How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There are numerous studies:

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

Here is from your article, Jay.

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

And this was not a survey of published work, but a survey of opinions by "climate scientists" who were selected to qualify under the criteria set by the study. 

A pre-selected sample.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

To deal with a record heat wave you claim isn't happening.

India ramps up coal production to record levels in extreme heatwave

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/india-coal-heatwave-power-cut-energy-b2071718.html

This is an ongoing long-term ramp-up with demands for coal production.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, this is not the data used for solar studies. I gave you the correct data.

SOHO is one of the foremost sources of data for solar scientists. CRF is secondary data set, it mostly has to do with cosmic rays from the other stars, not the Sun 

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

SOHO is one of the foremost sources of data for solar scientists. CRF is secondary data set, it mostly has to do with cosmic rays from the other stars, not the Sun 

CRF is the data set used by the new research which gives the best results.

And, no, it doesn't result from other stars.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is from your article, Jay.

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

And this was not a survey of published work, but a survey of opinions by "climate scientists" who were selected to qualify under the criteria set by the study. 

A pre-selected sample.

There are numerous reports that all came to the same general conclusion and none have gone the other way.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There are numerous reports that all came to the same general conclusion and none have gone the other way.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

•  

Here is from your article, Jay. I guess you never studied statistics.

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

And this was not a survey of published work, but a survey of opinions by "climate scientists" who were selected to qualify under the criteria set by the study. 

A pre-selected sample.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

 

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is from your article, Jay. I guess you never studied statistics.

"We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses."

And this was not a survey of published work, but a survey of opinions by "climate scientists" who were selected to qualify under the criteria set by the study. 

A pre-selected sample.

Then pay attention to the other reports that all found the same thing. No one cares about your silliness.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

CRF is the data set used by the new research which gives the best results.

And, no, it doesn't result from other stars.

Wrong as always:

What Are Cosmic Rays?

By Elizabeth Howell published May 10, 2018

•  

Showers of high energy particles occur when energetic cosmic rays strike the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Most cosmic rays are atomic nuclei: most are hydrogen nuclei, some are helium nuclei, and the rest heavier elements. Although many of the low energy cosmic rays come from our Sun, the origins of the highest energy cosmic rays remains unknown and a topic of much research. This drawing illustrates air showers from very high energy cosmic rays. (Image credit: Simon Swordy (U. Chicago), NASA)

 

 

Cosmic rays are atom fragments that rain down on the Earth from outside of the solar system. They blaze at the speed of light and have been blamed for electronics problems in satellites and other machinery.

 

 

Discovered in 1912, many things about cosmic rays remain a mystery more than a century later. One prime example is exactly where they are coming from. Most scientists suspect their origins are related to supernovas (star explosions), but the challenge is that for many years cosmic ray origins appeared uniform to observatories examining the entire sky.

 

 

A large leap forward in cosmic ray science came in 2017, when the Pierre Auger Observatory (which is spread over 3,000 square kilometers, or 1,160 square miles, in western Argentina) studied the arrival trajectories of 30,000 cosmic particles. It concluded that there is a difference in how frequently these cosmic rays arrive, depending on where you look. While their origins are still nebulous, knowing where to look is the first step in learning where they came from, the researchers said. The results were published in Science.

https://www.space.com/32644-cosmic-rays.html

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

28 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Wrong as always:

What Are Cosmic Rays?

By Elizabeth Howell published May 10, 2018

•  

Showers of high energy particles occur when energetic cosmic rays strike the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Most cosmic rays are atomic nuclei: most are hydrogen nuclei, some are helium nuclei, and the rest heavier elements. Although many of the low energy cosmic rays come from our Sun, the origins of the highest energy cosmic rays remains unknown and a topic of much research. This drawing illustrates air showers from very high energy cosmic rays. (Image credit: Simon Swordy (U. Chicago), NASA)

 

 

Cosmic rays are atom fragments that rain down on the Earth from outside of the solar system. They blaze at the speed of light and have been blamed for electronics problems in satellites and other machinery.

