Reply #31

In the discussion thread: 'Faster Than We Thought': An Epitaph for Planet Earth [View all]

Thu May 24, 2012, 11:20 AM

kristopher (21,560 posts)

31. Did you flatten the curve deliberately or is it too complicated for you.

Last edited Thu May 24, 2012, 11:36 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

You underestimated the data point for renewables by 600%.

Why would you want to portray renewable generation and the trends falsely?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

36 replies	Author	Time	Post
'Faster Than We Thought': An Epitaph for Planet Earth [View all]	GliderGuider	May 2012	OP
I wish the Earth well, she'll do better without us.	Lionessa	May 2012	#1
I've said it many times on DU, the human race is too dumb to survive. nt	ladjf	May 2012	#4
.	XemaSab	May 2012	#2
"Look your children in the eye, while you still can" --NNadir	phantom power	May 2012	#3
For all the crazy stuff that guy wrote, that one line rings true. NT	NickB79	May 2012	#8
XXX is happening faster than expected.	kristopher	May 2012	#5
Table 6.1 really hammers home what a lot of us have felt for a long time here on E/E	NickB79	May 2012	#9
And as always it ignores the transportation issue...	GliderGuider	May 2012	#11
More sour grapes GG?	kristopher	May 2012	#14
No, just pointing out that as usual	GliderGuider	May 2012	#16
No one has overlooked anything	kristopher	May 2012	#17
Look again NickyB, and tell us truly what you see.	kristopher	May 2012	#13
Funny that you choose to use GW values instead of TWH values in your reply to my point about TWH's	NickB79	May 2012	#35
Thank you. That seems a good source.	kristopher	May 2012	#36
Let's look at the electrical generation from Table 6.1	GliderGuider	May 2012	#12
Here's another version using the actual 2009 data instead of their projection	GliderGuider	May 2012	#15
You're just tossing out nonsense and wrapping it in a graph...	kristopher	May 2012	#19
Amusing that you were fine with the graph that was based on 1998 WEO.	joshcryer	May 2012	#20
Are you all right? There is no graph for the 1998 WEO forecast.	kristopher	May 2012	#23
Are you all right? GG posted the graph he made in #12.	joshcryer	May 2012	#24
Given that you seem awfully concerned about what sources other people are using...	XemaSab	May 2012	#25
???	GliderGuider	May 2012	#27
I was waiting for your unruly 'children' to go to bed	kristopher	May 2012	#29
TL; DNR	GliderGuider	May 2012	#30
Did you flatten the curve deliberately or is it too complicated for you.	kristopher	May 2012	#31
The renewables curve was an exponential trend line.	GliderGuider	May 2012	#32
You understated a key data point by 600% to grossly understate the renewable trendline	kristopher	May 2012	#33
Please try to understand	GliderGuider	May 2012	#34
Thank you for charting the data, GG. It shows quite nicely that while...	joshcryer	May 2012	#22
All you've done is illustrate my point	kristopher	May 2012	#18
Wait, I thought that was nonsense wrapped up into a graph?	joshcryer	May 2012	#21
At least somebody gets the point...	GliderGuider	May 2012	#28
These graphs from New Scientist always drove the point home for me.	GliderGuider	May 2012	#6
Nah ...	Nihil	May 2012	#26
This time, no lifeboats... even for the RICH.	bvar22	May 2012	#7
I'm not that pessimistic, but the old Chinese curse still applies.	Odin2005	May 2012	#10

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.