World’s Top Scientists: ‘Manmade Warming’ Is A Dangerous Lie

[donquixote99]

If that REALLY is the case then why is there always a problem dealing with the waste. There is one ship, currently on its way back to Japan, that is carrying 7 year old (at least) nuclear waste that is being prevented from docking anywhere.

How about political demagogery pandering to nimbyism?

Nuclear waste is no problem at all from an engineering point of view. You want it contained. Vitrify it and put it in a dry hole. And you want people not to be too close to it for too long. Fill in the hole.

On a planet in which we extract and transport billions of tons of minerals every year, this hysteria over a place to put a few hundred tons of stuff is nonsense.

Do you realize there are natural uranium deposits scattered about the planet in which no measures were EVER taken to contain the material or plan for it's absolute perpetual sequestration? Oh my GOD! How can life on this planet survive?

I just wish I was sovereign of a barren artic island....

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by parihaka

Jesus, you really are an moron. How do you propose getting the millions of square miles of photovoltaic cells up there, how are you going to keep them there, and how are you going to get the energy down in useable form?

Parihaka, at times you verge on the obnoxious. Educate yourself on solar power satellites. Wikipedia is a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

[Fredfredson]

post the science

A University education in Climatology would help.

Try it then make the critiques.

F

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by parihaka

Oh but we do. Unlike you. Go on, post a single paper that prooves using real data that anthropogenic co2 emissions have increased global temperature.
The thing is you can't can you?

Don't be ridiculous. An overwhelming quantity of scientific data has been appearing in journals for years. The fact that you are scientifically illiterate is hardly my problem.

There is no such thing, a simple lie put about by the ourbabyjesusalgore cultists such as yourself

So, now, you clearly did not read the link I provided. Claiming that "there is no consensus" is like claiming the moon ios made of green cheese. I quote:

* How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?

Well every major scientific society on the entire planet with relevant expertise disagrees with him. Even the National Academy of Sciences, which he is a member of, disagrees with him. Here is a press release released in 2005 which opens with the words “Climate Change is real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It is signed by:


Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Royal Society, United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

* For a complete analysis of the consensus which Lindzen says doesn’t exist please go here:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

Your argument is sheer idiocy. What, are all the worlds science academies being run by little green men or something? Pathetic and ridiculous.

[thaanatos]

What, are all the worlds science academies being run by little green men or something?

make that Green men and I think you got it spot on..........

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Parihaka, at times you verge on the obnoxious.

Really? I will admit I tend to be more direct on this forum than most of the others I inhabit, but it's not that many forums that openly advocate terrorism and blame the victims of terrorism for their murder. I know you and the other regulars here are all hip to being casual about that sort of stuff but I guess I'm not so cosmopolitan as y'all, hence letting my opinion freer reign than would be normal for me.
This very thread for instance: while the AGW cultists are happy to make claims we're all going to die unless we reduce our carbon emissions by 40%, none of them seem able to tell me which hundreds of millions of people they've got picked out to let starve to death when the cost of efficient mass production of food goes through the roof.
Again I'm not hip enough to just not ask that question, we know of course the high cost of food isn't going to be a problem for anyone on this forum, so what the hey.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Educate yourself on solar power satellites. Wikipedia is a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

Thanks but I already know about them. Ignoring the size of the recievers and transmitters, to get one gigawatt of power requires even by your wiki article at perfect conditions 10 square kilometers of solar panel.
Now just the US's power consumption in 2006 was roughly in the 100 Quadrillion Btu range, or if I've got my math right about 3.4 terrawatts. Soooo, to just power the US, we require at perfect conditions 10sq k X 34000 which gives us 340,000 square kilometres of solar panels, just to power the US. Where are you going to park these thousands of tonnes of solar panels?
Of course you have to have them on the sunny side of earth, i.e. between the earth and the sun, (not mentioning getting them up there in the first place)otherwise they won't work, so whose sunlight are you going to block off? That is after all an awfully big sunshade, roughly IIRC larger than a third of the size of the US itself.
Then, ignoring the space transmitters, you're wee wiki article gives us a ground based eliptical reciever of 10 x 14 kilometres for every 10 gigawatts, or 70sq k per 10 gigwatts or 238,000 sq k for ground recieving. That's quite big isn't it? Perhaps you'd like to educate me, and maybe back to the original AGW theme at the start of this thread, you or somebody else would care to answer my question asked across several threads:

"which tens if not hundreds of millions of people are slated to starve to death under the AGG reduction theories".

It's another of those questions I'm too uncool and obnoxious not to ask.

[ktp]

This isn't about climate change but I just wanted to point something out...

Parihaka:

while the AGW cultists are happy to make claims we're all going to die

You are happy to make claims that you know what we, the other posters, are thinking.