 

 

Discovered in 1912, many things about cosmic rays remain a mystery more than a century later. One prime example is exactly where they are coming from. Most scientists suspect their origins are related to supernovas (star explosions), but the challenge is that for many years cosmic ray origins appeared uniform to observatories examining the entire sky.

 

 

A large leap forward in cosmic ray science came in 2017, when the Pierre Auger Observatory (which is spread over 3,000 square kilometers, or 1,160 square miles, in western Argentina) studied the arrival trajectories of 30,000 cosmic particles. It concluded that there is a difference in how frequently these cosmic rays arrive, depending on where you look. While their origins are still nebulous, knowing where to look is the first step in learning where they came from, the researchers said. The results were published in Science.

https://www.space.com/32644-cosmic-rays.html

Here is the methodology in the latest research. 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EA001223

Note this statement:

"Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997."

" Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997. Progressing down the figure, we see the computed Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) tilt angle from the Wilcox Solar Observatory (Panel B; Scherrer et al., 1977; Wilcox et al., 1980) and the Penticton 10.7 cm radio flux (Panel C; Tapping, 2013). The F10.7 flux is considered canonical as it is the longest consistent, calibrated, physical (as opposed to the more subjective counting of sunspots), record of solar activity, stretching back to 1947. Panel D shows the anticorrelated variation of the galactic cosmic-ray flux (CRF) as measured at the University of Oulu's Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory. The anticorrelation of CRF and solar activity (Forbush, 1954; McIntosh et al., 2013) is a result of changes in the Sun's global magnetic field strength (and structural configuration)—basically, a strong solar magnetic field blocks cosmic rays from entering the solar system, and hence the Earth's atmosphere with corresponding increases when said magnetic field is weak. Note that solar cycle 24 has seen a weaker global solar magnetic field than its predecessor, and correspondingly higher cosmic-ray fluxes. Observations of radiative proxies of solar activity from other wavelengths follow, in Panel E, the 1–8 Å integrated coronal X-ray irradiance measured by the GOES family of spacecraft (Chamberlin et al., 2009) and the University of Bremen's composite index of the Sun's chromospheric variability measured through the ultraviolet emission of singly ionized Magnesium (Panel F; Snow et al., 2014). The GOES X-ray flux was the measure in in which terminator events were first detected (Saba et al., 2005; Strong & Saba, 2009). Throughout all panels, the pairs of vertical dotted lines mark step-function changes are present in each of the measured quantities (radiative increases and CRF decreases) that persist for the next several months at the end of Cycle 22 and at the end of Cycle 23."

Edited May 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

11 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the methodology in the latest research.

" Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997. Progressing down the figure, we see the computed Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) tilt angle from the Wilcox Solar Observatory (Panel B; Scherrer et al., 1977; Wilcox et al., 1980) and the Penticton 10.7 cm radio flux (Panel C; Tapping, 2013). The F10.7 flux is considered canonical as it is the longest consistent, calibrated, physical (as opposed to the more subjective counting of sunspots), record of solar activity, stretching back to 1947. Panel D shows the anticorrelated variation of the galactic cosmic-ray flux (CRF) as measured at the University of Oulu's Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory. The anticorrelation of CRF and solar activity (Forbush, 1954; McIntosh et al., 2013) is a result of changes in the Sun's global magnetic field strength (and structural configuration)—basically, a strong solar magnetic field blocks cosmic rays from entering the solar system, and hence the Earth's atmosphere with corresponding increases when said magnetic field is weak. Note that solar cycle 24 has seen a weaker global solar magnetic field than its predecessor, and correspondingly higher cosmic-ray fluxes. Observations of radiative proxies of solar activity from other wavelengths follow, in Panel E, the 1–8 Å integrated coronal X-ray irradiance measured by the GOES family of spacecraft (Chamberlin et al., 2009) and the University of Bremen's composite index of the Sun's chromospheric variability measured through the ultraviolet emission of singly ionized Magnesium (Panel F; Snow et al., 2014). The GOES X-ray flux was the measure in in which terminator events were first detected (Saba et al., 2005; Strong & Saba, 2009). Throughout all panels, the pairs of vertical dotted lines mark step-function changes are present in each of the measured quantities (radiative increases and CRF decreases) that persist for the next several months at the end of Cycle 22 and at the end of Cycle 23."

