[DARFAP]

This. About time someone said it.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by DARFAP

This. About time someone said it.

This? Or do you mean that?

It would help if you quoted the post you are referring too.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Very informative post. I wonder if states other than Florida, have better policies for their electric companies buying back electrical energy from the homeowner. I somehow got the impression that Florida discouraged solar energy buy-backs? I really don't know?

Yes. Many northern communities have buy-back programs with their electric companies. The town I moved here from - North Haven, CT, has solar panels on top of their closed landfill. The panels produce enough energy to completely run the water-treatment plant.

They also replaced every single city-owned street light in the town with LED bulbs.

The town I lived in prior to North Haven - East Haven - is turning unuseable town land into a solar farm to power ITS municipal buildings including the High School and save a fortune in energy costs. The fun part - this will actually generate income for the town, which will rent the old farmland to the solar company. So in addition to saving hundreds of thousands in utility costs for the town, it's also generating around $700,000 in lease and Grand List tax revenue.

That's just the situation of two towns in New Haven County, Connecticut. Most northern states have solar initiatives of some sort or another.

[UpNorth]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yes. Many northern communities have buy-back programs with their electric companies. The town I moved here from - North Haven, CT, has solar panels on top of their closed landfill. The panels produce enough energy to completely run the water-treatment plant.

They also replaced every single city-owned street light in the town with LED bulbs.

The town I lived in prior to North Haven - East Haven - is turning unuseable town land into a solar farm to power ITS municipal buildings including the High School and save a fortune in energy costs. The fun part - this will actually generate income for the town, which will rent the old farmland to the solar company. So in addition to saving hundreds of thousands in utility costs for the town, it's also generating around $700,000 in lease and Grand List tax revenue.

That's just the situation of two towns in New Haven County, Connecticut. Most northern states have solar initiatives of some sort or another.

Connecticut is great for home solar power installations. You make a watt, they give you a watt. Installed 28 panels back in 2011 and haven't paid for electricity since then. Connecticut electricity rates are crazy, so solar panels make sense. Not so much in Florida, where electricity is much cheaper and they don't deal with you on a watt-per-watt basis.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by UpNorth

Connecticut is great for home solar power installations. You make a watt, they give you a watt. Installed 28 panels back in 2011 and haven't paid for electricity since then. Connecticut electricity rates are crazy, so solar panels make sense. Not so much in Florida, where electricity is much cheaper and they don't deal with you on a watt-per-watt basis.

We had oil heat, and no central air. So our electric bill wasn't TOO bad, unless we had to run the room air conditioners for longer than a few hours a day during heat waves. Several of our neighbors had full-house solar electricity (which DOES power the house all day all night, for whoever posted otherwise), but our house didn't have the right pitch roof facing the right direction, and the spot where it would've gotten the most sun exposure was under the branches of a 250-year-old sugar maple tree. So - we didn't get solar and just paid a small fortune every winter for oil delivery.

[Dennys37Packard]

The sky is falling and we must tell the king!!! It is a historical fact that all this crazy weather is cyclical. Over centuries, the weather and warming, then cooling , comes and goes. We learned that in Science class. Do they even teach that anymore or was it dropped like shop classes to make room for woke crap.

[Dennys37Packard]

Yeah, with more solar panels might come global cooling since less sun is being absorbed by the earth. 😜

[VApeople]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

No one, perhaps with the exception of Al Gore, should believe any of this "global warming" garbage that is being shoved down our throats

On this day 70 years ago, I was playing in the surf at Fort Myers Beach.

When we visited there a few months ago, the beach looks the same as it did in 1951, and the seawater level is no higher than it was back then.

If the climate does change and there is global warming, it will make much of the land in Northern Canada and Northern Russia more productive for agriculture. I'm not worried.

[biker1]

Sealevels have been rising at a rate of 1.5 - 3 mm per year during that period. This is not a difference you would necessarily perceive with your eyes.

Originally Posted by VApeople

On this day 70 years ago, I was playing in the surf at Fort Myers Beach.

When we visited there a few months ago, the beach looks the same as it did in 1951, and the seawater level is no higher than it was back then.

If the climate does change and there is global warming, it will make much of the land in Northern Canada and Northern Russia more productive for agriculture. I'm not worried.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by biker1

Sealevels have been rising at a rate of 1.5 - 3 mm per year during that period. This is not a difference you would necessarily perceive with your eyes.

3mm/year x 70 years = 210mm= 8.26 inches. Would probably be noticeable.

