The Politics vs The Reality Of Climate Change

[Silhouette]

Funny that you would choose a solar plant that hasn't run at better than 30% of its rated capacity, ever! Then you want to add on unreliable wind and PV....

I guess you want us to be just like Australia and it collapsing power grids...

If you're talking about solar thermal (not the ridiculous engineered-to-fail types with the huge circular flat mirror array almost a mile away from their target at times)...the linear solar thermal boilers (not PV), then you are mistaken. Their capacity has been suppressed. Unless you're doubting the solar radiation's ability to do what radiation does when focused and concentrated. Either focused solar can burn a piece of wood on the Winter solstice in a small care headlight reflector, or it can't. I've done the experiment. It can.

Expand that and you have geothermal oil heated to 300 Celsius. That's 200 degrees celsius ABOVE boiling water. That will turn a turbine. Just like all other standard turbine power plants. Are you prejudiced about what heat turns water to boiling to run a steam turbine or what?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Funny that you would choose a solar plant that hasn't run at better than 30% of its rated capacity, ever! Then you want to add on unreliable wind and PV....

I guess you want us to be just like Australia and it collapsing power grids...

If you're talking about solar thermal (not the ridiculous engineered-to-fail types with the huge circular flat mirror array almost a mile away from their target at times)...the linear solar thermal boilers (not PV), then you are mistaken. Their capacity has been suppressed. Unless you're doubting the solar radiation's ability to do what radiation does when focused and concentrated. Either focused solar can burn a piece of wood on the Winter solstice in a small care headlight reflector, or it can't. I've done the experiment. It can.

Expand that and you have geothermal oil heated to 300 Celsius. That's 200 degrees celsius ABOVE boiling water. That will turn a turbine. Just like all other standard turbine power plants. Are you prejudiced about what heat turns water to boiling to run a steam turbine or what?

A system that has failed all trial runs... In small scale tests this system exploded..

You seem to have conflated political agenda and AGW/environmentalism with science...

 

[Crick]

Kimberlina Solar Thermal Energy Plant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 5 megawatt (MW) Kimberlina Solar Thermal Energy Plant in Bakersfield, California is the first commercial solar thermal power plant to be built by Areva Solar. Completed in 2008, the Kimberlina renewable energy solar boiler uses Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) technology to generate superheated steam. Each solar boiler has a group of 13 narrow, flat mirrors, that individually track and focus the sun's heat onto overhead pipes carrying water. The water boils directly into steam. The steam can then spin a turbine to generate electricity or be used as industrial steam for food, oil and desalination processes. The Kimberlina solar boiler currently achieves 750-degree F superheated steam. The next generation solar boiler under construction is designed to achieve 900-degree F superheated steam.

AREVA Solar's boiler is the first and only solar boiler certified with an S-Stamp by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).

The Kimberlina Solar Thermal Energy Plant was the first of its kind to be built in California in more than 20 years, with the previous plant being the Solar Energy Generating Systems, which employs solar troughs.[1]

A new design means R&D fool. And in case no one had noticed, this isn't a power plant, it's a steam plant.

 

[skookerasbil]

My God......these people thinking it is all about the science.

As a matter of fact, it is all about the politics...........period. Always has been s0ns! Its due to something called "costs". Its that simple.

Why is renewable energy still laughable after 20+ years of the warmers lobbing bombs?

Why is coal going to be HUGE well past 2050?

Because its cheap. Governments like when their people don't have to pay stoopid high costs for electricity ( see Germany ).

AGW will continue to be an internet hobby and a way of living for a few thousand scientists and nothing more. And oh....once Scott Pruitt gets going, you're going to be seeing THIS >>

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber_1.jpg.html][/URL]


a lot..........the level of butthurt gonna get profound s0ns!!

 

[Crick]

I'll bet you mainstream science's position on AGW outlasts the Trump administration. I'll also bet you the Trump administration lasts something significantly less than four years.

 

[skookerasbil]

I'll bet you mainstream science's position on AGW outlasts the Trump administration. I'll also bet you the Trump administration lasts something significantly less than four years.

