The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[DSMHondaGuy]

Wow that one old bat, is out of her mind

[sendler]

Excellent video. Molten salt with passive convective air cooling at atmospheric pressure is walk away safe indefinitely. Moltex has the next great design with their Stable Salt Reactor. Much safer. Much cheaper. A very easy step forward for world regulators to quickly accept. While we try to work out the online reprocessing (kidney) that liquid Thorium requires. Very difficult.
.
https://youtu.be/-IiIdG0asbM
.

.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redneck

.

I watched the video. Actually several, by the youtuber that you posted detailing what the 97% say is causing climate change.

He is very good at explaining the alarmists point of view.


However, here's what a actual "scientist" has to say about climate change and the 97% in senate hearings.

A reasonable and levelheaded response with observable facts...





Then there's this...

"No longer up to scientific debate..."




Don't forget who's included in that 97% consenus...

"The science is settled"...



Science never settles...


>

Roy Spencer is a paid shill. He has no data.

Does smoking tobacco cause more cancer? Does gravity explain why you don't float away?

We learn from scientific study, and we keep learning. But we know things, and that means that science does settle on facts.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Roy Spencer is a paid shill. He has no data.

Who is Roy paid by besides University of Alabama?

Apparently he does have data and presents some of it on his website.

These comments below suggest he understands the fundamentals of the greenhouse effect very well. He suggests that AGW models predict too much warming, and that might be accurate given the fact that some scientists have been found to be lying about their numbers to support AGW alarmism.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We learn from scientific study, and we keep learning. But we know things, and that means that science does settle on facts.

Any scientific consension that ignores Electric Universe and Space Weather is myopic.

[sendler]

https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/ARISThorCon9.pdf
.
ThorCon Molten salt fuel mixes at near atmoshperic pressure are the way to go for using a Thorium mix. The Moltex SSR design is also based on this and will beat them to market by a decade but is more optimised to burn reprocessed high level waste or depleted Uranium which we have already.
.
No steam explosions. No Hydrogen explosions. No Cesium or Iodine in gaseous form. ThorCon has proposed a centralized solution to the previous big hang up of using Thorium in the reaction which requires reprocessing whereas the earlier designs always envisioned continuous online reprocessing at every reactor site. Which is what killed the idea 50 years ago. Factory construction of transportable, finished modules is also a key cost cutting feature of both. Moltex can travel by road. But the ThorCon would be perfect to save the vast population centers of the USA around the Great lakes and Eastern sea board where there is no sun throughout much of the winter. And anywhere around the world that can be reached by barge.
.
As Moltex has stated, the 600C operating temp is perfect for cost effective molten salt energy storage on site to allow variable output throughout the day to compliment any production from future distributed roof top solar. Which they say only adds $0.005/ kWh in cap costs.
.
Video on the ThorCon
.
https://youtu.be/VfsOYzOpYRw
.

[NeilBlanchard]

Roy Spencer debunked:

https://thinkprogress.org/climate-sc...-8519f36faf77/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm

https://www.realskeptic.com/2014/01/...igion-science/

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roy_Spencer

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | BillMoyers.com

Denying a part of science means that all of science is denied. You can't cherry pick data, and you can't cherry pick parts of science.

[Xist]

I deny intelligent life in the White House. Does that mean I deny intelligent life everywhere?

[Lemmy]

Its not science when you don't understand the entire mechanism that causes climate change - its simply deciding who's guesswork you like the most.

[freebeard]

Roy Spencer debunked:

That's a lot of reading. Does any of it accept energy transmission via electric plasma? Information via electric plasma? Intent?

Sunspots 'cause' earthquakes.