The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So the pop culture of man man global warming has nothing to do with actual science?
That's good to know.

Which goes all the way back to people misinterpreting what Al Gore has said in public as being the same as the scientific position on the effects of global warming.

[Xist]

Burning biomass merely releases the carbon the trees sequestered, but the trees are not sequestering carbon anymore. Biomass is often advertised as leftovers and byproducts, but is then 75% new wood. How is leveling a forest, releasing 101 units of pollution, and not having the trees around to sequester that carbon somehow better than mining carbon, releasing 100 units of pollution, and having the trees around to sequester carbon?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Xist

Burning biomass merely releases the carbon the trees sequestered, but the trees are not sequestering carbon anymore. Biomass is often advertised as leftovers and byproducts, but is then 75% new wood. How is leveling a forest, releasing 101 units of pollution, and not having the trees around to sequester that carbon somehow better than mining carbon, releasing 100 units of pollution, and having the trees around to sequester carbon?

Now you get into the difference of an environmentalist and a conservationist.
An environmentalist will deal in absolutes and usually end up at a solution that is worse for the environment.

A conservationist will weigh the pros and cons of each and try to figure an outcome that responsibility uses each resource.

California is a perfect example. They try so hard to "save the environment" they ruin it. Just look up "most polluted cities in America" and California is usually up near the top a lot especially when it comes to air pollution.
Or the thousands upon thousands of square miles of forest they clear cut and spray with roundup to maintain right of way for power transmission lines so they can "save the environment" by not building power plants.
By allowing environmentalist to run everything they ended up with a bunch of pollution and a surplus of stupidity.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The believers are obsessed that the suns radiant output only changes by 1% which is true and that radiance is the only thing that effects weather and climate.
ICON and GOLD satellites will confirm the effect of solar wind and the lack there of once and for all on the upper atmosphere.

But with china pumping out more CO2 than any one could have imagined and the sun going into a solar minimum we won't need no satellites to tell us if the sun effects climate.

*The Sun's been observed since 1611.
*The change in solar output is 1/10th,to 3/10ths of a percent,not a percent.
*As of 1995,the Pioneer spacecraft was monitoring low-energy galactic cosmic rays out at 60 AU.reporting that the rays were being strongly supressed by the heliosphere,which extends out to approx. 100 AU.
*The IMP-8 spacecraft began sending signals from it's Charged Particle Measurement Experiment (CPME)in 1976,within Earth orbit.
*The ULYSSES spacecraft was launched in 1990,and began signalling data in 1994-95.
*ULYSSES was a joint effort of 9-nations.
*ULYSSES flew 14-experiments,of which solar wind observation comprised a lion's share of the research.
*By 47-research organizations or universities.
*"generated 10-research papers
*by 112-scientists.
*with reference to 211-former solar research projects.
*over the span,from 1948-1995.
*The effect of the solar wind has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.
*Freebeard's You-Tube from JPL has to do with Solar Equatorial,Coriolis Effect,twisting of magnetic streams into Archemidian spirals,which is thought,may be over-twisted during solar cycles.No connection to climate change.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Redpoint,

[evil voice] You're evil!



It is good to know that 70% of electricity is lost between generation and end users. I shared before that rooftop solar costs twice as much as what it costs a solar farm, but if it costs twice as much, but actually provides 5/3rds the value, that sounds like a good benefit.

I believe that grid transmission losses constitute 7% of wheeled power.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Not 70% of electricity, around 70% of the fuels original energy, unless it's a natural gas burned in a
combined cycle plant.
Or a large 2 stroke diesel engine, when I say large I mean like 50,000hp and bigger.

The most efficient a single rankine cycle plant can be is around 42% on paper. In real life its like it's more like 35 to 38%.
A Rankine cycle running off the heat rejection of a Brayton cycle can achieve combined system efficiency of around 70%.
Nuclear pressurized water reactors tend to run a little less efficient to achieve a wider margin of safety, mainly due to the limitations of a 2 pass water system. Can anyone blame them?

Many years back,one of the popular science magazines,or CAR and DRIVER mentioned a Kalina-cycle, electric generating facility, which could wheel power onto the grid at around 42% thermal efficiency.

[oil pan 4]

You want to know at all those solar wind and interstellar cosmetic ray satellites have in common?
None of them study the interaction between the solar wind, cosmic rays and the upper atmosphere.

Pioneer, at 60AU nope.
CPME, is way up there well out side the atmosphere if I remember correctly.
Ulysses just kind of bounced around the solar system, no where near the earths atmosphere.

Gold and ICON are specifically going to study the interaction. Gold is going to measure the space weather at around 100,000 miles in real time, icon is going to monitor the effect on the upper atmosphere.

Why are you guys so eager to dismiss the thing that provides all of earths energy as being in no way responsible for climate change?

It seems to me all the believers are legitimately in fear of what icon and gold are going to find.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Have you figured out how diapers it's killing the planet ?

Population don't stop growing. And the reason they don't want to stop, the political, it's because there will be many old people alive to be taken care, requiring young people to assist, care of then, change their diapers and spent money with health care.
So the new pollitics try to pull this problem away as they can, with new medicines research (stemm cell in CHina), with more people born to get more young in relation to the numbers of old people. They try to keep the diapers away.

But the planet no longer can hold a lot of people, population growing.

The city of Domes, in Logan's Run fictional fantasy, had a solution, killing people before they get old. This would avoit about colapse of the system, reduce costs, avoit dirty diapers and need of caretakers.



Also avoid back pain, reduce incidence of cellulits in women, prevents skin premature agging.

In 'A Modest Proposal....'by Jonathan Swift,he advocated that the poor Irish might supply their babies to the wealthy English as a food supply.
In 'Make Room Make Room' (which became 'Soylent Green',people were converted to biscuits as a palliative to over-stretched food production.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

Not if John Goodenough battery, solid state, can really work, even than not so fantastic as he said for energy density, since they managed to create a solid state battery using sodium and workable at fine temperatures and lasting dozen times more charge cycles.

I imagine in 20 years a lot of solar cars, using such batteries, and many homes with solar panels, all connected in grid.

Battery don't need to have the same energy densit of gasoline. Anyway the gasoline have 1/3 of the energy reported, since the reported value it's for the bunring it with oxigen, and the gasoline itself only have 1/3 of the energy of this combination of gasoline and oxigen.
Second the electric motor it's much more efficiente (up to 98%) than combustion engine of cars (about 25%).

CAR and DRIVER,in November,2016,mentioned Sam Abuelsamid,of Navigant Research, predicting that EVs would be at cost parity with ICE around 2025.
The reasoning was that,a BEV motor,electronics,and pack would have the same cost as an engine,transmission,and powertrain,by that time.
This is without any magic.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

You said it could be implimented with the stroke of a pen. How so? Suddenly dictate all shopping malls to close and cars to be banned? Who would enforce this? And to what extreme?

It would be a declaration of war against load,as was done in WW-I and WW-II.
The US has a lot of redundant population which doesn't really contribute anything productive to the nation,only a net degrading effect.
Under government edict (we're talking extreme,BIG GOVERMENT,super-onerous regulation,oversight,and punishment),these zero-people's energy consumption would be severely curtailed.
Unless you can think up a warm,fuzzy,politically-correct way forward,which doesn't ruffles people's delicate constitutions.