Since you don't understand what is going on, try and focus on this excerpt:

"The anticorrelation of CRF and solar activity (Forbush, 1954; McIntosh et al., 2013) is a result of changes in the Sun's global magnetic field strength (and structural configuration)—basically, a strong solar magnetic field blocks cosmic rays from entering the solar system, and hence the Earth's atmosphere with corresponding increases when said magnetic field is weak. Note that solar cycle 24 has seen a weaker global solar magnetic field than its predecessor, and correspondingly higher cosmic-ray fluxes."

It clearly states that CRF is anticorrelated with solar activity. That is because CRF is from outside the solar system. When the Sun is more active with a stronger magnetic field it keeps the CRF away from the Earth. When the Sun is weaker more CRF get through to the Earth. 

This paper you love so much actually says that galactic cosmic rays are responsible for affects on Earth weather, not the Sun. Clearly this paper is meant to try and explain why a weaker Sun can actually lead to Earth warming because in its weakened condition it lets more galactic cosmic rays reach the Earth. 

"There have been many possible explanations postulated for a cosmic-ray climate connection, including: (i) Forbush decreases inducing increased extratropical storm vorticity (Roberts & Olson, 1973; Tinsley et al., 1989) and atmospheric gravity waves propagating from the auroral ionosphere (Prikryl et al., 2009); (ii) global electric conductivity inducing changes in cloud microphysics (Harrison, 2004; Tinsley, 2000); and (iii) direct formation of ionization particles seeding cloud formation (Svensmark & Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2017). However, the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation are a matter of hot debate (e.g., Gray et al., 2010; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Pierce, 2017), with even the sign of the correlation between cosmic rays and climate not agreed on. "

Unequivocally CRF is not what solar scientists use to study the Sun because cosmic rays do not come from the Sun!!!!!!!!

 

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

21 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Since you don't understand what is going on, try and focus on this excerpt:

"The anticorrelation of CRF and solar activity (Forbush, 1954; McIntosh et al., 2013) is a result of changes in the Sun's global magnetic field strength (and structural configuration)—basically, a strong solar magnetic field blocks cosmic rays from entering the solar system, and hence the Earth's atmosphere with corresponding increases when said magnetic field is weak. Note that solar cycle 24 has seen a weaker global solar magnetic field than its predecessor, and correspondingly higher cosmic-ray fluxes."

It clearly states that CRF is anticorrelated with solar activity. That is because CRF is from outside the solar system. When the Sun is more active with a stronger magnetic field it keeps the CRF away from the Earth. When the Sun is weaker more CRF get through to the Earth. 

This paper you love so much actually says that galactic cosmic rays are responsible for affects on Earth weather, not the Sun. Clearly this paper is meant to try and explain why a weaker Sun can actually lead to Earth warming because in its weakened condition it lets more galactic cosmic rays reach the Earth. 

"There have been many possible explanations postulated for a cosmic-ray climate connection, including: (i) Forbush decreases inducing increased extratropical storm vorticity (Roberts & Olson, 1973; Tinsley et al., 1989) and atmospheric gravity waves propagating from the auroral ionosphere (Prikryl et al., 2009); (ii) global electric conductivity inducing changes in cloud microphysics (Harrison, 2004; Tinsley, 2000); and (iii) direct formation of ionization particles seeding cloud formation (Svensmark & Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2017). However, the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation are a matter of hot debate (e.g., Gray et al., 2010; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Pierce, 2017), with even the sign of the correlation between cosmic rays and climate not agreed on. "

Unequivocally CRF is not what solar scientists use to study the Sun because cosmic rays do not come from the Sun!!!!!!!!

 

The solar data series used here is a combined calculation using CRF and other cosmic ray series to provide the adjusted series. This provides the background measurement of solar activity, and is a completely different set of data from the ones you are suggesting from that PR blurb. This study is expecting a cooling period beginning in 2020, which is the same result from other solar activity studies. If many studies using different methodologies give the same results, that increases the confidence we can have in the outcomes.

