Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[gcaveman1]

Gitano wrote:

<quoted text>
"The ChiComs are begining to hear the voice of the people; the people are tired of the pollution and tired of the wages. The ChiComms have a lot of people to control and they don't want any social movements getting started"
I hope you are correct but I am inclined to disagree with you on this.

Of course I'm correct.

I get my news from NPR.

[SpaceBlues]

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course I'm correct.
I get my news from NPR.

Good.

You are safe, also. <re bad weather>

[gcaveman1]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Good.
You are safe, also. <re bad weather>

I was tuned to Public Radio Mississippi on April 27, 2011, so I knew what could be coming. The radio helped to save my life.

You can be sure we were tuned in yesterday as well.

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Good.
You are safe, also. <re bad weather>

"WOW" the spaced out spacedoutblues finally has flipped. TOO much ethanol to drink. Well maybe if everyone listens to its favorite channel to world will be safe. Also<re bad weather>.

[tina anne]

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know which mainstream media you are watching (probably Fox "news") but they've been mentioning the hell out of it lately. In fact, there is often a special segment on climate change.
Maybe the less than a box of rocks, valley girl Teener only gets her news from Rush and Sean and the clowns on Faux Noose. THAT'S the real fringe.
Your stale argument is based on a minority of mostly media reports of a coming ice age 50 years ago. The real scientist behind the most prominent of those reports was a guy who later became one of the biggest anti-AGW proponents, Mr. Singer. He worked for the tobacco lobby too.
There's that agenda you were looking for; only, funny thing is, it's in your camp.
Actually.

Actually, I watch more CBS than Fox news. I also watch NBC, and ABC far more than Fox news. Unlike you I make sure I check multiple sources so that I know about as many sides of an issue as possible. Do I read Rush Limbaugh transcripts, yes. Then again I will also read the State of the Union transcripts since it is faster to read them than watch it or spend three hours listening to Limbaugh. I also pay attention to viewership and Fox has a far higher one than CNN.

The fact that you have to refer to me in such negative terms as valley girl (for someone who has never lived in Califronia), teener, and others tells me that you are responding on an emotional and not a mental level.

As for my arguement, it is base more than on the last fifty years. That if anything is a sign of how narrow minded your views are. The subject of man and climate change goes back a couple of centuries. They were those who blamed the sinking of the Titantic on man made climate change which was far longer than fifty years ago. There are those who looked at the Internal Combustion Engine the same way you look at solar and the electric car as something that would help prevent climate change. They of course considered methane from all the decomposing horse manure to be a greater threat at the time.

If you consider my arguement against your agrument stale then you should take a look at your argument. After all, mine's is in response to yours which means yours is older.

[tina anne]

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yaas, dahlin', I'm sure that if we put it to a vote on who's the bigger fool, the results would be completely partisan. But while you think we're fools, we know you're fools.
The difference, my dear Watson, is in the science.

I sure your friends here would vote with you. Yet that is nothing more than opinion and the opinion of a group of foolish people is still foolish.

As for the difference, yes it is science or in your case the lack thereof.

[tina anne]

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, super BrainG, you gonna get more snow.
We're all emitting greenhouse gases, whether we want to or not. You Idiot.
But, Brain, in sunny northern Germany, there by the sea, the snow will just melt right away when the sun comes out. Right?

Will it if the temperatures remain below freezing and the wind is blowing off the Arctic. If all it took was the sun the Greenland and the Anarctic would of been ice free centuries ago.

[PHD]

AHH the local media more scientific science fiction. Just follow the money.

[gcaveman1]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>"WOW" the spaced out spacedoutblues finally has flipped. TOO much ethanol to drink. Well maybe if everyone listens to its favorite channel to world will be safe. Also<re bad weather>.

All of your comments exemplify your peanut gallery status, no thoughts of any consequence, just trolling.

Is there anything you care about other than your public masturbation?

[gcaveman1]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I watch more CBS than Fox news. I also watch NBC, and ABC far more than Fox news. Unlike you I make sure I check multiple sources so that I know about as many sides of an issue as possible. Do I read Rush Limbaugh transcripts, yes. Then again I will also read the State of the Union transcripts since it is faster to read them than watch it or spend three hours listening to Limbaugh. I also pay attention to viewership and Fox has a far higher one than CNN.
The fact that you have to refer to me in such negative terms as valley girl (for someone who has never lived in Califronia), teener, and others tells me that you are responding on an emotional and not a mental level.
As for my arguement, it is base more than on the last fifty years. That if anything is a sign of how narrow minded your views are. The subject of man and climate change goes back a couple of centuries. They were those who blamed the sinking of the Titantic on man made climate change which was far longer than fifty years ago. There are those who looked at the Internal Combustion Engine the same way you look at solar and the electric car as something that would help prevent climate change. They of course considered methane from all the decomposing horse manure to be a greater threat at the time.
If you consider my arguement against your agrument stale then you should take a look at your argument. After all, mine's is in response to yours which means yours is older.

I also pay attention to viewership and Fox has a far higher one than CNN. Funny thing is, that is nothing more than opinion and the opinion of a group of foolish people is still foolish.

You lie, Sarah Palin surrogate!You parrot Fox News and Limburger.

You don't have to have lived in California to act like a valley girl.

Your arguments are weak. You facts are non-existent. Your logic is tortuously twisted.

And your last paragraph.........waaaah! you hit me first! Ma! He hit me first!

[gcaveman1]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Will it if the temperatures remain below freezing and the wind is blowing off the Arctic. If all it took was the sun the Greenland and the Anarctic would of been ice free centuries ago.

