Thursday morning links

The Neonics Ban- Who cares? More good news for American farmers

Factors Delmy God! They "hand slice" their meat! Imagine what that adds to the flavor!

Atlanta's Building Boom- Simple answer, buy the property and you can do whatever you like with the trees. One day Atlanta will be the largest city in America since it's the only one with no physical restraints.

I've lived on the ocean all my life. There is no sea level rise evident anywhere. In most places, due to tides, moon phase, winds, etc, there is no such thing as 'sea level."

#1 FRP on 2018-05-17 08:26 (Reply)

I lived in LA (Hollywood neighbourhood) for 13 years. Never heard of Factor's - we all went to Canter's. Because we were that cool.

#2 missred on 2018-05-17 08:30 (Reply)

re The Neonic Ban

It's easy to ban pesticides when you have plenty to eat.

But why stop there?

Why not ban them all?

#3 feeblemind on 2018-05-17 08:50 (Reply)

And they could ban fertilizer too...it runs off and turns the water green.

#3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2018-05-17 14:33 (Reply)

Those who push solar and wind power failed math in school. It isn't practical or sustainable and given the trends over the last 60 years or so it may never be practical. Just the simple fact that any large solar or wind installation requires a fossil fuel power generation facility on standby to supply power when the solar or wind facility fails is enough to explain the impracticality of wind and solar. But when you include the incredible costs of solar and wind in relation to it's generation capacity the case against solar and wind becomes a slam dunk. So why do we mandate it?

Two reasons: 1 Crony politics where someone makes a lot of money selling and installing these systems. 2. Politicians are reaping the benefit of a desire by the voters to have clean energy and Ignorance (a lack of scientific knowledge) of the cost and efficiency of these systems. This part of the problem is exactly why we have ethanol in our gasoline even though it causes more ecological harm.

#4 OneGuy on 2018-05-17 10:01 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Don´t Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling

It takes a fair amount of squinting to see a cooling trend.

#5 Zachriel on 2018-05-17 10:06 (Reply)

The kiddiez sure like their graphs with colored squiggly lines but they do have a problem with the term: fact.

QUOTE:

Hardly, but rather based on the basic physics of heat flow. Start with this basic fact: The Earth can only gain or lose heat radiatively.
#2.3.1 Zachriel on 2018-02-11 10:24 (Reply)

#5.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-05-17 10:37 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change

Sea Level Rise vs. Temperature

-

#6 Zachriel on 2018-05-17 11:10 (Reply)

More phony cooked data. Not what the actual data show according to NOAA:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

And take a look at various specific stations.

#6.1 Jim on 2018-05-17 23:09 (Reply)

Jim: More phony cooked data. Not what the actual data show ...

The kiddiez do present a lot of phony data.
They also lie by omission.

It's kinda like their modus operandi.

#6.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-05-18 06:42 (Reply)

Jim: More phony cooked data.

It's smoothed by computing nonlinear trend lines, with an embedding period of 15 years, based on actual data. See Church & White, A 20th century acceleration in global sea‐level rise, Geophysical Research Letters 2006.

Jim: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

The charts in your link show an increase in global sea level as measured on coastlines, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the historical graph shown above. How does the link contradict the historical graph?

#6.1.2 Zachriel on 2018-05-18 07:26 (Reply)

Your chart falsely shows an acceleration of sea level rise, correlated with temperature increase.

In fact, as the NOAA empirical data show, sea level rise has been constant for at least the past 100 years. In most locations, the rise is about 5-6 inches per century. That is far from the 3-6 foot increases by 2100 the hystericals routinely predict, based on fake data. There is absolutely nothing to support this, other than "scientists' computer models" using cooked data and phony charts like yours. E.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/?utm_term=.7086933411d0 Using actual NOAA data, a 3 foot rise will take something like 600 years to occur. Six feet, which is the usual figure being trotted out, will actually take 1200 years. I'm not going to worry about it, somehow I think we will find a way to get out of the way of increasing sea levels without too much trouble..

