This is what I found: Science Bulletin | Vol 60, Issue 1, Pages 1-148 (January 2015) | ScienceDirect.com
Where is your paper? Got it: Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model - ScienceDirect
Bill there are solid arguments to refute climate change, the new TM registered brand. That is alarm bells there. No one has an agenda. I want people to see the truth as I see it and I expect Evenharmonics is the same. To say peer reviewed is nonsense as the scientific community has never been in agreement. If you don't see this you need to look at different material.
Can we at least agree that a carbon tax will serve no benefit to humanity as energy is crucial to our existence and nothing can replace carbon based fuels?
Also, out of interest, what do you think will happen to this tax money collected for carbon tax?
Wrong, the biggest fraud in history is our financial system followed by the MIC. I give climate tax the third biggest fraud
This paper discusses the 4th and 5th assessment reports of the IPCC. They are from 2009. That the computer models used then, didn't exactly predict the observed data is well known. So this paper shows nothing new and no one is disputing it. My question to you Zero D, is how do the computer models used NOW predict the observed data? Ironic of cause is that you posted a link from a heavily funded website by big oil companies. See post 385.
What are those according to you?
Big oil companies DO have an agenda: Selling fossil fuel.
I want people to see the truth as it actually is, not what I see as the truth is.
Of cause the scientific community is in agreement on a lot of topics, its also knows as scientific consensus. Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration for instance, the laws of thermodynamics for instance, relativity for instance, quantum electro dynamics for instance, evolution through natural selection for instance, and you will always find people who don't agree with these viewpoints and claim that the scientific community is censoring them. I see a very similar thing with the CO2 as a main driving force of climate change.
As a non expert, as I am, I need to listen to the experts in the field. In this case those are the climate scientists with multiple peer reviewed papers published in reputable scientific journals. The vast majority of them agree that CO2 is a major driving force of climate. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | Science
I don't know if carbon tax is a good thing, but fossil fuels are subsidised in very large amounts:IMF Survey : Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies
That is $5.300.000.000.000,00 in 2015 and its rising every year. Even if this is exaggerated a thousand times, its still an enormous amount of money. And yes energy is crucial to human modern existence.
Of cause you can replace carbon based fuels. Its being done right now in many places. The sun provides way way more energy than humankind uses right now.
I don't know.
The paper that was posted clearly shows that the models don't EXACTLY predicted the observable data. But they were not way off.
More modern models are much better at predicting the observed data.
Bill, your fuel subsidies are based on people not paying carbon tax, this is not a subsidy, its an unrealised tax take. Why post stuff like this, its not constructive? So you think this 5.3 trillion if paid will save humanity?
Read about the planets energy requirements, amount of uranium, battery materials, it just cant scale. Its 3/4 of an ounce of silver to make a solar panel, there isn't enough of anything, and it would take decades to convert which we don't have apparently. Read about the miracle self renewing energies, and you will see its not going to make a difference to the oil requirements. You can not even begin to imagine how much solar you need to keep Berlin warm in winter, its dreaming on a laughable scale to think solar can deal with this much energy need. What about shipping and planes?
You need oil burners and gas, or many more nuclear reactors, which are also bad news I'm told. Maybe the energy science will improve and we can go to Hydrogen or something, but solar is a dream.
Read about the planets energy requirements, amount of uranium, battery materials, it just cant scale. Its 3/4 of an ounce of silver to make a solar panel, there isn't enough of anything, and it would take decades to convert which we don't have apparently. Read about the miracle self renewing energies, and you will see its not going to make a difference to the oil requirements. You can not even begin to imagine how much solar you need to keep Berlin warm in winter, its dreaming on a laughable scale to think solar can deal with this much energy need. What about shipping and planes?
You need oil burners and gas, or many more nuclear reactors, which are also bad news I'm told. Maybe the energy science will improve and we can go to Hydrogen or something, but solar is a dream.
Evenharmonics, Luke.
If there's one thing we're good at in modern society it's wasting energy. We routinely spend power moving near 2 tons of machinery to move a single individual from point A to point B, sometimes even just to drive from A to B and immediately back to A again. And this is just daily life, the problem is one a whole different level in the various industries.