I know you and the other regulars here are all hip to being casual about that sort of stuff but I guess I'm not so cosmopolitan as y'all

Again I'm not hip enough to just not ask that question, we know of course the high cost of food isn't going to be a problem for anyone on this forum, so what the hey.

How do you know??? You can read our minds??? Erm, no...you don't know. Only slightly contradictory my friend..

[donquixote99]

You're not visualizing the space geometry right. In geosynchronous orbit, you're always in daylight and you don't block anyone's sunlight.

As for the receivers, rectenna arrays do not block visible light. Farm or pasture can be beneath them. To quote the wiki article that you claim to cite:

Crops and farm animals may be raised underneath a rectenna, as the thin wires used for support and for the dipoles will only slightly reduce sunlight, so such a rectenna would not be as expensive in terms of land use as might be supposed.

So, millions do not have to starve.

Forgive me for assuming you really were as ignorant as your questions suggest. Interresting debate style you've got.

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You're not visualizing the space geometry right. In geosynchronous orbit, you're always in daylight and you don't block anyone's sunlight.

Well yes, except for both the array and the earth to not be blocking each other the array needs to be beside the earth in relation to the sun, on the dawn/dusk line or terminator as some of us like to call it.
As I'm sure you're aware, the earth rotates about the sun therefore the array needs to rotate about the earth once every 365.something days about the north/south axis that passes at 90 degrees to the plane of the earths rotation about the sun, through the centre of the earth, henceforth called the true north/south axis.
Now if you plonk a solar array directly on the line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the earth, keeping it's surface or plane oriented at 90 degrees to that line, or simply put it faces toward the sun, is a relatively easy thing.
If however you wish your array to orbit the planet while not being on that line and still keeping the array oriented toward the sun and on the terminator, things get a bit trickier.
For instance, at shall we call it dual-relative semi geostationary orbit, the outer edge of the solar array will be at least 10 km (going by your wiki article) further from the centre of the earth than will the inner edge.
Or if you want to retrict its size further lets say a single kilometre. Regardless, the outer edge must travel faster than the inner edge lest it become 'disoriented' as regards facing the sun.
How do you propose to overcome this?

Originally Posted by donquixote99

As for the receivers, rectenna arrays do not block visible light. Farm or pasture can be beneath them.

Splendid, but remember to power the good old US, you'll still require at least 238,000 sq k for ground recieving

Originally Posted by donquixote99

To quote the wiki article that you claim to cite:

Claim to cite?

Spacecraft sizing

The sizing will be dominated by the distance from Earth to geostationary orbit (22,300 miles, 35,700 km), the chosen wavelength of the microwaves, and the laws of physics, specifically the Rayleigh Criterion or Diffraction limit, used in standard RF (Radio Frequency) antenna design.

For best efficiency, the satellite antenna should be circular and about 1 kilometers in diameter or larger; the ground antenna (rectenna) should be elliptical and around 14 kilometers by 10 kilometers. Smaller antennas would result in increased losses to diffraction/sidelobes. For the desired (23mW/cm²) microwave intensity [34] these antennas could transfer between 5 and 10 gigawatts of power. To be most cost effective, the system needs to operate at maximum capacity. And, to collect and convert that much power, the satellite would need between 50 and 100 square kilometers of collector area (if readily available ~14% efficient monocrystalline silicon solar cells were deployed). State of the art (currently, quite expensive, triple junction gallium arsenide) solar cells with a maximum efficiency of 40.7% [35] could reduce the necessary collector area by two thirds, but would not necessarily give overall lower costs. In either cases, the SPS's structure would be kilometers wide, making it larger than most man-made structures here on Earth. While almost certainly not beyond current engineering capabilities, building structures of this size in orbit has not yet been attempted.

Do the math yourself if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

So, millions do not have to starve.

For the meantime we'll ignore my questions about how you get all those thousands and thousands of tonnes of material up there, and how you maintain it, and the energy requirements to do those two things, and instead lets step away from the whole 'miracle space technology will save us' argument for a while and hone down on this.

Originally Posted by parihaka

while the AGW cultists are happy to make claims we're all going to die unless we reduce our carbon emissions by 40%, none of them seem able to tell me which hundreds of millions of people they've got picked out to let starve to death when the cost of efficient mass production of food goes through the roof.

As I re-posted, I'm not concerned about the solar panels leading to mass starvation due to screening the sun, I'm concerned about the mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions curtailing food production.
If we know anything here in dear old Aotearoa, it's how to grow food efficiently.
Now if there are mandatory cuts, the production drops accordingly. The only reason we (the earth) damn near doubled our population last century was because of efficiency in farming, namely, we could feed everyone.
Now, drop production because it's uneconomical to produce due to labour costs, or increase prices because farmers are being taxed for their methane and co2 emissions, or most likely both and the question arises, who misses out?

