The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*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.

The chinese are building huge cloud seeding setups in the mountains that are going to pump tons of silver iodide into the atmosphere to turn on the rain, at least that's the plan.
The Chinese have been accused of weather control before, the most famous instance being how the skys miraculously cleared for the start for the Beijing Olympics.

Solar cycles have been declining since solar cycle 21. I think something like 97% of solar scientists agree this solar cycle has had a severe activity drought and solar cycles 25 and 26 will also have a drop in the bucket compared to normal the normal level of action.
They are not projecting a grand solar minimum, just a brief one only lasting 2 or 3 cycles.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I was talking about the global warming scientists being politically motivated to ignore certain things that don't agree with the narrative.

According to the UN the only way to fix global warming is to give them unlimited money, or a $1.70 a gallon gasoline tax, implement a 10 to 15% vat tax, implement a carbon tax system and give all that money to them with 0 accountability.
Which happens to be their solution for all the world's ills, you know give them money and don't ask where it goes.

Just turning off all fossil fuel power and going to renewables isn't good enough for them.

Until very recently,scientists simply did their research,submitted it through the proper channels and left it up to others to deal with policy,or not.
That hasn't worked very well,and a few have come out of the woodwork,alarmed that things have slid along as long as they have,until now,we're facing these historic climate events.They've got families too.
The UN is not the scientific community.
Historically,you can't hardly get an American to do anything unless you hit them in the pocketbook.A carrot,or a stick.If the UN is considering some fiscal mechanism to affect change,well,they wouldn't be the first.
Americans could have begged GM, FORD, and CHRYSLER for their 80-mpg cars of the late 90s,but no,they went for the SUVs,which helped bring us to this juncture.American's can't be trusted to act rationally.We've had Mad Men grooming us for pure emotional consumer behavior since 1900.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The chinese are building huge cloud seeding setups in the mountains that are going to pump tons of silver iodide into the atmosphere to turn on the rain, at least that's the plan.
The Chinese have been accused of weather control before, the most famous instance being how the skys miraculously cleared for the start for the Beijing Olympics.

Solar cycles have been declining since solar cycle 21. I think something like 97% of solar scientists agree this solar cycle has had a severe activity drought and solar cycles 25 and 26 will also have a drop in the bucket compared to normal the normal level of action.
They are not projecting a grand solar minimum, just a brief one only lasting 2 or 3 cycles.

when you use the expression 'solar cycle',can you tell me the exact definition connected to this wording.Solar physicists have used other words to describe solar performance.I'd like to be on the same page.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Solar can make financial sense at the micro level because individuals don't have to contend with the enormously difficult problem of balancing power supply with demand in real time.

When you factor in the hugely difficult problem of exactly matching power production with power demand by the second at both macro and micro levels, the unpredictability and utter lack of control of solar creates a huge problem; one that cannot currently be solved without extreme engineering and expense.

Hawaii is already having problems with neighborhoods that produce too much solar from individual homeowners. If infrastructure isn't built to handle it, then it creates problems.

It might make economic sense to do macro solar up to some relatively low total percent of power production (perhaps 20% or so), but it's not a solution. It's not even half of a solution. So far the evidence seems to suggest solar isn't even economical in regions with excellent sunshine, because those places that have implemented it have among the highest utility rates. Wind seems to be more economical than solar.

As I've said before if solar or wind is cheaper than conventional power generation, then my utility would invite me to pay less for "green energy". As it is, the utility asks just the opposite; for me to pay more for solar or wind power. Anyone saying solar or wind is cheaper (at the macro level) is misinformed at best, or peddling a lie for nefarious purposes at worst.

My electric COOP sells solar electricity only in 200-kWh/blocks.I've never used 200-kwhs/month,so that plan didn't work out for me.
For a penny a kWh more,I can,and did subscribe to a wind energy option.So instead of 12-cents,I pay 13-cents/kWh and there's no minimum purchase involved.
By switching to all-LED lighting,even with the higher rate,my electric bill never went up.Painless!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Burning... can a burning chemical reaction be compared to a eletron energy reactions ?

I didn't heard this argument in any skeptic critic to the Goodenough&Braga's battery.

Yes,as with a comparison between an internal combustion engine, compared to and electric motor.
Everything can be reduced to British thermal units for instance,and direct comparisons made.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

when you use the expression 'solar cycle',can you tell me the exact definition connected to this wording.Solar physicists have used other words to describe solar performance.I'd like to be on the same page.

When I say solar cycle 21, 25 and 26 that only means one thing. The roughly 11 year cycles that have been kept track of since the 1700s.
A regular solar minimum is the end of one solar cycle and the start of the next.
Grand solar minimum usually means the big one in the 1600s and as a reference to a time with extend period of few to no sun spots lasting the length of at least 11 year solar cycle or more.
The next little minimum, a span of 11 year cycles with little to no sun spot activity will likely be cycles 25 and 26, or 26 and 27, maybe 28 before it picks back up.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by Xist

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



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.

You're comparing two different classes of compound here. The chart shows percentage CO2 emissions by sector, which the article points out is partially composed of emissions by ships (4% of the overall, or 29% of transportation emissions).

The study reported on found that cargo ships emit as much oxides of sulfur and oxides of nitrogen as 760 million cars. These compounds are reacted with the metals in a catalytic converter in most cars, and not in most (all?) ships.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

How so???
?
How much less? So if we magically cut primary energy consumption in half tomorrow, we would be at 4% from solar and wind with installed storage still not a visible percentage an any chart.
.
Do not forget that most energy is embodied into civilization infrastructure and food production. Every massive efficiency transition is estimated to eventually buy us 1/2. Eventually. Theoretically.
.
So far to go. So little liquid fuel to get there.

An initial examination could take place at a local shopping mall.
Go to one,and walk through every store and see if you couldn't live without virtually everything for sale,then walk outside and look at all the cars in the parking lot, and consider the fuel consumed to get to the mall,to purchase nothing that anyone needed.
Then extrapolate that amount,nationwide,and you'll get a sense of some of the waste in the USA.

[oil pan 4]

From what I have heard the only ships that emit low NOx are ones that use gas turbines.
The biggest users of gas turbine are the US navy as far as I can tell. Because gas turbines are very high dollar, need fairly clean fuel, burning high sulfur can erode turbine pieces.
The big diesel piston engine ships and boiler ships have little to no emissions controls.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

When I say solar cycle 21, 25 and 26 that only means one thing. The roughly 11 year cycles that have been kept track of since the 1700s.
A regular solar minimum is the end of one solar cycle and the start of the next.
Grand solar minimum usually means the big one in the 1600s and as a reference to a time with extend period of few to no sun spots lasting the length of at least 11 year solar cycle or more.
The next little minimum, a span of 11 year cycles with little to no sun spot activity will likely be cycles 25 and 26, or 26 and 27, maybe 28 before it picks back up.

Okay,thanks!
I have 11 and 22-year cycles,and of course,the one 70-year cycle written down,but no matter.
The thing that has impressed me,is that solar physicists claim that these sunspot cycles are essentially meaningless,with respect to what would affect the climate.And I've yet to here you mention the solar-related terms which ARE associated with climate-affecting solar activity.Which leads me to believe that your sources are in the dark as to what actually drives heating on Earth.