I believe your math is correct, long term:

8.26 inches/70 years = 11.8 inches/century= 147.5 feet 15,000 years from now, which is what I've been posting, consistent with all the paleoclimatologic data over the last 4 million years, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SUV!!!!!!. Better pack your swim trunks to see a Broadway show

[biker1]

No, not necessarily. Coastal regions change and you may not have a specific reference point to compare to nor remember from 70 years ago. While the sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years because we are in an interglacial period and warming, the increase in the rate of the rise (the second derivative) is a concern. Some of it is anthropogenic - how much is still an area of research.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

3mm/year x 70 years = 210mm= 8.26 inches. Would probably be noticeable.

I believe your math is correct, long term:

8.26 inches/70 years = 11.8 inches/century= 147.5 feet 15,000 years from now, which is what I've been posting, consistent with all the paleoclimatologic data over the last 4 million years, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR SUV!!!!!!. Better pack your swim trunks to see a Broadway show

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by biker1

No, not necessarily. Coastal regions change and you may not have a specific reference point to compare to nor remember from 70 years ago. While the sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years because we are in an interglacial period and warming, the increase in the rate of the rise (the second derivative) is a concern. Some of it is anthropogenic - how much is still an area of research.

All true. Unfortunately, the "research" is generally pro-anthropogenic due to the enormous amount of money the feds are throwing at grants, and the way in which the media is reporting it, all to justify the ridiculous amount of spending that has been proposed to "combat" it. The "best/most respected" non-biased paleoclimatologists feel that the anthropogenic factor is minimal, perhaps delaying the next period of glaciation by 3-5,000 years. As far as the WEATHER changes of the last 100 years goes, 1 good volcano will change all that.

[biker1]

Paleoclimatolgists look at what has occurred. Projections of anthropogenic warming are based on radiative transfer physics - big difference. Whether the earth warms or cools is a function of the difference between net incoming solar and net longwave loss to space. The physics are indisputable as increased in CO2 and other gasses changes the radiative balance - it impacts both solar and long wave, as do the Milankovitch Cycles. What is still an area of research is "how much?". There is still a considerable range in the estimates. Some of the estimates would be problematic if they verified. The "sky is falling" cry come from left leaning politicians and the press. The scientists working this area are simply reporting what the current state of the science is indicating. There are many international teams working on this. I fail to see the point in attempting to disparage scientists you don't know. Isn't this the same thing you accuse others of doing? Full disclosure - I am a retired atmospheric scientist and developed numerical atmospheric models.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

All true. Unfortunately, the "research" is generally pro-anthropogenic due to the enormous amount of money the feds are throwing at grants, and the way in which the media is reporting it, all to justify the ridiculous amount of spending that has been proposed to "combat" it. The "best/most respected" non-biased paleoclimatologists feel that the anthropogenic factor is minimal, perhaps delaying the next period of glaciation by 3-5,000 years. As far as the WEATHER changes of the last 100 years goes, 1 good volcano will change all that.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

All true. Unfortunately, the "research" is generally pro-anthropogenic due to the enormous amount of money the feds are throwing at grants, and the way in which the media is reporting it, all to justify the ridiculous amount of spending that has been proposed to "combat" it. The "best/most respected" non-biased paleoclimatologists feel that the anthropogenic factor is minimal, perhaps delaying the next period of glaciation by 3-5,000 years. As far as the WEATHER changes of the last 100 years goes, 1 good volcano will change all that.

can you provide links to validate that claim about how the "best/most respected paleoclimatologists" feel? I'd like to know how you come to that conclusion?

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Very informative post. I wonder if states other than Florida, have better policies for their electric companies buying back electrical energy from the homeowner. I somehow got the impression that Florida discouraged solar energy buy-backs? I really don't know?

Originally Posted by UpNorth

Connecticut is great for home solar power installations. You make a watt, they give you a watt. Installed 28 panels back in 2011 and haven't paid for electricity since then. Connecticut electricity rates are crazy, so solar panels make sense. Not so much in Florida, where electricity is much cheaper and they don't deal with you on a watt-per-watt basis.

Florida encourages affordable energy for ratepayers. One of the primary reasons Connecticut and many other states energy rates are significantly higher is because regulators mandate utilities include solar and other cost inefficient sources be included in their portfolio of energy sources. Forcing utilities to by back unused energy (net metering) from small solar producers increases their costs, which are passed on to ratepayers.