And note the qualification about the SOHO project, which you claim the solar data is derived from.  That is not the case at all, here is the point above,

"Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997."

So that PR blurb you quoted above on SOHO needs to be understood in context.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 

Then pay attention to the other reports that all found the same thing. No one cares about your silliness.

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

 

I guess you never studied statistics, Jay.  This is not a random sample, there are criteria used to select the sample. A pre-selected sample is regarded as a biased sample, and the results have to be understood accordingly. This is a very low percentage of responses, less than one-third, which suggests that certain scientists did not want to respond. That alone would bias the sample. It looks like those scientists who were enthusiastic supporters of anthropogenic climate change theories would be most likely to respond. I would not take these results without looking at the context, which requires looking at the terms of the questionnaire, the types of "climate scientists" deemed suitable for the sample, etc. What was the actual question about global warming, was it due to "human activity"? Or was it due to "CO2"? How were the questions phrased? We need to know that.

The new solar research falls outside the brackets of this study.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

The solar data series used here is a combined calculation using CRF to provide the adjusted series.

And not the qualification about the SOHO project, which you claim the solar data is derived from.  That is not the case at all, here is the point above,

"Due to the higher quality data coming from the AIA instrument on the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO/AIA; Lemen et al., 2012) compared to its predecessor (SOHO/EIT; Delaboudinière et al., 1995), the corresponding midlatitude increases in activity beyond the 2011 termination are more pronounced that in 1997."

So that PR blurb you quoted above on SOHO needs to be understood in context.

The SDO data does not show an increase in irradiance that correlates with the increase global temperature. It shows a decrease since 2014.

https://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/data/sdo_eve_ssi_1nm_l3/

Temperature from 2010 to 2022

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you never studied statistics, Jay.  This is not a random sample, there are criteria used to select the sample. A pre-selected sample is regarded as a biased sample, and the results have to be understood accordingly. This is a very low percentage of responses, less than one-third, which suggests that certain scientists did not want to respond. That alone would bias the sample. It looks like those scientists who were enthusiastic supporters of anthropogenic climate change theories would be most likely to respond. I would not take these results without looking at the context, which requires looking at the terms of the questionnaire, the types of "climate scientists" deemed suitable for the sample, etc. What was the actual question about global warming, was it due to "human activity"? Or was it due to "CO2"? How were the questions phrased? We need to know that.

The new solar research falls outside the brackets of this study.

I know you never studied the English language. There are many other studies that found the same thing. 

The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has been a topic of intense interest in recent decades. This is in part due to the important role of public perception of expert consensus, which has downstream impacts on public opinion and support for mitigation policies. Numerous studies, using diverse methodologies and measures of climate expertise, have quantified the scientific consensus, finding between 90% and 100% agreement on human-caused global warming with multiple studies converging on 97% agreement. This study revisits the consensus among geoscientists ten years after an initial survey of experts, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among these groups. We sent 10 929 invitations to participate in our survey to a verified email list of geosciences faculty at reporting academic and research institutions and received 2780 responses. In addition to analyzing the raw survey results, we independently quantify how many publications self-identified climate experts published in the field of climate change research and compare that to their survey response on questions about climate change. As well as a binary approach classifying someone as 'expert' or 'non-expert', we also look at expertise as a scale. We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774/meta

Edited May 6, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[nsdp + 449]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you never studied statistics, Jay.  This is not a random sample, there are criteria used to select the sample. A pre-selected sample is regarded as a biased sample, and the results have to be understood accordingly. This is a very low percentage of responses, less than one-third, which suggests that certain scientists did not want to respond. That alone would bias the sample. It looks like those scientists who were enthusiastic supporters of anthropogenic climate change theories would be most likely to respond. I would not take these results without looking at the context, which requires looking at the terms of the questionnaire, the types of "climate scientists" deemed suitable for the sample, etc. What was the actual question about global warming, was it due to "human activity"? Or was it due to "CO2"? How were the questions phrased? We need to know that.

The new solar research falls outside the brackets of this study.

