How to reduce power consumption

Fourstars said:
Do you run your tank with solar and wind! I'd love to see the set up, or link if build thread already started.
Click to expand...

"LOL" I was being sarcastic mate.

The reason his power is so expensive is because of so called 'free' renewable energy. The well know & stated agenda of the green movement is to make electricity unaffordable, & necesse persuits such as reef keeping obsolete.
 
Twinfallz said:
"LOL" I was being sarcastic mate.

The reason his power is so expensive is because of so called 'free' renewable energy. The well know & stated agenda of the green movement is to make electricity unaffordable, & necesse persuits such as reef keeping obsolete.
Click to expand...

Sorry, missed the sarcasm. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that renewables are free. Sorry the green movement is after your reef. Those darn extremists and their science!
 
Fourstars said:
Sorry, missed the sarcasm. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that renewables are free. Sorry the green movement is after your reef. Those darn extremists and their science!
Click to expand...

The false concept that renewables are cheap has been perpetuated by the constantly & mischievously repeated slogan ,,, the sun & the wind are free. They might be, but the contraptions to convert those forms of energy into electricity are not.

Cap & trade, carbon taxes are designed to make electricity artificially expensive. Obama himself said " "œElectricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"¦.". When electricity costs are high enough what would you choose... the absolutely necessities, or a completely unnecessary fish tank?

In regards to the 'science', most people who use that argument have no idea at all what the mainstream science actually says. This blanket statement is used to suggest that the science is settled, & adding co2 to the atmosphere will be catastrophic. Infact the mainstream science is far from settled, has a huge & admitted level of disagreement & uncertainty. The most basic, well understood, & widely agreed upon theories that make up the overall hypothesis show that warming from co2 directly is mild & increasingly more difficult to achieve as atmospheric levels increase. Any warming above co2's direct & mild effect is based on a hypothesis that is disproven by actual measurements. :beer:
 
"observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices."

For the Full report go to> https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

And here's the most recent assessment that came out a few days ago. https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
 
Last edited:
Fourstars said:
"observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices."

For the Full report go to> https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

And here's the most recent assessment that came out a few days ago. https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
Click to expand...

The climate is changing. Perhaps. But that doesn't mean that co2 is the cause.

The statement - "the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases" is not a scientific statement. It is a political statement based on a consensus & expert opinion.
Warming from co2 is not measurable & therefore indistinguishable from natural variation. Especially when there is such a high level of ignorance in regards to causes of natural change. The world started warming several hundred years ago.

What the mainstream science says is -
1. a doubling of atmospheric co2 increases radiative forcing by a maximum of 3.7watts per square metre (W/m2) & this results in an increase of the global average temperature by (only) 1°C.

2. The reason the IPCC climate models based their projections on a doubling of co2 (2 x co2) is because it doesn"t matter what the level of co2 happens to be, doubling it will only ever cause an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2. This is due to the logrhythmic effect, or diminishing effect of increasing co2.
To put that in simple terms, to get a 1°C increase in average temperature from co2 at an atmospheric level of 300ppm, it needs to be doubled, or increased by 300ppm, to 600ppm. But to get a further 1°C increase in average temperature another doubling is necessary, & that means increasing it by twice as much as the doubling before. To get warming from co2 just gets harder & harder.
 
For our children's sake I sure hope your right. Sure is easier to just burn coal! Remember the heliocentric model was considered a political statement at one time.
 
Fourstars said:
"observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices."

For the Full report go to> https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

And here's the most recent assessment that came out a few days ago. https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
Click to expand...

:fish1: It is more like water vapor is causing the air to warm, and with both the AMO, and PDO in a positive state with a couple Nino's thrown in, this is what maybe causing the warming. This is a aquarium forum, so lets keep climate change to the blogs where they belong, like other websites. :fish1:
 
I qoute the The National Climate Assessment report on the impacts of climate change on the United States, A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences. And I quote the New York Times and you call it a scary prediction and a climate alarmist? I could find the defense department assessment of the climate change on national security also. but that Must be fake news too?

I’ll shut up now, kind of hijacked this thread. I’m sure it’s about a post from being closed by the mod.
 
Last edited:
Fourstars said:
I qoute the The National Climate Assessment report on the impacts of climate change on the United States, A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences. And I quote the New York Times and you call it a scary prediction and a climate alarmist? I could find the defense department assessment of the climate change on national security also. but that Must be fake news too?
Click to expand...

I quoted the main stream science & thats says warming from co2 directly is mild & increasingly more difficult to achieve as atmospheric levels increase.

Any hype beyond that is simply based on the hypothesis of strong net positive feedback, & that has been disproven by measurements of tropospheric water vapour & warming rates at various levels through the troposphere.

I couldn't care less what the left leaning, climate alarmism promoting New York Times has to say,but in regards to the NCA report: -University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out problems with the study on Twitter Saturday, including the fact it was funded by groups connected with Bloomberg and Steyer.
Bloomberg and Steyer were the biggest donors to Democratic-aligned political action groups in the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Bloomberg, who founded Bloomberg Philanthropies, handed nearly $60 million to liberal super PACs to help put Democratic candidates in office and defeat Republicans in the 2018 election cycle, according to the center.

Steyer, who co-founded Next Generation, gave roughly $58.7 million to liberal super PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Bloomberg and Steyer back the Paris climate accord and Obama-era policies to phase out fossil fuels.

The Bloomberg-Steyer-funded study found future temperature rise could cost “roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per [additional one degree Celsius increase] on average.” At the most extreme high-end, that could add up to 10 percent of gross domestic product by 2100.

Pielke called the use of such an extreme scenario “embarrassing” because it’s based on a future that’s 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer—in other words, twice what the United Nations’ most extreme scenario projects.

But even the United Nations’ worst-case scenario, called RCP8.5, is being called into question by experts. A study published in 2017 found that scenario was “exceptionally unlikely” because it suffered from “systematic errors in fossil production outlooks.”

:beer: :eek2: :beer: :bounce1:
 
“Pielke, by the way, has never disputed a role of human activity in climate change. He even favors a carbon tax and supports federal regulatory attempts to crack down on carbon emissions”

I agree there is a lot of hyperbole on both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Old Elos 70 - how to raise water level and reduce water noise?
Replies
9
Views
288
discotu
discotu
S
Back up power supply
2
Replies
22
Views
392
Reefing102
Reefing102
Brian60077
Glad my friend stopped by to look at my new set up yesterday afternoon
Replies
4
Views
225
Brian60077
Brian60077
F
Starting tank again
Replies
6
Views
197
Dr. Reef
Dr. Reef
D
Power Heads
Replies
2
Views
278
T Diddy
T Diddy
Back
Top