The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My only complaint would be the comfort of the hotel pillows and quality of my expensed meals, too, if I were being paid to drive coast to coast at a snails pace. Not my definition of road warrior.

My point is that while a few might want to stop for an hour every 3 hours and eat a sit down meal, many of us don't want to spend more time than absolutely necessary in towns like Salinas or Compton. Instead, we just want to get where we're going.

People that complain about what restaurants are available near superchargers are snobs. That's all there is to it. They could have packed a lunch if they are that picky.

I get it.If it meant the planet though,I'd be okay with some inconvenience.It's way better than bombs.
Power densities will edge up,dragging range with it.
We've got the Tesla Model 3 up over 500-miles if you're willing to go a little slower.
Prices will come down.
It is zero-carbon,depending.Vermont has the cleanest electricity right now.Kentucky the dirtiest.
All this is in its infancy.
I wish some Americans weren't cannibals.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

You are still not grasping the scale of our consumption. The last two decades of wind and solar build out have a production of 1.5% of total primary energy.

Oh,I'm plenty aware,and no Pollyanna,but my argument remains,that these values are not set in stone,and can be severely curtailed.It's just a matter of political will.
The last glimpse we got was 1974,with the 55 MPH National Speed Limit.
In WW-II,it was 35-MPH,and everything was rationed.
All you have to do is give the atmosphere status as a 'person.'
Corporations,even though they're a legal fiction and aren't really persons,are legally recognized as 'persons' as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.
If the atmosphere,which is actually 'real',were to be given the same rights as a legal fiction,the Supreme Court might grant it 'free speech' and 'due process',under the US Constitution, as is now granted to blind,deaf,and dumb Americans,whom cannot represent their own interests.

[freebeard]

We'll have a 100% bonafide police state before we have anarchy.

Can we have anarchism instead of anarchy?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We are getting the extreme cosmic energy stuff now.
We'll not right now but with in the last few months.

If I can ever reduce my workload,that would be interesting to look at.I suppose the good news,is,that we've got 8-minutes to react,whereas,if we weren't even looking,it would just all be a bad surprise.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Can we have anarchism instead of anarchy?

I don't think we can now.All the flora and fauna which supported pre-civilized tribes we've already destroyed.
And since warfare is by definition 'statecraft',there really isn't any human history which was devoid of 'government'.A pack of wolves is a government.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by niky

Citation needed.

Seriously.

Because I doubt you actually read through whatever you read.

Because here:

Cosmic Rays and Climate | ScienceBits

...the author very clearly acknowledges that anthropogenic-led warming is still real, and discusses the contributions of cosmic rays on a geological time scale (read: predictable, cyclical variations). The only argument here is the percentage of recent warming caused by cosmic rays. That doesn't seem at all like a repudiation of AGW. So I sincerely hope you will share your find with us.

Also, LOL, El Nino is a known factor. The cyclical variation between El Nino and La Nina are what caused the "pause" that denialists kept harping about in the last decade... it's already a known factor.

-

As an aside, I've been hearing about the link between cosmic rays and mass extinctions for the longest time. Interesting stuff.

Something shared in SCIENCE,was that at some time,the general circulation models were predicting warming which was not occurring.
The solar physics community stepped up,attempting to explain the discrepancy via solar activity.
Not long thereafter,someone included cooling from sulfate aerosols,originating from volcanoes and coal-fired power plants into the computational models,and they finally got a fit.The solution had been hiding in plain view.
From Ockham's razor,there was no longer a need for decreased solar activity as an explanation for lower temperature signature,as they now had a basically,full accounting for the causal relationship between greenhouse gases and warming.
We are presently a degree warmer than indicated,but until awhile after the coal-fired power plants are shutdown and the particulates have time to settle out,we won't see it.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

these values are not set in stone,and can be severely curtailed.It's just a matter of political will.

Exactly what I have been saying here for the last year. We are not that far apart after all. Resource depletion will curtail material throughput due to steadily rising costs of extraction/ production in the next coming decades. The growth/ debt based economic system system we have relied on for the last 100 years will cease to be viable. Ideally we would try to phase in a new social system now but there is too much social momentum in desperately attempting to maintain business as usual with worldwide quantitative easing. So the next best thing is for enlightened individuals to study the coming options and be ready with some ideas of a plan B when the time arrives.

[niky]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Something shared in SCIENCE,was that at some time,the general circulation models were predicting warming which was not occurring.
The solar physics community stepped up,attempting to explain the discrepancy via solar activity.
Not long thereafter,someone included cooling from sulfate aerosols,originating from volcanoes and coal-fired power plants into the computational models,and they finally got a fit.The solution had been hiding in plain view.
From Ockham's razor,there was no longer a need for decreased solar activity as an explanation for lower temperature signature,as they now had a basically,full accounting for the causal relationship between greenhouse gases and warming.
We are presently a degree warmer than indicated,but until awhile after the coal-fired power plants are shutdown and the particulates have time to settle out,we won't see it.

Oh, I remember the sulfate issue.

Makes you wonder what the climate would be like if we didn't clamp down on that.

-

A few million more respiratory disease deaths a year might even slow consumption and overall emissions down, too.

[sendler]

Finally some pragmatic analysis is making it's way online discussing the inability of solar and wind to ever seamlessly replace liquid fuel and carbon energy at the immense scale we depend on in order to keep the world economy viable.
.

But what is the current combined share of solar photovoltaic energy and solar thermal energy, wind and tidal energy, and geothermal energy? (I am not including hydroelectric power and biomass here?
The figure is actually much smaller: a mere 1.5 per cent.
in actual quantities, the share of petroleum and gas increased twice as much as renewable electricity between 2011 and 2016.
The energy transition is unfolding much too slowly and will not be completed by 2050.
The stumbling blocks are greater and more numerous than the resistance of the fossil fuel industry.
Peak oil and the slow expansion of renewable energy will result in a decrease in the total quantity of energy available by 2050 or thereabouts.
The shortfall will bring about degrowth,
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2...-for-degrowth/

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

Scale. Growth.
.
Between 1997 and 2017, global electricity output climbed an average 571 terawatt-hours per year. Merely keeping pace with growth in electric demand would require installing 14 times as much photovoltaic capacity as Germany’s entire installed base, and it would have to do so every year.
.
or wind.
.
Thus, just to keep pace with growth in electrical demand, the world would have to install twice as much wind-energy capacity as now exists in all of China, and it would have to do so annually.
.
And that is just growth of electricity consumption. Not to mention replacing all electricity. And then replacing all the remainder of primary energy consumption which is another 4 times electricity.
.
the world’s demand for oil will hit a record 100 million barrels per day. That would be an increase of about 1.8 million barrels per day over 2017 numbers.
.
global solar production totaled the equivalent of about 2 million barrels of oil. Just enough to match the growth in oil consumption if we weren't already comparing solar to the growth in electrical consumption. And oil is only 40% of primary energy.
.
.
https://nypost.com/2018/11/16/the-nu...y-decade-soon/

I bookmarked this one. I've been bookmarking more of your responses lately to reference them in other forums.

Many in the green cult in my other forums don't realize the scale of the problem. BC is mandating zero emission vehicles by 2040. Cute, but in light of what our resource consumption is, will forestall global warming by what, 3 days? Cute.

The cult doesn't realize what would actually need to take place to achieve the reductions in emissions they are seeking, and that it isn't simply a matter of wealth redistribution, voting for the "correct" political party, and putting solar on your roof. It means reduced global wealth, which will have a corresponding reduction in global well-being and health. In fact, it means shorter lives, among many other criteria associated with global wealth.

People need to be aware of what it is they are advocating.