The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The tectonic stress from the shifting weight distribution has some volcanologists fearing that explosive eruptions could be triggered,which accompanied ice sheet dynamics over the last 2-million years.

So you're saying that the Giant Meteor I was expecting isn't necessary?

Originally Posted by Xist

How many houseboats would you need to add to the ocean in order to raise the sea level a significant amount?

If we replaced all cargo ships with zeppelins would the sea level drop appreciably?

Zeppelins are worth doing either way.

In the 1970s when the Boat People were fleeing the collapse of the one-time Republic of South Vietnam, I thought they should take the mothballed Victory ships at Bremerton. WA. and put six of them together bow-to-bow and fill in the gaps with decking to make megastructure floating villages for them.

Times change. Today it would be retired cruise ships.

Also, an old 3-masted sailing ship could have the spars re-jiggered into a tensegrity dome with the masts supporting added decks all the way to the crow's nest.

Edit: —simulpost!—

Basically, plasma is a fourth state of matter, magnetic portals are a thing, hydrogen ions carried by the plasma combine with oxygen ions to make Star Water, and the the telluric currents act on the water in olivine.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=solar+magnetic+portal
https://suspicious0bservers.org/starwater/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=billy+yellverton+olivine+experiments

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The grave diggers name is ICON and GOLD.
GOLD is already up.
ICON is going to focus on the suns interactions with the ionosphere.

If there is no relation for solar minimum and climate then why is china sinking billions of dollars on weather control to stave off grand solar minimum drought?
The chinese are convinced their bread basket area suffers severe drought and famine under grand solar minimums.

*the only solar minimum we know of occurred between 1645 and 1715.
*Is there a reason why a solar physicist would have prior knowledge of an impending,70-year event?
*And if sunspots have virtually nothing to do with the solar constant,why all the fuss?
*What would constitute weather control? English explorers have documented Chinese drought,and flood-ravaged crop failures since the 18th-Century,with millions dying at a time,which had nothing whatsoever to do with sunspots.
*They're damming rivers to control flooding.
*They'll lose their rivers if climate change continues,as Himalayan sources are already stressed.Cutting carbon would constitute weather control.
*Irrigation would be the only thing they could do about drought.
*Cloud-seeding hasn't worked out for anyone.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Dumb no, politically motivated yes.

Still doesn't address the issue that china is convinced they suffer historic drought in their most productive farm land during grand solar minimums and are going all in on weather control.

Man made climate change and dark matter are going to go down as the biggest shams in late 20 and early 21st century science.

There has been only one,so you're in error when you use the term in the plural.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

...and I thought it was because tropical coastal places are so pleasant that people were content to eat coconuts and bananas. It's the cold climates we have to struggle to survive. Then we need something to occupy our attention while the sun is hiding, and the environment forbidding.

The tropics has a history of tribal warfare,epidemics,famine,abortion,infanticide,and cannibalism.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Aside from trying to come up with a hypothesis that would make them famous, put their name on something, get them funded they had no reason at all.
But I wasn't talking about 19th century.

Have you got a U.S.History classroom textbook in which even one climate scientist's name is mentioned?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by sendler

The cheapest pricing I have seen in the NY area is from Renovus on community/ shared grid scale installations at $2.20/ kW installed. So the Ithaca group's 50kW system would have cost at least $110,000 and have a 15 year pay back at $0.12/ kWh if the electric company gives them the very generous situation of buying any instantaneous excess at the "meter runs backwards" price. If they only received the true spot price for their excess they would only get back around $0.04
.
State and national rebates would give back an additional $60,000 of the installation price. And they might even qualify as a "grid scale" installation which unlocks a further $0.03/ kWh federal "feed in tariff" reimbursment.

Hey I'm trying to be really optimistic. I know that's unusual.
The lowest of the lowest utility scale rates I could find were a little over $1 per watt. That's the price with everything in your favor, free land, the power company doesn't have to do anything, immigrant labor, solar panels by the shipping contaier, inverters by the truckload.

When you start having to lease land like the wind turbine guys, get right of ways for electrical and roads, install electrical and build roads, deal with the usual amount of red tape I would expect at least $2 per watt.

Residential is typically $3 to $5 per watt depending on how small the system and what kind of roof.
Just mounting the panels flat on a metal or asphalt shingle roof appears to be cheapest, probably doesn't produce the most. If the panels need a tilt mount, that adds at least $30 to $70 per panel, mostly depending on how big the panels are and what kind of quality tilt rack you want.
If you need tilt racks it's probably cheaper to put them on simple ground mounts.
God forbid if you have a terracotta roof just the install labor and hardware is going to be the bulk of the cost. Most of the solar panel install horror stories I have heard of involve terracotta.

[Xist]

According to at least three of the candidates in that debate, the corporation commission is the fourth branch of government. Who knew that we had four?!

I know that we have discussed this before, but I looked up how much cargo ships pollute.

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

"April 23, 2009 The Guardian has reported on new research showing that in one year, a single large container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent to that of 50 million cars," and "15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars."

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...tml#post404206
He referred to this article: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ping-pollution

Also,
...and "Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles."

You know how people insist that clean diesel doesn't exist?

...but "[t]he shipping industry is responsible for 3% of greenhouse gas emissions" https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...s-making-waves

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/glo...emissions-data

Country

Terawatt-hour per million people (Twh) [Kilowatt-hour per person]
Canada: 13.75
United States: 11.97
Taiwan: 9.99
Australia: 9.25
Saudi Arabia: 9.16

Apparently I do not know the right search terms to find out how Canada uses its electricity. All that I find is how much renewable energy they create.

So, cars are a major contributor within the city, but are dwarfed by cargo ships, which are a relatively small contributor compared to other sources.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Have you got a U.S.History classroom textbook in which even one climate scientist's name is mentioned?

No because classroom textbooks are ten or fifteen years old!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I can think of one, the number of major land falling hurricanes on US coasts has been on the down trend since at least the 1960s and really as far back as the 1930s depending on how you look at it.

Please consider the 'record' hurricanes,rather than 'major'. This context defines the climate change debate.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Why I love print.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345272099/

Once it's out there it's rather difficult to delete.

Oh yeah,I just finished the National Geographic 44-page article on this.In 1972-1976 there was reason why scientists might consider this to be happening,while all the others were equally confident that it could all go the other way.
None of them had any confidence in the ability to predict it.There were as many theories as there were scientists.
The CIA would have received the same report from the National Science Board:
'Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages,the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end...leading into the next glacial age...'
Turns out they were wrong.