The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

https://youtu.be/E0W1ZZYIV8o
.
MacKay was a physicist so everyone here should automatically respect him better than some of my other sources. He was pro rebuildable energy but also "Pro Arithmetic". Numbers like TeraWatt are so big that they are hard to grasp so he coined an interesting term to bring total energy down to an everyday scale.
.
Most people are familiar with an incadescent light bulb. A 40 Watt bulb that is left on uses approximately 1 kWh per day. So he talks about kWh/ day/ person.
The USA uses 250. The UK, Netherlands, or Germany use between 120 to 140.
.
The problem with solar wind and biomass is that they are very difuse. Here is his chart of power density.
.
.

.
.
When he made the graphic to show the required land area that is needed to supply 125 kWh/ d/ p for the UK he ran out of room to fit biomass into view so keep in mind that this only shows what it takes to make 16 so this is 1/8th of the area that would be required to power the UK. He also shows concentrated solar in an African desert and gives it a value of 20W/m^2 even though he stated that solar PV rooftop can make 5W/ square meter, gridscale farms in the UK at 4w, and concentrated in the desert at 11w. So multiply everything on the map by 8 to get to 125 kWh/d/p and then the yellow area again by 4 to show solar PV farms at 5W/m^2.
.
MacKay stated that UK is conuming 1.25 Watts per square meter. To power the UK on wind would need wind farms over 1/2 of the land area. Solar farms would have to cover 1/4 of the land. And would provide 4 times too much energy at noon and nothing all night.
.
To power a country with wind and solar, they have to be country sized.
.
.

.
.

The road horsepower graph for a Ford Model-T required 5-feet of graph paper,compared to 18-inches for a Tesla Model-3.
The issue is,don't continue to build the equivalent of Model-T cars,homes,businesses,recreation,leisure time,vacations,day trips,conventions,grid-lock, industries,etc..
When you do that,you can really cut into load.
Why does that escape 'smart' people?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

Al Gore would love those “delicious gold bars” on his side of the scale for his carbon credit scheme...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#1533c33c32dc








Then there’s this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#6c34176c39d6

Lol.

It doesn’t matter who or what is in the way.

I guess it all depends who it benefits...

A must read.






In these cases, it was Albert Arnold Gore...

Then it’s ok...

Hypocrite...



Maybe Gore should lead by example...

https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/201...y-drew-johnso/

• The past year, Gore’s home energy use averaged 19,241 kilowatt hours (kWh) every month, compared to the U.S. household average of 901 kWh per month.3,4
• Gore guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years.5
• In September of 2016, Gore’s home consumed 30,993 kWh in just one month – as much energy as a typical American family burns in 34 months.
• During the last 12 months, Gore devoured 66,159 kWh of electricity just heating his pool. That is enough energy to power six average U.S. households for a year.
• From August 2016 through July 2017, Gore spent almost $22,000 on electricity bills.










>

You've done an exemplary job at destroying Gore the man,and nothing to scientifically refute the major premise of his slide show presentation.
Albert Einstein was a complete a-hole as far as a family man,but he won't be(and isn't ) remembered for that.
If you want to see some real obscenities,hang out around the polo clubs and marinas.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The global warming elitists operate on "do as I say, not as I do" and all the believers are cool with that.
They see nothing wrong with struggling to buy gas and stay warm in winter while people like al gore heat and cool multiple empty mansions while flying around the world a private jet for holiday.
When I say man made global warming i s a religion I was trying to be nice, but it is really a cult.

A favor to yourself might involve divorcing yourself from anything but the scientific journals.
And what's wrong with 'struggle?' It's what we've evolved for.It's why cavemen left that cave on crappy days.Otherwise they,and their's would go hungry.
Share a spartan apartment,wrap up in discarded newspaper if you have to.Only buy things you can maintain within your means. Pool your savings,and give yourself your own upward mobility.Start a corporation like the Harah (sp?) brothers did.
Do whatever it takes to save money.This IS what Goldman Sachs advocates.
'A borrower nor a lender be.' Jesus of Nazereth

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If the dude has multiple heated or cooled empty mansions he obviously doesn't care about the environment at all.
Only what it can do for him.

