The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

If GW is causing more powerful winds, perhaps that's where we should be extracting the energy. The side effect of installing a lot of wind power would be reduced wind speeds. Seems like a problem that has its own solution.

[freebeard]

*So far,as of 1998,with respect to either volcanic or earthquake triggering mechanisms,there has been no mention in the peer-reviewed literature,of corroborated, causal relationships between cosmic ray,or solar irradiance effects.
*At some point I'll have some time to look at the online reporting.

That's 20 years ago.

I watch S0 almost daily. They show weather events and scientific papers (daily).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlyhCOJKOFU

sendler — 100volts/meter at micro-amperes all the time everywhere. I'm not the one you need to convince, try Ben Davidson (I'll bet he's very accessible)

01:13
...let's quickly
01:15
check out the last day of CONUS from
01:17
ghost 16 {really GOES-16} first with the day cloud phase
01:20
distinction in our GP airmass and then
01:22
shifting to lightning huge display of
01:24
global electric circuit returned
01:26
crossing the states here watching again
01:28
as more power than the u.s. uses in a
01:30
year lights up the sky in a few hours

Old Tele man — Tesla. Wydencliff Tower.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If GW is causing more powerful winds, perhaps that's where we should be extracting the energy. The side effect of installing a lot of wind power would be reduced wind speeds. Seems like a problem that has its own solution.

Tonight,here,on PBS' NOVA is doing a new program on last year's 3-in-a-row major hurricanes.
No guarantee that I'll get to see it.
It might have a take on what the meteorologists are talking about these days.
All I've heard so far,is that with the very warm surface water temperatures,for instance in the Gulf of Mexico, (they're referring to it as the 'hot tub'),that it's a perfect setup for more evaporation,atmospheric rivers,more intense rain events,and energy for storms.
The frequency of storms isn't predicted to be any different,but their magnitudes may be more extreme.
With perhaps more instrumentation today,recording more real time wind velocities ,forecasters may be able to tease out any differences in average observed wind spectra,compared to their database and see if there's a trend or not for ambient winds.
It's way too complicated for my time-riddled brain.I'll have to defer to those who teach it and make a living off it.

[aerohead]

[QUOTE=freebeard;572950]That's 20 years ago.

I watch S0 almost daily. They show weather events and scientific papers (daily).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlyhCOJKOFU

sendler — 100volts/meter at micro-amperes all the time everywhere. I'm not the one you need to convince, try Ben Davidson (I'll bet he's very accessible)


*it makes sense that they mirror one another.The earth is embedded within the Sun's magnetic heliosphere.Like a pea inside a chicken pot pie inside a microwave oven.
*Inactive transatlantic cables have been tested for magnetospheric-induced currents and measured a fraction of a volt.
*The thing about sun-spots though,is that though we can see them,they may not effect us magnetically at all unless they occur along the sun's ecliptic and radiate radially,directly at us.
*If earth does not lay within the footprint of the spherical expansion from the photosphere,it will just blow by Earth.
*It doesn't matter what the lines of flux are around the sun if we're not in their path.
*There are complete holes in the corona at the sun's polar regions which don't do diddly-squat to Earth.
*There can be killer coronal mass ejections that just blow by us at a safe distance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*If atmospheric electricity is associated with volcanism or earthquakes it should show up in the peer-reviewed science.
*I'll work my way through what I have at home,then when time permits,I'll look into the Skeptical Observer.I appreciate the link!

[freebeard]

*The thing about sun-spots though,is that though we can see them,they may not effect us magnetically at all unless they occur along the sun's ecliptic and radiate radially,directly at us.
*If earth does not lay within the footprint of the spherical expansion from the photosphere,it will just blow by Earth.
*It doesn't matter what the lines of flux are around the sun if we're not in their path.
*There are complete holes in the corona at the sun's polar regions which don't do diddly-squat to Earth.
*There can be killer coronal mass ejections that just blow by us at a safe distance.

I don't know how many times S0 has used the term 'earth-facing quiet', or if the statistics support it. He has called out potentially crippling CMEs that blow through where the Earth would be a few month before or after.

Here's one for sendler:

www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Fuel-cell-ferry-coming-to-San-Francisco-Bay-13020867.php

Pratt studied fuel cells for years as an engineer at Sandia National Laboratories and, in 2017, co-authored a study looking at how well the technology might work in a range of vessels, from giant container ships to fishing trawlers and passenger boats. As far as he could tell, fuel cells could power them all.

“I did this study in part to see what was the limit to using hydrogen fuel cells, and the most surprising thing to me was I didn’t find one,” he said.

That's a very sophisticated hull hydrodynamically.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

So, I should cancel the planned IPA for my "Ben Franklin Home Lightning-Power" kit company (wink)?

Have the IPA. Enjoy it thoroughly, as it was meant to be.

Skip the IPO, though.

[oil pan 4]

I think there are 6 volcanoes erupting now.
The forever useless main stream media hasn't seemed to notice.

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I think there are 6 volcanoes erupting now.
The forever useless main stream media hasn't seemed to notice.

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/faq...t_at_once.html

At any given time, about 10-20 volcanoes are erupting on average

[NeilBlanchard]

Volcanoes produce carbon 13, and this isotope is measurable. It is not a significant part of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Wild fires produce a know proportion of carbon 14, because the plants that burn - are younger than 50,000 years. Carbon 14 is radioactive, and it has a known rate of decay - and is how we do carbon dating.

Burning fossil fuels ONLY produces carbon 12 - because the plants that became the coal and oil and natural gas - is much older than 50,000 years. So, when the proportion of carbon 12 is such that it could ONLY have come from fossil fuels - this is one way that we know that what we are doing is causing climate change.

[oil pan 4]

No one is talking about volcanic CO2 and warming.

I would actually be more concerned with ash and sulfur dioxide caused cooling.