The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

There are probably already a few UFO people, too. Can't we all just get a bong along?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That's good because the current fix for global warming is to take from, punish and tax the individual so they use less.
Which doesn't nothing to ultimately fix the problem.
Cars still run off gasoline and power plants still burn coal, just a tiny bit less after the government anti carbon beat down.
If they really wanted to fix global warming then nuclear power plants would be used to replace the coal and natural gas base load and the only natural gas plants in use would be emergency peaker plants and to burn off natural gas that may otherwise be flared.
Then only a hand full of coal plants are left that produce fly ash for making high strength, low efflorescent concrete.

I ran across an article about the Climate Leadership Council's proposal,from February,2017, for a revenue-neutral carbon tax,beginning at $40/ton,which would be applied at the 'source',for any product originating from that source.
For instance,with gasoline,it would be the equivalent of an extra 39.2-cents/per gallon.
Then the average family of four would receive about $2,000/year.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Corporations already have a ton of motivation to develop better technologies. A government funded research program isn't likely to significantly improve the rate of technological progress. There's no guarantee that more research funding can significantly improve solar, battery, or other materials technology. I'm not completely against research subsidy, but it needs to be grounded in specific and worthwhile objectives.

Most problems aren't effectively solved by education because the real issue is cultural. Everyone knows they should "just say no to drugs", yet that educational campaign was an utter failure. Americans all know they shouldn't be overweight, yet they still are. It isn't enough to educate people. There has to be a movement that turns into a social norm that stigmatizes the negative behavior and accepts the positive behavior. Humans are herd-like creatures. Delibritaly steering the herd is tremendously difficult.

I saw a citation for a paper which basically said the exact same thing!
By Kahan et al.,in Advances in Political Psychology,2017.
The authors reported that 'Knowledge does not always change biases. People tend to absorb information that fits their prejudices.'
They went on to say that,for those which have a scientific curiosity, for pleasure,that they are less likely to demonstrate politically-motivated reasoning.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Equal to GDP growth as I have been saying.

Yeah,I got hold of a 2019 World Almanac and book of facts.
They showed renewables at 13% of total US energy production,so as it stands,everything basically remains in lockstep with tailpipes and smokestacks,with the exception of nuclear.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

178 meter tall tower topped by 3.4MW turbine with a predicted 35% capacity factor.
.
https://electrek.co/2017/11/02/world...lt-in-germany/
.


So. To make 1/2(from onshore wind) of 1/2(efficiency gains from full electrification) of Germany's total energy (0.44 TW currently) with these tall turbines needs 0.1 TW total from onshore wind.
.
3.4 MW turbines on 170m towers is apparently about as big as it gets due to limitations of transporting larger nacelles or blades over roads. 35% CF is predicted. Which is 10% higher than the current world average for onshore wind due to the extremely tall towers.
.
This would be 83,000 wind turbines in total.
.
5 rotor diameters spacing between each one to avoid dominoes from a tossed blade, and to reduce wind shadows is 1 per km2.
.
83,000 km2 is 24% of the land area of Germany fully populated with wind turbines. But 24% of Germany is not all of adequate wind resources.
.
squeezing them to 3 rotor diameters spacing gets it down to 50,000 km2.
.
14% of the total land area.
.
To build them all in 20 years so that we can start rebuilding them all over again as they wear out is 11 per day. And then start over with rebuilding them all continually at 11 per day forever. For 1/2 of 1/2 of Germany's current energy.
.
Multiply this by 38 for the world.
.

Thanks for grinding the numbers.
I would only mention,that these values are only valid for one specific load scenario.
Over the period of transition,Germany,like any other entity,could also alter their demand side of the equation.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I just don't get how the superconducting magnets can cause objects to be attracted, resist any movement, or repel. What parameters were different to cause a jack to be yanked from a guy? I'd have hated to meet those conditions.

Wouldn't it simply be a matter of the strength of the magnetic field (flux) capable with s superconducter?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Oceans Are Warming Faster Than Previously Thought, Research Finds

This is the trend - science has been too conservative on their estimate of time scale and pace of changes in the climate. We are seeing things get worse, at an accelerated rate, than we thought recently.

The oceans are getting 40% warmer than we thought just 5 years ago.

Remember what happens as water gets warmer?

It holds less dissolved gases by volume. So, the ocean will begin to release the carbon dioxide that it has been absorbing ...

That would be one tip of the iceberg!
None of them are good,unless,maybe,your a gentoo penguin in Antarctica.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Scott Adams has settled on the oceans as a known unknown.

The latest episode (370) has a terse transcript, here's the relevant section:

I'm sorry I can't preserve his indenting. vBulletin collapses spaces, disallows tabs and 'prettifies' indenting. You can use Quote to see it, else go to Youtube.

The archival data will not be completely transcribed into the digital database until at least 2041.They've been working continuously on this since the 1990s.
Everyone is operating at a data deficit,including Scott Adams.
*There are paper ships logs from a number of nations showing up from warehouses,basements,personal libraries.
*Colonial records on paper for Asia,Africa,America,etc..
*Early satellite meteorological data on magnetic tape.
*Declassified UK NAVY surface ship and submarine records.
*ditto,USSR/Russia
*ditto,US NAVY
*Great fortunes in money and man-hours are being consumed to get these materials into usable form,so they may be inputted into the general circulation models.
*And there's been 'interference' with accomplishing the task because of the policy implications of what will come out of the data.
The attack dogs need to cool it.It's intellectual dishonesty.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I like Scott Adams, so I'll check it out eventually.

The thing that makes GW/GCC believers sound like religious zealots is that any negative event that occurs they will proclaim "see, that's what global warming does". It could be a colder than normal week in Chicago, and we're then told that it's directly attributable to GW, which is directly attributable to human CO2 production.

Thiests make similar proclamations when something complex is attributed to an all-encompassing God did it explanation.

I don't begrudge anyone for behaving that way because people have their reasons for conviction, and if their beliefs are true, it demands a response. They may very well be correct in their broad reflexive proclamation, but the subject deserves as detailed a response as can be articulated. It isn't useful to say "because God" or "because global warming".

That is a reason I keep coming back to this thread though, because plenty of people on here are willing to provide as much info as they can come up with to support their understanding of things.

I suppose that I'll need an expensive cable or satellite service to have access to these abuses.
I scan the normal broadcast media,and except for PBS and AccuWeather.com,I never hear the words 'climate change.'
Their comments are always contextual,conditional,typically referring to a 'record' event,or 'black swan',which are fair game,as these ARE events which are demonstrated to have a correlation,and are always from an actual climatologist,or a messenger using information from a climatologist.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I ran across an article about the Climate Leadership Council's proposal,from February,2017, for a revenue-neutral carbon tax,beginning at $40/ton,which would be applied at the 'source',for any product originating from that source.
For instance,with gasoline,it would be the equivalent of an extra 39.2-cents/per gallon.
Then the average family of four would receive about $2,000/year.

Redistribution of wealth scam.
So give more money to people who already effectively pay almost 0 taxes as it is. Sounds like vote buying to me.
I already drive an electric incase this kind of stupidity gets signed into law.

When the government say we will take your money, hold on to it for a little while then give it right back and everything will get better. It's a trap.