The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That would be perfect. It provides redundancy too so if there's an issue with the currently installed battery, you can swap it out relatively quickly.

One question I've always had is why prop planes don't have shrouds? As I understand it, shrouds increase efficiency.

The other beauty in having electric aircraft is that electric motors are much less prone to sudden unexpected failure than an ICE. With how seldom we see catastrophic engine failure in aircraft as is, with electric I think it would be near zero.

The fact that we don't see more failures is a testament to the engineering and maintenance of aircraft, as ICE are incredibly complex, picky, and delicate machines when it comes right down to it.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

But the sun doesn't effect climate. Lol

Nobody has claimed it doesn't.

[redpoint5]

I'm sure there's many benefits to electric motors over turboprop, or turbofan, including reliability. Conventional engines have a more narrow range to operate efficiently, for instance. Electric motors are pretty efficient throughout the load range. Commercial aircraft have a RAT (ram air turbine) to generate electricity when engines fail, whereas an electric engine can also act as a generator if there were a sudden loss of power. No need for a RAT.

I wonder if the engines can help torque vector too. Rather than rely entirely on a rudder to turn, you could reduce power on one wing and increase power on the other. Maybe that was factored into the V tail design; which integrates the rudder and elevator functions.

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Nobody has claimed it doesn't.

I've heard a number of climate change alarmists make exactly that claim, or that it has an 'insignificant' impact on our climate.

Someone in this thread even I believe said the sun has less than 5% impact on our climate.

The idea is nonsense on its face, as virtually 100% of the energy driving our climate is solar in origin, the little bit of heat coming from the Earth's core is quite minimal compared to that, else Mars would be a green paradise just as Earth is.

[RedDevil]

Yes the sun does generate most of the heat and without it life on earth would not be possible. The sun is a given.
What matters for this discussion is whether variations in solar activity cause climate change, and more specific, whether the current changes are caused by it rather than by human activities.

Most people who blame human activity for climate change will point out that the changes in solar activity are too small to cause this effect and that our more than doubling the carbon dioxide content, as well as other human generated greenhouse gases, are the motor behind current changes.

That is not the same as saying variations in solar activity have no effect on climate at all. They very well may have an effect and may have caused changes in the past.
The current changes however cannot be adequately linked to solar activity.
When a lull in sunspots coincides with a regional change in the weather but the effect elsewhere was inverse then it should be clear to all the effects are coincidental instead of causal.

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Yes the sun does generate most of the heat and without it life on earth would not be possible. The sun is a given.
What matters for this discussion is whether variations in solar activity cause climate change, and more specific, whether the current changes are caused by it rather than by human activities.

Most people who blame human activity for climate change will point out that the changes in solar activity are too small to cause this effect and that our more than doubling the carbon dioxide content, as well as other human generated greenhouse gases, are the motor behind current changes.

That is not the same as saying variations in solar activity have no effect on climate at all. They very well may have an effect and may have caused changes in the past.
The current changes however cannot be adequately linked to solar activity.
When a lull in sunspots coincides with a regional change in the weather but the effect elsewhere was inverse then it should be clear to all the effects are coincidental instead of causal.

The same people who are saying this stuff though are the ones who predicted a new ice age by the 90's, no more ozone by the 2000's, no ice caps by 2013, etc, etc.

Big name climate change alarmists flip flop on their story more than a fish thrown on the dock.

[RedDevil]

I have not personally inspected them so I cannot be sure they are the same.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

When a lull in sunspots coincides with a regional change in the weather but the effect elsewhere was inverse then it should be clear to all the effects are coincidental instead of causal.

It's not clear to me. Ignoring causality, if all regions are affected (one way or the other) that strains coincidentality.

[All Darc]

Most plane crashs today are due human error rather than technical malfunction.

[Shaneajanderson]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I have not personally inspected them so I cannot be sure they are the same.

The same "Most people" you referred to in the quoted section.