Well, that one went completely over your head.

[PHD]

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
All of your comments exemplify your peanut gallery status, no thoughts of any consequence, just trolling.
Is there anything you care about other than your public masturbation?

You must be having fantasies about watching men. Do you do the same with boys? All of your comments exemplify the nut clueless gallery. See your one up. That would make you CHIEF COMMANDER TROLL.

[Brian_G]

gcaveman1 wrote:

You're lying. At Berlin's latitude, those solar collectors should be tilted at 67 degrees, too steep an angle to catch snow. We've been wondering the same about you; what good are you?

Bavaria is further South, maybe the snow is stickier.

If you don't want to believe what I've seen outside my windows, snow covering my neighbors' solar panels, your choice. I guess, if you believe in climate change mitigation, there's not much more information about climate for you to care about.

[litesong]

gcaveman1 wrote:
You're lying. At Berlin's latitude, those solar collectors should be tilted at 67 degrees, too steep an angle to catch snow. We've been wondering the same about you; what good are you?
//////////
'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' wrote:
If you don't want to believe what I've seen outside my windows, snow covering my neighbors' solar panels, your choice.
/////////
litesong wrote:
gcaveman1....... If the neighbor of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' had a variable angle solar collector, yes, the angle tilt for winter would be 67 degrees for greatest efficiency on Dec. 21st. However, many collectors are less complicated, weighty & less efficient permanent angle attachments, probably set at a much less steep angle(the snow might not slide off) for the time of the year, when least cloud blockage occurs & excellent solar gain is available for feedback into an on-grid system to the local PUD or energy plant.

Our local PUD has stated, that solar panels with ability to tilt for the season & track the sun across the sky would be able to convert 40% more sunlight to electric energy, given a clear space to the sun in the northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, & northwest.

[Teddy R]

litesong wrote:

gcaveman1 wrote:
Our local PUD has stated, that solar panels with ability to tilt for the season & track the sun across the sky would be able to convert 40% more sunlight to electric energy, given a clear space to the sun in the northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, & northwest.

Save your money.

On average, there are only 160 sunny days per year in Everett, WA.

The rest of the 205 days each year (56%), all that $$ squandered on tilt & track gizmos & controls is pretty much a stone waste - making it a logical candidate for taxpayer subsidies, yeh?

[litesong]

tina anne wrote:

..... my arguement......my arguement .......your agrument ..... your argument.

I haven't complained about 'tiny-minded anne' & her spelling lately...... because she is trying to cut down on her errors. That's all one can hope for.

This is cute tho. Four attempts & she did get one of them right. Two of them are commonly made, so no big deal. But I think 'agrument' is a new way.........

[litesong]

Teddy R wrote:

Save your money.
On average, there are only 160 sunny days per year in Everett, WA.
The rest of the 205 days each year (56%), all that $$ squandered on tilt & track gizmos & controls is

Yeah, got to agree with you. Don't even think we get that many days. Probably someone who builds tracking telescopes could figure an axel rotating parallel to the North-South Poles at a sidereal rate. One advantage of a tracking system tho, would allow you to reduce your solar panels by 40%. I always thought a good builder could build a completely manual tilting & rotating mechanism for a modestly sized solar panel set-up to supply part solar power to 4 or 5 homes of say, 15 to 20 people, some of whom would be at home at the right time. Every week or 2(more often at certain times of the year) they could tilt the array for the changing elevation of the sun. During the day, someone would have to be available to rotate the array every hour or two, either 15 or 30 degrees.

Of course, here in Everett, a flexible solar panel is necessary to roll up & take in the house for the month of solid clouds & rain. Yeah, someone would have to be available to get the solar panels out & working for the possible 4-6 hours, when the clouds would clear away....maybe. It could work at a cost efficient rate....... if you had a gathering of solar people living close to each other.

[gcaveman1]

litesong wrote:

gcaveman1 wrote:
You're lying. At Berlin's latitude, those solar collectors should be tilted at 67 degrees, too steep an angle to catch snow. We've been wondering the same about you; what good are you?
//////////
'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' wrote:
If you don't want to believe what I've seen outside my windows, snow covering my neighbors' solar panels, your choice.
/////////
litesong wrote:
gcaveman1....... If the neighbor of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' had a variable angle solar collector, yes, the angle tilt for winter would be 67 degrees for greatest efficiency on Dec.
21st. However, many collectors are less complicated, weighty & less efficient permanent angle attachments, probably set at a much less steep angle(the snow might not slide off) for the time of the year, when least cloud blockage occurs & excellent solar gain is available for feedback into an on-grid system to the local PUD or energy plant.
Our local PUD has stated, that solar panels with ability to tilt for the season & track the sun across the sky would be able to convert 40% more sunlight to electric energy, given a clear space to the sun in the northeast, east, southeast, south, southwest, west, & northwest.

I was going by the general rules of thumb for the most gain from a fixed collector. That rule is: add 15 degrees to your latitude.

Variable position entails motors and timers or getting up on the roof to physically move them. My latitude is 32 but my collector face is at 58 degrees, but it faces SE. I also don't care a lot about hot water in the summertime; mine is geared for 12/21.

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
I haven't complained about 'tiny-minded anne' & her spelling lately...... because she is trying to cut down on her errors. That's all one can hope for.
This is cute tho. Four attempts & she did get one of them right. Two of them are commonly made, so no big deal. But I think 'agrument' is a new way.........

In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

[Brian_G]

You worry about what angle to hang your solar panels, you brush off snow and ice.

I use oil to heat my home. That way, I have hot water and heat when I need it.