The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I wasn't talking about efficiency I was talking about power.
Now that you bring it up say a 2,000 gallon fuel tank could be replaced with a battery that holds the equivalent of 500 gallons. That would be 18.5 mega watt hours.
But then you problem only want to charge and run it between 20% and 80%. So would need more like 22mwh.
The power connection to recharge would need to be running like 2mw minimum.so you could recharge it in about 10 hours.

A power sub station for a 20mw is pretty substantial. That's what we have where I work. It cost millions of dollars and millions more to run the power for 20 miles.

The efficiency makes all the difference in how much electric energy it would take to supplant the internal combustion engine.Convert the 2,000 gallons of diesel to kw/hr equivalent to see what size of 'battery' the engine is consuming.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I'm not defending anything but truth and data. The truth can't hurt. I'm sorry but I can't stand by and let people say that some magic pen can electrify everything like it is a simple thing to do. Neglecting to mention the $1-200 trillion of built out infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt or replaced. And then state that this will reduce primary energy demand by 85%. There is no study anywhere that supports this. The reports I have seen have stated a 45% reduction in primary energy from the full electrification of all human energy use.
.
Wishful thinking and misrepresented statements about the takeover rate of wind and solar lead to false ideas which produce undue animosity and produce faulty plans and timelines. Promoting a "Green Growth" false narrative. But wind and solar are not going to scale to replace half of the 17 TW we are blowing through right now. And battery production is not going to build out 80 TWh just for cars. Current world production is .06 TWh/ year. We are bragging about the next great GigaFactory in Germany proposed to have a capacity of .1 TWh/ year. Still a drop in the bucket if it can really come to pass. This remains to be seen since the current GigaFactory 1 is running at .02 TWh/ year.

Perhaps you ought to look at the USA at home during WW-II.I completely reject your calculus.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Wow really?
The The "quantification in ocean heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper has been retracted in nature.
Since you don't know what the "quantification in ocean heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper is obviously didn't read the ipcc report.

So what about the ridiculous ipcc cherry picking?

I know what James Hansen says about it.He's probably the world's foremost expert on the subject.
Get off that high horse.You have no intellectual high ground.Just because you're reading obsolete information,doesn't make you a expert on obsolete information.
You're not studying for content as much as you're angling to criticize all things IPCC.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That assumes people are smarter than average, and that they have different priorities than they do.

Change will happen, but it will take time. The solution isn't a simple "stroke of the pen", or get angry like we're fighting Nazis Kamikazes .

One thing for sure, dictating the small details of a solution is a surefire way to increase overall suffering for any given goal. It's likely one of the issues Tesla has/had with Musk.

Perhaps the entire time sensitivity issue of climate change is lost on you.We've had since 1958 to begin.
It doesn't matter how smart people are.You just get people in a position of authority to put on big-boy pants and act like a responsible adults,following the cues from climatologists.
The solution IS simple.And a stroke of the pen CAN do it.We have history to prove it.
Anger doesn't belong.Just commitment and focus.We're just attacking waste.Suffering is a relativistic concept.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Carbon footprint at home does not equate to a person's total carbon footprint unless you truly move off grid to a remote cabin, never to be seen again. This is another prevalent blindspot. As long as you are a member of society and avail yourself of any social infrastructure and government, you still are a part of all of that footprint.
.
Very strange that a self proclaimed engineer is so reticent to understand any of this. In my previous experience, engineers and physicists were the most likely to understand and write about energy scale.

When I accumulate enough excess wealth,I'm going to buy you a window to look out of.And remedial arithmetic lessons.
Don't presume that physicists or engineers generally have a clue about a paradigm shift.You might be betting on the wrong horse.Where they live,what they have,and how they move will tell volumes about where their heads are at.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

And.
.


You just named 100's of trillions of dollars. Your magic pen ran out of ink after the first idea.

defenestrated! That's what you are.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I know the true believers aren't reading the reports and I know they aren't reading the supporting papers.
You your self had no idea what The "quantification in oceann heat up take from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition" paper was before we told you about it or that it had had been retracted in nature which means it's straight up junk science.

No conspiracy theories here. Just pointing out really obvious cherry picking. If any one counter argued with a very conveniently short 50 year time period as the base line for post industrial climate the believers would absolutely call them out on cherry picking.

I think everyone should read ipcc reports, my conformation bias does nothing at that point.
My confirmation bias didn't cause the foundational paper of the ipcc report to be retracted. It was the guys who made the paper, blame their self righteous confirmation bias.
Obviously these guys weren't very careful.
They were careless, screwed up, screwed up a lot and got caught.

So you don't want to talk about the report, cherry picking, retraction of base studies ect?
Just dodge, dodge, dodge.

My best find is a mechanical engineer. He says don't ever trust a computer model if you can't see all the source data and the programming.
The problem with mechanical engineers is the bean counters don't listen to them.
The higher ups almost always want the cheapest fastest future be damed solution the engineer can eek out.

When you actually share some 'science' I'll be happy to participate.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

A focused effort by modern societies can accomplish amazing things. Witness the sudden build up and transformation for World War II by the USA. Which cost 4.1 Trillion over four years in adjusted dollars and was financed with a 94% top income tax bracket creating a de facto maximum income of $2 million adjusted/ year. Which generally remained in place until the mid 1950's. And from personal accumulated wealth by selling government issued war bonds that promised a return after the war. Price controls and rationing coupons for food and resources were instituted. Each car was allowed 3 gallons of gas per week unless it had an official use. Media and movies were redirected to develop content to promote the cause. Resource heavy entertainment with the modern day equivalents such as NASCAR and Disney Land would be generally curtailed. Full employment with overtime hours and good pay provided recovery to a middle class which was still lagging from the great depression fifteen years earlier.
.
87% of the worlds primary energy consumption is still from fossil carbon and the share actually increased last year due to cheap fracked gas. And the total energy consumption is increasing exponentially due to continued exponential growth of the World economy as they are still correlated at nearly 1:1. As is the consumption of nonrenewable resources such as Phosphorous for fertilizer and Copper for motor windings. To totally rebuild and replace all infrastructure, industrial processes, and machinery, that is not electric, and replace all primary energy generation with wind, solar and storage, and build out all of the transmission to carry the 5 fold increase in electricity, will require a similar War On Climate and War On Resource Depletion effort. Times 10. At least. 40 years of austerity and focus and $40 trillion just for the USA, to pull it off. Maybe twice that in time and money. And it must be a world wide commitment with $200 trillion to invest. And a world wide commitment to prevent the rich from just relocating their assets to the cheapest tax rate country spurring a race to the bottom. As we are already seeing.
.
But we must commit soon while we still have the cheap liquid fuel to build the massive projects that we will need and quit squandering our seed corn. "Do not eat the seed corn."

More sophisticated version of same error.

[aerohead]

I found my book.It contained the last two works of Nietzche.I looked at my notes.Not really anything to share.I wasn't impressed with anything he had to say.Nothing resonated.A lot of rambling,incoherent,gibberish and quotes by others.I don't know why anyone would give any gravity to his writings.
As to Hitler.I'd want to look into General Ludendorff,and why he sheep-dipped Corporal Adolf ,and sent him into the NSDAP in the first place.

[litesong]

Not one month has global temperature been BELOW the 20th century average, since a month in 1986(?). Of course, the temperature trend has been increasing above the average. The anomalous global temperature for September 2019 is crazy high (as are most of the last decades of previous months). Few Earth regions, compared to 1880, are below the average:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/servi...ntp/201909.png