Jason Peterson’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  BOT in a way

  So, with the price of cells coming down, the ability to mine wind some places (ever drive around the hills of the East Bay Area in central California?) and the desire for renewable energy (not to mention the money in building, transporting and repairing PVs, perhaps even charging rent to place them certain places) is a great thing, and this and other technologies are great to invest in instead of things of dubious merit (and will probably on many levels make this "what to do" arguing become moot fairly quickly).

  Imagine solar panels in orbit providing endless and huge amounts of hight wattage power 24/7  Take into consideration highly efficient panels on houses and etc removing the need to buy (or generate) electricity for A/C, water heating, light, etc.  And then think; batteries to take care of the night, or to run your car, or to feed your hydrogen production.  

  So let's take this another direction.  Imagine the (ir)rational and (il)logical conclusion.  Approaching the year 2100, if the global mean land/sea temperature seems on track to reach the high end of the estimate in rise, and technology innovations, wealth, mitigation and adaptation have not slowed or stopped the warming, there's a very simple way to solve the problem at any time.  We simply have a lottery, and kill 90% of the humans and animals on the earth.On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  IPCC

  First of all, it's not really part of this issue of solar, but for those of you that like to think of these things (as I do) I find it perplexing that someone can't doubt or make comments about what the IPCC says without being called names.  Ever think it's possible neither "side" has a 100% correct factor and everyone can be at least somewhat correct?  So confusing that there are those that agree it's warming but distrust an international body or a committie or a political organization?  (or one that's all of those....)

  This is especially perplexing in light of the IPCC coming up with scenarios but giving them no probabilities.  And then they say this in their own documentation!

  However, many physical and social systems are poorly understood, and information on the relevant variables is so incomplete that they can be appreciated only through intuition and are best communicated by images and stories.

  Future levels of global GHG emissions are the products of a very complex, ill-understood dynamic system, driven by forces such as population growth, socio-economic development, and technological progress; thus to predict emissions accurately is virtually impossible.

  Sometimes GHG emissions scenarios are less quantitative [scientific models] and more descriptive, and in a few cases they do not involve any formal analysis and are expressed in qualitative [non-scientific] terms.

  Or the factors influencing scenario plausability:

  1.  Extensive review of the emissions scenarios available in the literature.  
     
  2.  Alternative modeling approaches.
     
  3.  Peer review (Including by the IPCC web site "open process").
     
  4.  IPCC review and approval processes.

  Given that, what do they say about scenario uncertainties?

  Choice of Storylines.
  Authors Interpretation of Storylines.
  Translation of the Understanding of Linkages between Driving Forces into Quantitative Inputs for Scenario Analysis.
  Methodological Differences.
  Different Sources of Data.
  Inherent Uncertainties.

  So I can't see why we can't calmly discuss what exactly "Global mean surface temperatures are projected to increase between 1990 and 2100 by about 1.4 to 5.8°C." means or "Projected by models to warm 1.4 to 5.8°C by 2100 relative to 1990" and how much we should trust it as far as to the range.  Why is that not something a reasonable person might do?On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ooops, misspell

  (That should have been Bryan, extra 't' in the above post.)

  That was supposed to be sarcasm, in response to the idea that Republicans are incapable of being concerned about the environment...  (Compare and contrast to "College Station has no Greens", or "Austin has no conservatives".)

  But everyone in Vermont is a tree-hugging hippie btw.   :)On Hey, that's me! posted 2 years, 5 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Rather a slam dunk

  I believe this is pretty much linked to the rise of computers since the early '90s.  As time has passed, LCD screens (and the like) have gotten larger and larger and cheaper and cheaper as economies of scale have been reached.  More and more faster and faster.  Now we just need to find a cheap renewable way to make plastic-like materials.On Don't fight it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Perhaps not by the US EPA

  But individual states in the US can (and do) still have their own rules.  For example, I was in New Jersey about a month ago, and they still have 15% ethanol fuel.  I'm sure California does also, etc.On The weather will matter more and more posted 2 years, 5 months ago 13 Responses