This is the lowliest of cheap-shot debate tools.
Since you can't argue the content of the message,you attack the messenger.
You cannot win a debate this way.People aren't stupid enough to fall for it.
Well,okay,some.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

How many Tiny Homes,which use 115 kWh/month can 'live' in luxury off of a single 6-MW turbine?

I have been saying the same thing here for a year and a half. Things will be much smaller and simpler after oil gets remote.

[All Darc]

If all the money that it's waisted in foolish politic fight was invested in science research for renewable and new energy storage systems & technics...

Nuclear could be clean using breeding reactor (Hope I typed correwctilly), since it converts poor uranium into lutonium. But the problem it's it can be used to nuclear weapons. Again, human stupidity it's the key problem.
Let's save the planete, destroying human species ? Or save human species destroying human species.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Al Gore is a good example of human nature though. Someone who studied atmospheric carbon build up wih the pioneering professors as far back as 1969, makes movies about atmospheric carbon, and yet finished up with politics to parlay his message into $200 million in personal wealth and live in a mansion consuming 19,000 kWh per month.
.
The whole world unconciously aspires to be like him. Live a life of fossil fueled luxury but buy carbon offsets on someone elses land.

Charles and Ann Lindbergh suffered the abduction and murder of their child.
People of means are targeted for kidnapping and ransom.
You could walk up to Peter Marshall's front door in Woodland Hills,or Peggy Lipton's,but you couldn't do the same for Vincent Price's in the Malibu Colony.
You might run into Jay Silverheels (The Lone Ranger's 'Tonto') at the Tarzana Hardware Store on Ventura Boulevard ,but many 'celebrities',out of necessity,sequester themselves away from the public.And it costs a lot of money.
Al Gore is going to answer for his deeds.
If your life is spotless,then good for you.A future saint.
But there remains Gore's message.
And Ask Donald Trump how much carbon he dumps in the atmosphere every time he boards Air Force One.And from the gridlock he creates wherever he goes.
And perhaps you'll want to read the meter on the White House? Mar a lago?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by All Darc

I agree with you. But the problem it's to make it worldwide, since if we tax too much the country get less competitive with other countries that don't give a damn to ecology or to the planet's future.

Each move towards improved energy efficiency is a move towards real wealth.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The only nuclear meltdown to have killed was Chernobyl. 0 dead from 3 mile and Fukushima. Those who have died due to the business of producing nuclear energy are far fewer than those who have died producing all other types of electricity in terms of deaths per MWh delivered.

Occasional death is not a sufficient reason to be against something. If my family died in a plane crash, I would not be anti-flight.

Ladder falls kill a surprisingly large amount of people, and it accounts for among the largest percentage of accidental death, yet we don't see anti-ladder protesters in the streets.

Reason shouldn't necessarily be implied when discussing people's reactions to things.Emotion appears to dominate the decision-making landscape,a true victory for the conspiracy of your choosing.
Our survival has been associated with the ability to conceptualize a threat which may be lurking over the next hill,be it a jaguar, quick sand,or asteroid.
A perceived threat isn't handled any differently than a tangible,first order reality experience.
Nuclear power,to some,carries the same tooth and claw menace of a tiger.It's reptilian,triune-brained.Evolutionarily-selected.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

This is the lowliest of cheap-shot debate tools.
Since you can't argue the content of the message,you attack the messenger.
You cannot win a debate this way.People aren't stupid enough to fall for it.
Well,okay,some.

And it woks.
If it doesn't work then that means people are stupid enough to fall for his hypochondriac bull. I refuse to believe the vast majority of people are that stupid.
No comment on how in his movie he said sea levels would rise 10 feet by 2013 or 2014, then buys a beach front mansion a few years later, likely using money made off that film?

If you want to see literally every failed inconvenient truth prediction just search "inconvenient truth memes".