What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

From that website -

"Easy question: How many days are there in one year? Answer: 365.25, rounded to the nearest quarter of a day. Harder question: How many times does Earth rotate in one year? Answer: 366.25, rounded to the nearest quarter of a day. Earth rotates once more than the number of days in the year? How can this possibly be so? Lets see."

http://www.clarkfoundation.org/astro.../Extraday.html

The easy question is how long does it take the Earth to complete one circuit of the Sun - in this case it is a close approximation to 365 days 6 hours..

Under normal circumstances it would be possible to get observers to look at the issue using full rotations by which we gauge an orbital circuit to a close approximation of 365 rotations and by taking 4 annual circuits into account it gets narrowed down to a more detailed value of 365 1/4 rotations into one circuit.

The so-called joker in the pack is the 'year' as an annual orbital cycle using full rotations as a gauge only recognizes the 4 annual cycles whereby the fractional proportion of rotations to orbital cycles are inferred and there are roughly 365 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days by that measure. Although it is common to say that it takes the Earth a year to complete a circuit of the Sun, the nature of the year is that it can be either 365 days or 366 days within the calendar framework.

There is no such thing as 366 1/4 rotations for the 365 1/4 days it takes the Earth to make a circuit of the Sun or any 'extra rotation' other than what February 29th represents as one 24 hour rotation and the distance the Earth moves to complete 4 orbital circuits.

The foundation of all astronomy and terrestrial science rests on the observation that doesn't involve timekeeping - that the Sun rises and sets followed by the stars coming into view as a consequence of one rotation. It is where the great sciences begin their recovery from the morose atmosphere that has prevailed for far too long.

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:15:13 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 4:59:57 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:54:20 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

(Hint, your two Chevy Volts don't count.)

How do you know he doesn't live in an area where the electricity comes from a
nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam?

A large portion of the energy on the grid is still generated by fossil
fuels and will continue to be almost indefinitely.

Any electricity he uses for his plugin cars is electricity unavailable
for others to use. The utility companies must burn fossil fuels to make up for that.

His plugin cars are not carbon free. There is embedded carbon in their
construction and maintenance, and in the power plants/windmills that
power them, and in the roads and other infrastructure that they use.

The money he uses to buy the plugin cars came from an economy that is
still dependent on fossil fuels, and if one has enough money to afford a
plugin car, and to pay some premium for "green" electricity, then that
additional income represents unnecessary carbon emissions that occurred elsewhere.

Using a plugin car as atonement for flying around in jets is a bit like a
dieter adding a low-cal salad to her high-cal meal and still expecting to lose weight.

75% of french electricity is nuclear. There no reason why other countries
can't achieve the same.

Political correctness.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:15:13 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

75% of french electricity is nuclear. There no reason why other countries
can't achieve the same.

Cost. A single nuclear accident like Fukushima costs as much as the
entire value of a nuclear energy system (500 billion to a trillion
dollars... more for a reactor in a highly populated area, where the
cost could be trillions). In addition, there are high costs associated
with mining and processing uranium.

I think most of the world is catching on to the reality that nuclear
fission reactors, at least as they now exist, are not an economical
solution for long term energy requirements, and are too expensive to
make sense for short term (20 years).

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:17:59 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:15:13 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

75% of french electricity is nuclear. There no reason why other countries
can't achieve the same.

Cost. A single nuclear accident like Fukushima costs as much as the
entire value of a nuclear energy system (500 billion to a trillion
dollars... more for a reactor in a highly populated area, where the
cost could be trillions). In addition, there are high costs associated
with mining and processing uranium.

I think most of the world is catching on to the reality that nuclear
fission reactors, at least as they now exist, are not an economical
solution for long term energy requirements, and are too expensive to
make sense for short term (20 years).

That's mostly bull****. I agree that gas plants are now easier and
cheaper to produce. But the cost will change. Government regulations
make nuclear power plants more expensive. And in the US there is now
a war on coal so no coal plants can ever get licensed.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:15:35 AM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:17:59 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:15:13 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

75% of french electricity is nuclear. There no reason why other countries
can't achieve the same.

Cost. A single nuclear accident like Fukushima costs as much as the
entire value of a nuclear energy system (500 billion to a trillion
dollars... more for a reactor in a highly populated area, where the
cost could be trillions). In addition, there are high costs associated
with mining and processing uranium.

I think most of the world is catching on to the reality that nuclear
fission reactors, at least as they now exist, are not an economical
solution for long term energy requirements, and are too expensive to
make sense for short term (20 years).

That's mostly bull----. I agree that gas plants are now easier and
cheaper to produce. But the cost will change. Government regulations
make nuclear power plants more expensive. And in the US there is now
a war on coal so no coal plants can ever get licensed.

