The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by litesong

It's so funny. First, the AGW deniers said wind power would never produce more power than 1% of need. Second, wind turbines are so efficient at producing power, wind investors say use more power..... to make us rich.

It's NOT coincidence that AGW deniers & rich people clack the same way.

Please quote the specific AGW deniers who said wind would never produce 1% of need, or we can safely chalk this up as another litesong strawman lie.

Second, it's simple for there to be examples of something working well in a particular market, yet being totally inappropriate in another. Snohomish County Public Utility isn't representative of the global market. They didn't accomplish a largely renewable energy supply by sheer grit and determination of progressive ideals, but happened to be located where those resources are at hand.

Finally, if your income is above $18k per year, you can count yourself among those rich clackers. It's above the global average. Based on what you've shared, I expect you're either drowning in self-loathing or in cognitive dissonance.

[freebeard]

Our dams were getting high because of good rainfall, so the power companies began using more hydro-power to keep the waters lower behind the dams.

Can't we all just get a bong? Wind-power pumped hydro?

You don't want to explore the capitalist/anarchist nexus? The Pacific Coast Highway was started as a plank road by local auto clubs. I posted about that here but Google won't show it to me.

[oil pan 4]

I was stopped observing some road work earlier.
Couldn't help but wonder what the wind and solar replacement for asphalt, the LPG fired pavement setter and the LPG fired surface prep rig is going to be?
Obviously the surface mill and vibrating compaction rollers could probably be battery powered.
But then that begs the question where do they recharge at the end of the day?
Are they going to get loaded up on a tractor trailer every evening and dragged to some where that has some DCFC they can use all night? Then taken back to the job site in the morning?

[sendler]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I was stopped observing some road work earlier.
Couldn't help but wonder what the wind and solar replacement for asphalt, the LPG fired pavement setter and the LPG fired surface prep rig is going to be?
Obviously the surface mill and vibrating compaction rollers could probably be battery powered.
But then that begs the question where do they recharge at the end of the day?
Are they going to get loaded up on a tractor trailer every evening and dragged to some where that has some DCFC they can use all night? Then taken back to the job site in the morning?

Just one example out of hundreds or thousands of what carbon fuel does for modern civilization. Things will be smaller and simpler after the age of fossil carbon.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's weather not climate.
The absolute minimum ipcc definition for climate I have seen in a report is 30 years.
It would appear you are totally not reading the ipcc reports at all.

New record high temperatures, year after year - is climate.

I accept what the scientists have concluded - that we are in the midst of a rapidly warming climate, and it is be driven by humans burning fossil fuels.

That is the bottom line.

You have no evidence in support of your denial of this.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by freebeard

California can't keep it's lights on because of too much wind power?

Huh? It is because they haven't done enough to keep their stuff from starting fires. They paid dividends, instead.

[freebeard]

Let's call it a second-order effect.

oil pan 4 — Everyone focuses on the cars and trucks, the roads and parking lots (60% of cities' surface area) are background noise.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Please quote the specific AGW deniers who said wind would never produce 1% of need, or we can safely chalk this up as another litesong strawman lie.......I expect you're either drowning in self-loathing or in cognitive dissonance.

A book co-edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon contained a passage stating that windmills "might never generate as much energy as was invested in building [them]."

redpoint5, who made three mathematics errors in a row.......clacks on about more of his mathematics errors & psychology 101 classes.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by litesong

A book co-edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon contained a passage stating that windmills "might never generate as much energy as was invested in building [them]."

The concept of net energy must be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

-David Hughes, Carbon Shift

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wind-idiot-power/

Got anything else, preferably taken in context?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

New record high temperatures, year after year - is climate.

I accept what the scientists have concluded - that we are in the midst of a rapidly warming climate, and it is be driven by humans burning fossil fuels.

That is the bottom line.

You have no evidence in support of your denial of this.

According to the ipcc, that's still weather.
Their minimum time for "climate" is 30 years. If you read any ipcc report you would know they don't consider a single year climate.
Plus I know they said it's been the warmest years on record the last few years then they revised it down so no warmest years on record since at least 2014 or 2015.

I'm not denying anything. I read the reports and agree with them. But what I'm doing is reading the whole thing and taking it in. You you and litesoff do is like skipping the whole bible, only reading revelations then making up your own crazy dooms day religion based on the craziest nightmare like parts of 2 pretty big books.