basic publication and disclosure standards such a ubiquitous category of research tool carries substantial negative consequences. Eliminating this disparity will require concerted policy action by funding agencies and journal publishers, as well as changes in the way research institutions receiving public funds manage their intellectual property (IP).




Phys Org, 16 April 2012

wattsupwiththat.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (30792)4/18/2012 11:31:01 AM
From: Land Shark   of 40810
 
La Nina and recent solar activity minimums have cooled down the weather in '09/'10... Now solar activity is picking up and the scientists are predicting things to heat up again starting in '12... Here we'll see new records for global temperatures, severe heat waves, droughts etc.. The new media will pick up on this, just as it had in '07 and global warming will once again become a media concern. Not to worry. BTW, you really think that lack of media coverage means AGW is cancelled?????

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.