Liberal greenies hate nuclear. They hate coal too, and oil and gas. They hate all energy use by others, especially those with whom they disagree. They think that driving a hybrid makes up for their air travel. They like the comforts and conveniences provided by fossil fuel use, but don't see themselves in any way responsible for the downsides. They blame the oil companies, the Kochs and the Republicans instead. They buy carbon indulgences, hypocrites all.

wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:15:35 AM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:17:59 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 10:15:13 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

75% of french electricity is nuclear. There no reason why other countries
can't achieve the same.

Cost. A single nuclear accident like Fukushima costs as much as the
entire value of a nuclear energy system (500 billion to a trillion
dollars... more for a reactor in a highly populated area, where the
cost could be trillions). In addition, there are high costs associated
with mining and processing uranium.

I think most of the world is catching on to the reality that nuclear
fission reactors, at least as they now exist, are not an economical
solution for long term energy requirements, and are too expensive to
make sense for short term (20 years).

That's mostly bull----. I agree that gas plants are now easier and
cheaper to produce. But the cost will change. Government regulations
make nuclear power plants more expensive. And in the US there is now
a war on coal so no coal plants can ever get licensed.

Liberal greenies hate nuclear. They hate coal too, and oil and gas.
They hate all energy use by others, especially those with whom they
disagree. They think that driving a hybrid makes up for their air travel.

Rubbish! They think correctly that driving a hybrid uses less petrol.

They like the comforts and conveniences provided by fossil fuel use, but
don't see themselves in any way responsible for the downsides.

Again rubbish. But they know that all that would be accomplished by
returning to the Stone Age would allow people who think like you to use
fossil fuels even faster.
Only concerted action can avert the crisis.

They blame the oil companies, the Kochs and the Republicans instead. They
buy carbon indulgences, hypocrites all.

Carbon offsets are capitalist crap designed to allow US industry to pollute
more.
They rightly blame the oil industry in the USA and their shills in the
Republican Party and the media.

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 02:15:32 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

That's mostly bull****. I agree that gas plants are now easier and
cheaper to produce. But the cost will change. Government regulations
make nuclear power plants more expensive. And in the US there is now
a war on coal so no coal plants can ever get licensed.

So far we lack the technology to make safe and economical use of coal,
natural gas, and nuclear. How the economics of these three unsafe
technologies play out against each other is complex and it's very
difficult to predict how they will change in the future.

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 13:33:59 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Rubbish! They think correctly that driving a hybrid uses less petrol.

It's also true that early adopters of this technology are helping to
build both the technology and the market for cars which are not fueled
by fossil fuels. There's value in that.

It is extraordinary that people actually can bypass what is easily the worst possible conclusion ever drawn where the planets motions and terrestrial sciences are concerned.

The Sun comes into view each day and moves from horizon to horizon followed by the appearance of the stars and this complete package is due to a single rotation. The next step doesn't require anything more than attention to the rotation of February in providing a close approximation between rotations and annual circuits of the Sun.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde

The fact is that everyone here has their minds in the gutter due to a intolerable conclusion which makes the celestial sphere cult go round -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year. This is because we define a day not based on the Earth's period of rotation, but based on the average time from noon one day to noon the next. Gradually over the course of a year the Sun appears to go 'backwards' (West to East) around the Earth compared to the far away stars (this is because we are really going around the Sun). Subtracting this 1 time backwards from the 366 and 1/4 times forward, we get the typical 365 and 1/4 days per year." NASA

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/ask_astro/earth.html


There are 1461 days within 4 annual circuits of the Earth around the Sun and each and every one of those days correspond to one rotation following the next. It takes roughly 365 days 6 hours for the Earth to travel around the Sun based on that parent fact but this assumes observers can handle to purpose of the February 29th rotation as it relates to the 6 hours omitted every year of 365 days/rotations as a deficiency in orbital distance.

Are none of you ashamed that you can't explain the full package of the daily appearance of the Sun followed by the other stars as one rotation because it is not going to happen with the 'solar vs sidereal' fiction ?.

People just do not want to know but they do want to chatter on about academic or middle class lifestyles centered around fuel.

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 07:37:12 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 02:15:32 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

That's mostly bull****. I agree that gas plants are now easier and
cheaper to produce. But the cost will change. Government regulations
make nuclear power plants more expensive. And in the US there is now
a war on coal so no coal plants can ever get licensed.

So far we lack the technology to make safe and economical use of coal,
natural gas, and nuclear. How the economics of these three unsafe
technologies play out against each other is complex and it's very
difficult to predict how they will change in the future.

I've always thought you were crazy, but now I'm sure of it.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe