The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

On a good day,renewables are covering 75% of Germany's total electrical load,so on 'good' days,it's pretty sweet!

Even after it's concerted 2 decade long build out of solar and wind, Germany still gets less than 4% of it's energy from these sources. Energy is embodied in every good and most services. It is not possible to decouple energy from economy and well being. We must push back against the rhetoric that wind and solar can replace fossil fuels and leave them in the ground if only we would choose it. The trick is in how to form a more enlightened and pragmatic new rhetoric of how we can formulate a new social system that will function for everyone as we get energy and economy back down to a much lower level that can be serviced by renewables without a big and painful stair step down. Efficiency will help as well as a more fair distribution of surplus.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Even after it's concerted 2 decade long build out of solar and wind, Germany still gets less than 4% of it's energy from these sources. Energy is embodied in every good and most services. It is not possible to decouple energy from economy and well being. We must push back against the rhetoric that wind and solar can replace fossil fuels and leave them in the ground if only we would choose it. The trick is in how to form a more enlightened and pragmatic new rhetoric of how we can formulate a new social system that will function for everyone as we get energy and economy back down to a much lower level that can be serviced by renewables without a big and painful stair step down. Efficiency will help as well as a more fair distribution of surplus.

My comment had to do with total electrical demand,not 'energy.'
Again,75% of Germany's total electrical demand has been met with renewable energy-derived electricity.That's all I'm saying.
And if you've ever been there,you know that a lot of their load is for expendable activities.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

What you might consider,is the fact that,with the state-of-the art in modelling as it is,actual observed processes are exceeding predictions,which may suggest 'abrupt' climate change,which if true,then we'd have no way to adapt to it,as with the Younger-Dryas.
We know that Earth is capable of abrupt climate change.It's happened before.Do you want to invite that to the dance?

[raises hand excitedly] Yes. That's my position. Infrastructure must be hardened against temperature rising and falling. Not to mention wind speed, with flying debris.

Our Constitution is obsolete.We no longer live in the world of our founding fathers.They would have had no idea how corrupt certain American creatures could become,legally.And the influence they could wield.
See if you can find 'deconstruction' in any public address,by any elected public servant.
Since the only democracy we actually have is the marketplace,the only real change we'll ever see will be found there,and probably nowhere else.

The premise of the Constitution is that humans are corruptible. It was intended to bind government down with chains to protect us from them.

The marketplace is a democracy? One dollar, one vote?

Answers With Joe addresses the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZB1YtQtHjE

My favorite among the debunkers (he's not always right IMHO) is Thunderf00t. He's been quiet lately but he's the story on what he's been up to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UxenM3xQzw

That's some hard science. He reveals his name in the paper's contributors (initials PEM).

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

My comment had to do with total electrical demand,not 'energy.'
Again,75% of Germany's total electrical demand has been met with renewable energy-derived electricity.That's all I'm saying.
And if you've ever been there,you know that a lot of their load is for expendable activities.

It's just that these cherry picked statements mislead the under informed general public into thinking that we have it made with wind and solar if only the evil and greedy fossil fuel interests would allow us. Which is not true at all. The truth that we must understand is that even Germany, as the world leader in % of wind and solar build out, has only accomplished a 4% share of what they use every day.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

It's just that these cherry picked statements mislead the under informed general public into thinking that we have it made with wind and solar if only the evil and greedy fossil fuel interests would allow us. Which is not true at all. The truth that we must understand is that even Germany, as the world leader in % of wind and solar build out, has only accomplished a 4% share of what they use every day.

If you read Germany's electric meter on that day,they'd be billing you for X-amount of kWh.
On that same day,if you'd read their 'sunny boy',grid-tie interface,the portion satisfied by renewable energy-related production wheeled onto the grid equaled 0.75X.
I'm just reporting on what was observed.
It's up to the reader on how they interpret the data.
If I tell you that I can satisfy 75% of your hunger with pizza,instead of fried chicken,I suppose you can argue the satiation coefficient of pizza vs fried chicken if you want.Calories are calories,and kWhs are kWhs.
On a case-specific basis,75% is remarkably larger than 4%.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

If you read Germany's electric meter on that day,they'd be billing you for X-amount of kWh.
On that same day,if you'd read their 'sunny boy',grid-tie interface,the portion satisfied by renewable energy-related production wheeled onto the grid equaled 0.75X.
I'm just reporting on what was observed.
It's up to the reader on how they interpret the data.
If I tell you that I can satisfy 75% of your hunger with pizza,instead of fried chicken,I suppose you can argue the satiation coefficient of pizza vs fried chicken if you want.Calories are calories,and kWhs are kWhs.
On a case-specific basis,75% is remarkably larger than 4%.

Come on. You are now dug in. One chicken on one day is not going to keep me alive for a whole year.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I think a similar problem was encountered when putting together the Bible. At some point, it was considered complete. Then Joseph Smith decided it was incomplete, so released the Book of Mormon.

My point is, ultimately you have people making their subjective decision of what to include and what to exclude.

The usefulness of the climate bible will only be apparent if/when predictions come to pass.

If you're thinking of the Council of Nicea, they found the Bible over-full and gave it a good haircut.

Objecting to subjectivity is pointless? :shrug:

Future proves the past, but then the Flat-Earthers discover the Mud Flood.

[redpoint5]

I'm trying to bait someone into providing evidence that prior IPCC reports have given good enough prediction of events that transpired that we can have increased faith that current/future reports are likely to be accurate.

My point is that every cause proclaims itself as being most important, and those most involved have a greater bias to see things the way they want/expect to see them. I'm not too sceptical of the scientific methods used to gather data, but I am sceptical of the interpretation of the data with regards to framing the problem in the most appropriate sense of scale.

The apocalypse is inevitable, but there are various faiths about how that will come about. Some believe it will be due to the outdoor thermostat being messed with too much. This seems highly unlikely to me considering the more direct ways in which humans harm others, and in light of humanity prospering in nearly every measurable way over time.

I don't find objecting to subjectivity to be entirely pointless. If my car is scientifically measured to be going 90 miles per hour, there is little point in arguing the objectivity of that reading. On the other hand, if someone says I'll surely die because that is too fast, then I object to the subjective interpretation of the objective data.

[All Darc]

Bible... many people see it as holly only because it is Bible, biblic texts words of "God"... But forgot that was people, humans who sellected what would enter there, and even so full of contradictions from text to text, from a author to another. (plus be translations from translation)

People accept religion varies and varies in a same religion from time to time. In theory, for example popes would be as intermediary to God, but if they change so much over time, it's cleary they couldn't, unless their God was a ping pong ball without any coherence.

If the intermediaries are crap, why would the people who sellect texts act different?

No matter... people are irational and just follows what they was trained to follow or what is used to... Critical coherent thinking it's a menace for the world structure of power and domain. And even when people think in something, usually it's just sh..., like the flat Earth moviment and others.

Originally Posted by freebeard

If you're thinking of the Council of Nicea, they found the Bible over-full and gave it a good haircut.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

On a case-specific basis,75% is remarkably larger than 4%.

Well actually, the fact that you, and many other people, are misunderstanding is that electricity is only 20% of total energy consumption in most developed countries that use heat in the winter. Like Germany. So on that day that they made 75% of their ELECTRICITY from wind and solar, they used 85% of their ENERGY from something else. That is the important thing that I keep trying to get across. The media, governments, and the general public, are rampant in their misuse of the term "renewable energy". When they should mean to say renewable electricity. Which is only 20% of energy. All of which needs to eventually get converted and replaced.