Take for instance Cod (fish) from Norway, hundreds and thousands of tons, being frozen down, sent to China for processing, and then being sent back to Sweden for distribution in Scandinavia. This is something going on right now, and just one example of wasteful resource management. Transport is too cheap, it is not sustainable in the long run, look away from the environmental aspect for one moment, how long can the oil be pumped up and spent before it's empty?
And I am certain the manufacturers would be happy to sell 1 car to every single family in 3rd world countries also, there is a great influx of buyers from China and India that are becoming wealthier, and want to experience the luxury of what many in the industrial countries consider regular household items, cars, airplane travel etc.
Are you going to outright refuse people from other countries to get the luxury we are so accustomed to, only to help maintain your lifestyle? Or is there some slight possibility that we would all benefit from some moderation, in both energy consumption, and recycling?
Are you aware of how much energy it takes to produce a single car?
If there's one thing we're good at in modern society it's wasting energy. We routinely spend power moving near 2 tons of machinery to move a single individual from point A to point B, sometimes even just to drive from A to B and immediately back to A again. And this is just daily life, the problem is one a whole different level in the various industries.
Take for instance Cod (fish) from Norway, hundreds and thousands of tons, being frozen down, sent to China for processing, and then being sent back to Sweden for distribution in Scandinavia. This is something going on right now, and just one example of wasteful resource management. Transport is too cheap, it is not sustainable in the long run, look away from the environmental aspect for one moment, how long can the oil be pumped up and spent before it's empty?
And I am certain the manufacturers would be happy to sell 1 car to every single family in 3rd world countries also, there is a great influx of buyers from China and India that are becoming wealthier, and want to experience the luxury of what many in the industrial countries consider regular household items, cars, airplane travel etc.
Are you going to outright refuse people from other countries to get the luxury we are so accustomed to, only to help maintain your lifestyle? Or is there some slight possibility that we would all benefit from some moderation, in both energy consumption, and recycling?
Are you aware of how much energy it takes to produce a single car?
Last edited:
I posted the link to show that fossil fuels are way more expensive than most people realise.
Its a good thing you brought this up, because the transition to renewable energy is going to change everything drasticly, including the landscape.
I also agree that solar energy alone is not nearly enough, but there are more forms of renewable energy, wind-, wave-, geothermal-, water-energy to name a few and we need to use them all. Also I'm not opposed to nuclear energy as this has killed way less people than fossil fuels have (air pollution). The next generation of nuclear reactors can use the nuclear wast from current nuclear power plants making sure human kind has thousands of years of energy from this. But this is not technology that is available now, so we can't count on it, it may never happen. The same goes for nuclear fusion, its a great promise but we can't count on it.
Now there is stuff we can do: Solar, wind, water, wave, geothermal are all available technologies that can provide enough energy for all human kind. We don't need fossil fuels.
Can you answer this please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke
Bill there are solid arguments to refute climate change,
What are those according to you?
Utilizing different sources of energy is important, but what is even more important is to reduce the energy consumption in the first place.
And a de-centralized power production/distribution can be a big factor in reducing the need for increased grid capacity, and quite possibly also increase supply safety.
It is not popular to talk about these things, because no-one wants to consider that they must sacrifice something, so that more people can partake in the benefits of technology. We humans are often very self-centered.
And a de-centralized power production/distribution can be a big factor in reducing the need for increased grid capacity, and quite possibly also increase supply safety.
It is not popular to talk about these things, because no-one wants to consider that they must sacrifice something, so that more people can partake in the benefits of technology. We humans are often very self-centered.
Man now produces more available Nitrogen than lightening. CO2 is required by plants as oxygen is required by animals.
Increased global available Nitrogen and increased CO2 = better plant growth = happier greener planet.
We were headed to the Carbon death of Planet Earth as available Carbon gradually was buried and becomes unavailable for plants and animals. Man is now digging it up and putting it back into the eco system.
Please feel good about driving your car.
Increased global available Nitrogen and increased CO2 = better plant growth = happier greener planet.
We were headed to the Carbon death of Planet Earth as available Carbon gradually was buried and becomes unavailable for plants and animals. Man is now digging it up and putting it back into the eco system.