#6.1.2.1 Jim on 2018-05-18 20:03 (Reply)

Jim: In fact, as the NOAA empirical data show, sea level rise has been constant for at least the past 100 years.

As already pointed out, Church and White found an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise based on tide gauges. A more recent study, using satellite altimetry, has confirmed the acceleration. See Nerem et al., Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era, PNAS 2018.

#6.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-05-19 10:13 (Reply)

Re Socialism: Socialism takes a very high level of individual morals and altruism. It takes a very high level of individual effort, conscious choice and self-discipline. This is why socialism never works; humans are not naturally geared for that much voluntary moral effort. The personal self-interest (greed, if you will) in humans always looks at the easier "getting" side of socialism. But the real moral effort is on the "producing" side of the equation. Each person has to choose to maximize their production and choose to minimize their needs to make Group socialism work. Because humans are not naturally likely to produce without the motivation of rewards, Socialism defaults to Force as the motivation.

#7 Blick on 2018-05-17 11:48 (Reply)

No need to rely on "studies" about sea level rise. Her's an actual physical datum line showing "sea level" from 1841.
https://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/

#8 FRP on 2018-05-17 12:30 (Reply)

Good grief! 1) Trees die of old age. 2) Trees grow back. 3) Environmentalism has become a pernicious pseudo-religion, which ought to be opposed not condoned.

#9 David Zincavage (Link) on 2018-05-17 12:54 (Reply)

If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
Solar electricity is inherently more expensive, as it concentrates a very diffuse energy source. Wind energy is more concentrated. Texas produces the most wind-powered electric energy in the country, with electricity costs lower than average.
Residential Electricity Rates & Consumption in Texas.

QUOTE:

Residential electricity rates in Texas average 10.98¢/kWh, which ranks the state 31st in the nation.
The average residential electricity rate of 10.98¢/kWh in TX is 7.58% less than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh.
The approximate range of residential electricity rates in the U.S. is 8.37¢/kWh to 37.34¢/kWh.

Can you harness the wind? Texas can, way better than everyone else.

QUOTE:

The association highlighted a report from investment company Lazard saying that wind energy costs dropped 4 percent last year. That follows a cost decline of two-thirds between 2009 and 2016. That report also indicated wind was the cheapest energy option in some areas, even without its current tax credits.....
Wind generated 17.4 percent of Texas' electricity last year.

There is no point installing wind energy where there is little wind. However, the wind blows rather strong in the plains from Texas to Montana. If you have lemons, make lemonade.

#10 Gringo on 2018-05-17 13:02 (Reply)

The Texas Gold Coast around Corpus Christi is full of these things, too. Probably the best place in the world would be the trade winds belt in the lower lattitude, since the winds there blow easterly 99% of the time, and they are always moving.

Here's a neat time lapse of the world's biggest wind turbine being set into place offshore Scotland by a jackup crane ship. https://gcaptain.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9d589e63fba611f84640a8337&id=e62e7d316c&e=372124486d.

It's a shame these things chew up so many birds and are such maintenance hogs, but there it is. Since we seem to be finally entering the Age of Consequences, rabid eco-consumers should be made to sign a release that they are 'OK' with having electricity 75% of the time, just above where they sign up for 25% higher electricity rates.

#10.1 Aggie on 2018-05-17 14:47 (Reply)

Yeah... but... They still need millions and millions of taxpayer dollars just to put them in place. Then they never live up to the hype and begin losing money until they take them out. In fact the U.S. could save a fortune if they simply shut down all the solar and wind facilities and removed them. Think about that. They are losing millions a year on these things and we would actually save money to deinstall them

#10.2 OneGuy on 2018-05-17 19:43 (Reply)

In fact the U.S. could save a fortune if they simply shut down all the solar and wind facilities and removed them. Think about that. Think about that.
Think about this, and I quote from previous comment.

QUOTE:

Lazard saying that wind energy costs dropped 4 percent last year. That follows a cost decline of two-thirds between 2009 and 2016.

#10.2.1 Gringo on 2018-05-18 03:43 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, May 17. 2018

Thursday morning links