The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Thanks for the cultural reference, but Wikipedia says it's a thing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether#Interstellar_travel

It has been found to be feasible to use the EDT system to supply on-board power given a crew of 50 with a requirement of 12 kilowatts per person. Energy generation is achieved at the expense of kinetic energy of the spacecraft. In reverse the EDT system could be used for acceleration. However, this has been found to be ineffective. Thrustless turning using the EDT system is possible to allow for course correction and rendezvous in interstellar space.

Sort of like the little propeller on the nose of a V1 buzzbomb.

[RedDevil]

I agree, that's an interesting option to harvest power in spacecraft well away from a star where solar panels have little use.

Energy generation is achieved at the expense of kinetic energy of the spacecraft.

That limits its usefulness though.
But maybe it works a bit like sailing, where you can't move straight into the wind but can at an angle. As long as the slowing down is not too much opposite of the direction you want to move it may be used to power an ion drive.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

For being reasonable?
He doesn't use children for propaganda, isn't calling for shutting down the economy because of the climate buggie man, isn't calling for violence, not name calling, not asking for money, not trying to spend other peoples money.
Compared to the climate cult he is nothing like them.
The only bad thing he appears to be doing is burning down the church of global warming with everyone inside.

I consider him a public enemy.Nothing you've posted sways my opinion.Nothing you're likely to post will sway my opinion.You don't know what you don't know.Equally as dangerous.

[freebeard]

You don't know what you don't know.

Really?? Whadda ya know.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Really?? Whadda ya know.

With respect to oil pan 4?
If that's the question then, in all his declarations,never once has he demonstrated even an introductory command of climate science.Never once has he personally,rather than deflecting to a 3rd-party,defended any of his conclusions, other than the complete fallibility of the science.In what universe could he know the difference?
My only takeaway must be,that he doesn't know anything about climate science,he cannot defend his thoughts and opinions,he wouldn't be able to discern whether or not any 3rd-party knew anything or not about climate science,leaving the ultimate conclusion that,he's hit the Rumsfeldian wall of unawareness: that he doesn't know what he doesn't know.An extremely dangerous situation in times like this.
Providing bona fides has been a complete waste of time.Casting pearls before swine.

[freebeard]

With respect to oil pan 4?

Just playing with words.

Casting pearls before swine.

Ben Davidson does a certain amount of that.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

With respect to oil pan 4?
If that's the question then, in all his declarations,never once has he demonstrated even an introductory command of climate science.Never once has he personally,rather than deflecting to a 3rd-party,defended any of his conclusions, other than the complete fallibility of the science.In what universe could he know the difference?
My only takeaway must be,that he doesn't know anything about climate science,he cannot defend his thoughts and opinions,he wouldn't be able to discern whether or not any 3rd-party knew anything or not about climate science,leaving the ultimate conclusion that,he's hit the Rumsfeldian wall of unawareness: that he doesn't know what he doesn't know.An extremely dangerous situation in times like this.
Providing bona fides has been a complete waste of time.Casting pearls before swine.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Where are you going to live when the church of global warming burns down?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Where are you going to live when the church of global warming burns down?

That's the thing.There is no apprehension that global warming won't proceed as the models predict.
Your characterizations of climate science and comments have only shot you in the foot.In order to say the things you say only reveals the poverty of your command of the information.You're left with zero credibility on the subject.My experience is that you don't know what's important.Consequently,you're unaware.You wouldn't be paying attention.Which would only leave you in a information/knowledge void.Not a problem if we're discussing landscaping or interior decorating.An immense problem with respect to climate.But you wouldn't know.You've turned your back to the evidence.I don't need to understand it.It is what it is.That's all I get.I get that.

[oil pan 4]

Again pot calling the kettle black.

[freebeard]

That's the thing.There is no apprehension that global warming won't proceed as the models predict.

I read that as 'models shall fail', is that what you meant?

My experience is that you don't know what's important.Consequently,you're unaware.You wouldn't be paying attention.Which would only leave you in a information/knowledge void.

Says the guy who disparages the Electric Universe modeling.