The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson

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.

You have "heard people" say this? Who?

I think you are misunderstanding what we know: of course the sun has an effect - it is the main source of heat. But it is not DRIVING the increased warming. The sun's output is actually LESS than expected. So, it is in fact human activity that is driving the increased warming we are seeing.

We did see a brief period of cooling - from particulate pollution. We then started to reduce our production of that pollution - so the cooling trend stopped.

You seem to think that scientists don't know what they are talking about - but until you know all the facts, you are simply guessing. Scientists do not guess.

[redpoint5]

Scientists do nothing but guess; in fact that's what probability is. It's a best guess based on incomplete data and an incomplete understanding of that data.

It's the best we can manage given our infinitely limited understanding, though.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Scientists do nothing but guess; in fact that's what probability is. It's a best guess based on incomplete data and an incomplete understanding of that data.

It's the best we can manage given our infinitely limited understanding, though.

They don't guess - they build models, based on data - and then refine the models as they get more data. Probability is based on data, and the variation from the mean.

[redpoint5]

You're confusing "guess" with "arbitrary selection". A guess relies on the best model of understanding a person has, regardless of how well that model is constructed. Arbitrary selection is to choose something based on no criteria.

To that end, science is fallible, as there is no certainty. There are simply better and worse guesses.

Meteorology is a field of science, yet their predictions (guesses) are based on their best attempt at understanding the variables given the data available. The fact that there will always be room to improve upon those predictions suggests an infinite amount of data and understanding exists.

A formal process for guessing isn't necessarily more accurate than an informal method of guessing, but the advantage is that it's largely reproducible.

[freebeard]

I just skimmed the last few posts. Gettin' pretty deep.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The sun's output is actually LESS than expected. So, it is in fact human activity that is driving the increased warming we are seeing.

We did see a brief period of cooling - from particulate pollution. We then started to reduce our production of that pollution - so the cooling trend stopped.

Right and then wrong. The Cosmic Ray will reach some maximum. The increased cloud cover will raise the albedo. Only Anthropogenic Global [de-Cooling] can save us.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Direct heating is so insignificant it can be ignored. The sun is heating by 1000 watts per square meter of earths surface when it's sunny out. Releasing stored energy is nothing compared to that.

It's 430.6-Quadrillion Btu's that no one else ever mentioned.If the question ever came up,we'd have a a ballpark figure to kick around.That's all I was after.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Shaneajanderson

I wonder if the aircraft manufactures could come up with a quick-change battery system. Kind of a trolley that rolls in and out, and connects fairly simply.

Like a drill battery on steroids.

I watched them do it to race cars in 1995.It only took a matter of seconds.A few minutes would probably do an aircraft okay.

[aerohead]

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.

*On a turbine engine,the air-gap between the blade tip and shroud has a lot to do with static pressure thrust potential.Less leakage the better.
*On a multi-engine prop plane,in the case of a powerplant failure,the shroud would act as an un-featherable prop,with extreme aerodynamic stability issues,due to asymmetrical drag loading of the dead-engine's extra frontal area.There's no way you could feather it.Thrust-vectoring and full-lock rudder authority might not be enough for cross-control.
*On a single engine shrouded prop plane,loss of power might kill your glide radius,move the center of pressure so far forward that a pilot couldn't control the plane,especially crabbing in a one-shot crosswind emergency landing.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum


It's contentious, hence the 'citations needed' but Solar Minima result in increased Cosmic radiation and cloud cover.

That's logical,as with the weaker sun,the solar wind can't fight off the energetic particles which create a portion of the cloud condensation nuclei.
The caveat is,that it's a 'regional' effect.On a global scale,it's less significant.
The stratospheric ozone level be be reduced also,as it's a photo-chemically reactive molecule,allowing more UV to penetrate to ground level.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

"While some may have the impression that renewables account for a large share of global energy consumption, their total contribution in fact remains small. Even if we include modern biofuels and hydropower, it is still less than five percent."
,
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-pr...energy-sources
.

What would you expect? What was the proportion of commercial petroleum in the illumination oil industry prior to 1868?