If you could hope to even understand this book (nasa/jpl manual for radiation protection of satellites)AIAAG-083-1999GuideGuide To Modeling Earth’sTrapped Radiation Environment

The guide was prepared by Dr. Henry B. Garrett of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA for the AIAA Atmospheric and Space Environments Committee onStandards, Dr. Shu Lai, Chairman. https://spacewx.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/AIAA-655-543.pdf You have any sources in this league or are your all T-Balll players. ?

Hank was my roommate for year and half before i went to play soldier boy. Any one of your sources picked by AIAA to write a definitive treatise on standards for this topic? 

Edited May 6, 2022 by nsdp
left out a sentence.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You apparently can't contemplate that I keep saying tomorrow there will be. The primary path will be renewable energy to create green hydrogen and atmospheric carbon removal to make green hydrocarbons for everything from steel to plastic to fertilizer and everything else.

‘Green steel’: Swedish company ships first batch made without using coal

This article is more than 8 months old

Hybrit sends steel made with hydrogen production process to Volvo, which plans to use it in prototype vehicles and components

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-swedish-company-ships-first-batch-made-without-using-coal

Steel could go green by 2050 and it will only cost US$278 billion to get there: BNEF.

https://stockhead.com.au/resources/steel-could-go-green-by-2050-and-it-will-only-cost-us278-billion-to-get-there-bnef/

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Steel could go green by 2050 and it will only cost US$278 billion to get there: BNEF.

https://stockhead.com.au/resources/steel-could-go-green-by-2050-and-it-will-only-cost-us278-billion-to-get-there-bnef/

Ah yes, remake their steel industry like the USA is currently using EAF's(majority) and miraculously find this hydrogen source...   Hrmm, Guess I know where all that new US steel capacity will go, Europe; as their gas supply is getting cut down... Guess the EU howling over tariffs will vanish instantly in the next couple of years, last I checked, steel prices are skyrocketeing throughout the entire EU.  Or... they will just get that horrible big bad CO2 laden steel from China/India.<<Cough>> what will actually happen.

EDIT: <<As for article... ??>> Brazil is going to be a low cost Hydrogen producer by 2030... In what delusional dope induced dream world is the idiot who wrote this article on?  Australia... maybe(have sun hours continuous).  Gloomy tropical Brazil?  Australia gets 2X the sun as Brazil.  So does Egypt, etc. Brazil has no wind... so what dream induced idiocy is the article blathering about?  $278Billion.... what a joke.  US just spent what? $30B for a few mtons production increase and hydrogen is nowhere to be found in that price tag. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

18 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah yes, remake their steel industry like the USA is currently using EAF's(majority) and miraculously find this hydrogen source...   Hrmm, Guess I know where all that new US steel capacity will go, Europe; as their gas supply is getting cut down... Guess the EU howling over tariffs will vanish instantly in the next couple of years, last I checked, steel prices are skyrocketeing throughout the entire EU.  Or... they will just get that horrible big bad CO2 laden steel from China/India.<<Cough>> what will actually happen.

EDIT: <<As for article... ??>> Brazil is going to be a low cost Hydrogen producer by 2030... In what delusional dope induced dream world is the idiot who wrote this article on?  Australia... maybe(have sun hours continuous).  Gloomy tropical Brazil?  Australia gets 2X the sun as Brazil.  So does Egypt, etc. Brazil has no wind... so what dream induced idiocy is the article blathering about?  $278Billion.... what a joke.  US just spent what? $30B for a few mtons production increase and hydrogen is nowhere to be found in that price tag. 

Agree totally its a pipe dream!

i was responding to Jay saying that renewables could replace all FF usages, clearly thats not happening in anyones lifetime on this site.

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

9 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Agree totally its a pipe dream!

i was responding to Jay saying that renewables could replace all FF usages, clearly thats not happening in anyones lifetime on this site.

 

The real Q is... will the EU actually ban Russian OIL?  I doubt it.  All those land locked Eastern countries with pipelines to Russia... Honestly have no other option.  The right of way battle through how many countries to a coastline for a new pipeline...

Yea I know, has nothing to do with your post, but both postulates are equally absurd.  Hydrogen steel mills for a couple billion which will LOWER their CO2 output, not net zero and eastern Europe weaning itself off of Russian oil anytime soon.