Please feel good about driving your car.
That's less true than some might think. Some of the extrapolations of possible wind and solar power would in fact have drastic climate consequences. Solar for instance if truly massively deployed would change the earth's albedo enough to matter.
KaffiMann - that last sentence is, I think the only completely unrefutable statement in this thread so far.
The first small step for mankind might be immediate implementation of comprehensive population control, but from whence would the political will arise to support that? If paleogeologic “history” as portrayed in all those lovely IMAX CG movies is to be believed, Mother Earth has had a history of rebooting after major calamities such as the current doomsday prediction industry forecasts. Fortunately, some of us old farts won’t be around to see them proved either way - but our grandkids, on the other hand?
And yes, I think the pillaging of natural resources and total supply chain carbon footprint to support the insatiable appetite for all kinds of meat, fish and fowl of the “developed” world plays a significant role in the dramedy. I could go on, but even though it’s always 5:00 PM somewhere, I think it’s too early in my current time zone to self medicate.
The first small step for mankind might be immediate implementation of comprehensive population control, but from whence would the political will arise to support that? If paleogeologic “history” as portrayed in all those lovely IMAX CG movies is to be believed, Mother Earth has had a history of rebooting after major calamities such as the current doomsday prediction industry forecasts. Fortunately, some of us old farts won’t be around to see them proved either way - but our grandkids, on the other hand?
And yes, I think the pillaging of natural resources and total supply chain carbon footprint to support the insatiable appetite for all kinds of meat, fish and fowl of the “developed” world plays a significant role in the dramedy. I could go on, but even though it’s always 5:00 PM somewhere, I think it’s too early in my current time zone to self medicate.
Scott - your albedo comment just got me thinking about the white painted roofs in Bermuda, and maybe other places. Where I’m currently vacationing, most of the domestic water is rain collected and stored in large cisterns, and solar is only just starting to become enough of an issue that the local electric utility - who still generates by combustion of bunker fuel or such- has reduced the homeowners rebate for self generated power from 1 to 1 to .5 to 1.
So that raises a few questions for me;
- Is there consensus as to what an optimal range of reflectivity might be - at least for life to be “sustainable” - and what countermeasures might be helpful to balance back to such?
- With now approx 40 yrs of collected satellite data, have there been trends noted in localized and/or global figures that can be attributed to industrialization, deforestation, etc., - i.e. undisputably of human causation?
- Could significant recent localized changes affect micro-climates sufficiently to confound global modelling algorithms, and contradict older data-sets?
So that raises a few questions for me;
- Is there consensus as to what an optimal range of reflectivity might be - at least for life to be “sustainable” - and what countermeasures might be helpful to balance back to such?
- With now approx 40 yrs of collected satellite data, have there been trends noted in localized and/or global figures that can be attributed to industrialization, deforestation, etc., - i.e. undisputably of human causation?
- Could significant recent localized changes affect micro-climates sufficiently to confound global modelling algorithms, and contradict older data-sets?
Technology has been making the machines more energy efficient than they have been, for example, cars are more fuel efficient today than they were 20 years ago.
Looks like there is an assignment for you.
All those questions in regard to preventing the earth from warming up any further?
Not sure, of course that data was from a study concerning massive solar panel fields. I have a friend who's brother is a very senior engineer at one of the grid providers and they explore everything even spending money to send teams to investigate free energy scams to make sure they are scams.
Solar has a max theoretical efficiency that we are not even close to (in an affordable form) and what is not converted to electricity can be lost as heat. Years ago I had an off grid cabin on an island (ME) with about 400W of Kyocera panels (~15% efficiency) which easily provided light via LED's but was mainly used to run a 1/3HP well pump to keep a bladder/pressure tank full. Think about it, each fill took 120A from 12V for several minutes with about 2hr. at midday sun to recharge. I took one of the panels outside under full perpendicular noonday sun and measured at most 1/2 the rated output. The problem is that ratings are stated with respect to full insolation at the equator.
EDIT - I just read today a pro solar article that computed the available energy based on an earth completely covered with solar panels of 100% efficiency. This is stupid on many levels but mainly the theoretical efficiency from basic physics is far less than 100%.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.