Oh it definitely will........no doubt. Trump or no Trump........doesn't change the political realities. The "mainstream" science will always be there......but it resonates for the minority only. The "mainstream" science has existed for 20 years and except for lightbulb legislation, its had zero impact on public policy. Show me a politician that is for enormous increases in energy costs and I'll buy you a bridge!! The existence of "mainstream" science will continue to make a few people in the green energy business wealthy, some scientists employed and the greens happy now and again........but until Miami sits underwater, nobody else is going to care much. That's just the way it is my friend.........a theory with high hopes, but its been 20+ years of losing for you guys!!

Gotta just start connecting the dots a bit better. I can send you some links........or else, you're gonna be scratching your head ( still ) 10years.........20 years from now.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey, we're discussing the politics of climate change. While dozens of threads AGAINST climate change being real are clogging the politics forum where this thread began...for some reason, my thread making argument for the legitimacy of climate change and its political outfall was dungeoned into the "environment" forum.

How odd...

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey, we're discussing the politics of climate change. While dozens of threads AGAINST climate change being real are clogging the politics forum where this thread began...for some reason, my thread making argument for the legitimacy of climate change and its political outfall was dungeoned into the "environment" forum.

How odd...[/QUOTE

Hey, we're discussing the politics of climate change. While dozens of threads AGAINST climate change being real are clogging the politics forum where this thread began...for some reason, my thread making argument for the legitimacy of climate change and its political outfall was dungeoned into the "environment" forum.

How odd...

"political outfall"

The climate scientists still haven't made their case after 20+ years. That's the whole thing......there is NO political outfall.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, especially when lucid discussions about the actual science are kept on purpose away from the most eyes possible in the public. Too bad. This thread could've been about climate change. Instead it's about how dozens of threads discussing quasi-science opposing climate change are allowed on the politics forum; while this one was sent to the dungeon.

The people responsible can console themselves at night that suppressing speech in this clever way will result in the doom of the earth. But for now I suspect some of their sponsors have ties to BigOil. I'll bet several requests were made by shills/posters here to move this thread here. And they did it by God. But if you want to read any number of threads attempting to debunk climate change, just go to the politics forum. You won't find them here....

 

[IanC]

It will be interesting to see how many anti consensus views come out of the woodwork once it doesn't cost you your job or funding to point out the inconsistencies.

 

[Crick]

Yes, it will.

There was no decline in the number of scientists taking the consensus view during the Bush Jr years, despite his opposition to the idea.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yes, it will.

There was no decline in the number of scientists taking the consensus view during the Bush Jr years, despite his opposition to the idea.

The number of scientists doesn't matter and never has mattered. How is that such a difficult concept to understand?

What? So you can take a bow and say your side has X number of scientists?

And?

That has been the dynamic for the past 10 years.......at least?

And.............and..........outside the science hobby of discussing this stuff on the internet, what impact has it had in the real world?

I will tell you exactly what impact it has had = zero


So my ? is.......who cares about whether a consensus exists or not?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes, especially when lucid discussions about the actual science are kept on purpose away from the most eyes possible in the public. Too bad. This thread could've been about climate change. Instead it's about how dozens of threads discussing quasi-science opposing climate change are allowed on the politics forum; while this one was sent to the dungeon.

The people responsible can console themselves at night that suppressing speech in this clever way will result in the doom of the earth. But for now I suspect some of their sponsors have ties to BigOil. I'll bet several requests were made by shills/posters here to move this thread here. And they did it by God. But if you want to read any number of threads attempting to debunk climate change, just go to the politics forum. You won't find them here....

The climate is always changing... It always has and always will despite man. The real question one should ask is, what is mans degree of influence?

The IPCC has taken their magical 'sensitivity' number fro 4-6 deg C in 1988 to 0.0-1.2 deg C per doubling of CO2 concentrations today. The latest reduction in climate sensitivity has place CO2 without a magical multiplier and equal to CO2's empirically derived LOG distribution. Empirical evidence shows that the current level of CO2 influence is just 0.8 deg C.

Your rant about big oil and the like indicates you have no intention of having a substantive debate.

 

[Crick]

The IPCC has taken their magical 'sensitivity' number fro 4-6 deg C in 1988 to 0.0-1.2 deg C per doubling of CO2 concentrations today.

Bullshit. You've put that out before and when asked to provide a link, showed us NOTHING.

Have another try. Let's see a fucking link asshole.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh that's cute... the most recent post here was yesterday. Bet that wouldn't be the case if this thread was left WHERE IT BELONGS, WITH ALL THE OTHERS ON (against) CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE POLITICS FORUM...