[Rob Plant + 2,747]

48 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

The real Q is... will the EU actually ban Russian OIL?  I doubt it.  All those land locked Eastern countries with pipelines to Russia... Honestly have no other option.  The right of way battle through how many countries to a coastline for a new pipeline...

Yea I know, has nothing to do with your post, but both postulates are equally absurd.  Hydrogen steel mills for a couple billion which will LOWER their CO2 output, not net zero and eastern Europe weaning itself off of Russian oil anytime soon.

Hungary wont stop buying Russian oil and if they dont others will take the same stance including Germany.

It will make the EU look like a bunch of incompetent, powerless aresholes! Which they are!

[Boat + 1,323]

20 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

This Eminent Scientist Says Climate Activists Need to Get Real

That I don’t know, but aren’t there credible pathways to decarbonizing the grid? Mark Jacobson at Stanford has said we have most of the technology we need to produce America’s power renewably and keep the grid secure and stable by 2035. Or what about the example of countries like Norway or Namibia that are producing a vast majority of their energy from renewables? Check the China statistics. The country is adding, every year, gigawatts of new coal-fired power. Have you noticed that the whole world is now trying to get hands on as much natural gas as possible? This world is not yet done with fossil fuels.

 

Germany, after nearly half a trillion dollars, in 20 years they went from getting 84 percent of their primary energy from fossil fuels to 

76 percent.⁵

 

 Can you tell me how you’d go from 76 percent fossil to zero by 2030, 2035? I’m sorry, the reality is what it is.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/25/magazine/vaclav-smil-interview.html

It may be suprising but 1/2 a trillion spent on any energy isn’t much. Go get the big number that takes into account all energy. 1/2 a trillion may not last long as a subsidy.  Add $200,000 to 1/2 trillion and you have the US military budget for one year. That dosent include nuke subs, super funds for energy cleanup. That goes in the other energy cost pile. 

[Boat + 1,323]

If Europe has spent 1/2 a trillion they be peeing in a cup. Get a pot and pee 2 trillion per year for 5 years and get-er-done. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,552]

1 hour ago, Boat said:

It may be suprising but 1/2 a trillion spent on any energy isn’t much. Go get the big number that takes into account all energy

Ahh my awoken child you do bring up a rather poignant moment. The "BIG NUMBER". 

• Your mission, Boat should you choose/decide to accept it, ...would be to do a critical analysis of the Energy infrastructure the EU abandoned/decommissioned or destroyed during the past 15 yrs. This analysis is to include both Coal and Nuclear power plants. One sum total is all that is needed.
•  
• As always, should you or any of your IM Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape/disc will self-destruct in five/ten seconds. Good luck, Boat.

Mission: Impossible

Edited May 6, 2022 by Eyes Wide Open

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Boat said:

If Europe has spent 1/2 a trillion they be peeing in a cup. Get a pot and pee 2 trillion per year for 5 years and get-er-done. 

$500bn will buy 220-250GW of offshore wind. 

That would generate about 770 Twh which is more than double the UK's annual consumption. 

Would also pretty much displace all russian gas imports (based on that all being used in CCGT). 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

$500bn will buy 220-250GW of offshore wind. 

That would generate about 770 Twh which is more than double the UK's annual consumption. 

Would also pretty much displace all russian gas imports (based on that all being used in CCGT). 

Lets assume $500B gets what you say it does[{It doesn't as the price you quoted is for onshore cost or nearly so by the time you add in all the additional power lines etc}].  Capacity factor ~0.45 for offshore(*its actually 0.5) of ~8900h/year = ~4000hours but I like even numbers.

4k*250GW = 1E6 *1E9 = 1E15Wh = 1000TWh

Double?  No, as energy consumed in UK is many times higher than its current electrical energy consumption.  If UK is like USA(it is), Electrical energy consumed is only ~15%-->20% of energy used. 

+ Energy storage in various forms for when wind does not blow to meet 100% of capacity or close since still going to keep nuclear as one needs that for medical purposes and to maintain nuclear weapons.   So, maybe with double that amount of money one could start on the energy transition.