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Forgive me for assuming you really were as ignorant as your questions suggest.

Forgive me for assuming you read what I'd written.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Interresting debate style you've got.

I'll just leave you to assess your own contribution to this debate.

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by ktp

This isn't about climate change but I just wanted to point something out...

Parihaka:


You are happy to make claims that you know what we, the other posters, are thinking.





How do you know??? You can read our minds??? Erm, no...you don't know. Only slightly contradictory my friend..

I'm not your friend, and if your only contribution is to run a commentary on what I have to say, perhaps you should consider a role in repertory as the narrator.

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by parihaka

Well yes, except for both the array and the earth to not be blocking each other the array needs to be beside the earth in relation to the sun, on the dawn/dusk line or terminator as some of us like to call it.

WTF? It does not have to be on the terminator, and I recommend you stop seizing on isolated technical terms to imply you know more about the topic than you do. There is no One Way that solar must be set up. I favour geosynchronous polar orbits precisely to maintina constancy of supply and obviate shadowing. This is kiddie stuff, considering that all of these matters were discussed in detail when Clarke published his proposal for polar sats in 1950. In other words, this is Old News, and a problem long solved.

Setting aside this pseudo-scientific gibberish....

As I re-posted, I'm not concerned about the solar panels leading to mass starvation due to screening the sun, I'm concerned about the mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions curtailing food production.

Thats nice. You're concerned. So am I. What has this got to do with your fucked up claim of conspiracy theories? Do you think that starvation arising from change in growing conditions due to global warming is a SUPERIOR approach to some sort of managed transition? Your alleged "concern" is so much crocodile tears.

[donquixote99]

Parihaka, point taken that you were refering, confusingly, to crop reduction due to carbon-emmisions reduction, not to crop reduction due to building of solar power satellite infrastructure, which sort of was the topic were were on. I have never advocated anything like the former, so I don't understand why you insist on putting that question to me.

Interesting and informative discussion of orbital geometry you provided. I appreciated reading it. I do not claim to know the optimum way to build and place orbital panels, any more than I have plans for a $10/lb-to-orbit spaceship in my pocket (though there are those who say they do....) The point is, it does not stike me as necessairily outlandish to believe such problems could be solved. BTW, if SPSs could be deployed in a way to reduce insoliation of earth, there's more than one reason to suspect that might be a feature, not a bug.

What I don't really get is why you feel orbital solar power is an 'enemy idea' that must be ridiculed and destroyed. Contra's tactical assessment seems rather on point, I'm afraid.

SPS simply represents, in my view, a relatively near term payoff to the long-term strategy of expanding the human economy off the planet. A huge payoff, that is. If getting from here to there is expensive, so are resource wars down here. For a trillion or two, that is, within the scale of the Iraq debacle, we could accomplish quite a lot I expect....

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by contracycle

I favour geosynchronous polar orbits precisely to maintina constancy of supply and obviate shadowing. This is kiddie stuff, considering that all of these matters were discussed in detail when Clarke published his proposal for polar sats in 1950. In other words, this is Old News, and a problem long solved.
.

A geosynchronous orbit is one that travels in the direction opposite to the rotation of the earth on or near the equator, such that it appears in the same place in the sky once a day, hence synchronous.
How do you propose to maintain any sort of orbit (and I thing you're meaning geostationary here) directly above the axis of rotation of the earth? As regards dear old Arthur C, perhaps you are referring to polar orbits, where the satellites pass over the poles?

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

SPS simply represents, in my view, a relatively near term payoff to the long-term strategy of expanding the human economy off the planet. A huge payoff, that is. If getting from here to there is expensive, so are resource wars down here. For a trillion or two, that is, within the scale of the Iraq debacle, we could accomplish quite a lot I expect....

Couldn't agree more in a 100 to 150 year time scale, when we can move off-planet with production so the power can be directly transfered to the factories in space.
As I'm trying and obviously failing to point out here, to beam the power to earth the array must be in geostationary orbit. It's impossible to maintain a large array in geostationary orbit without shading the earth if that power has to be beamed to earth, despite contracycles memories of Arthur C Clarkes writings.

I'm also trying to point out that with current technology, to make any meaningful contribution to earths power requirements that array has to be very large indeed.
So, in the current context of the desire of large amounts of the worlds population to drastically reduce our oil based economy, you either have to drastically reduce production of all types, or develop alternatives in the immediate, not long term. The arrays are a future posibility, not something that can be deployed now, hence to claim them as an alternative to say Nuclear power now, isn't even close to being an option.

Perhaps another way of looking at it without having to go into the physics is this: The ISS, a project America, Canada, the EU, Russia and Japan are all actively involved with is still not completed 9 years after it started, and that is a tiny fraction of a percentage of the effort necessary to build an array just to provide for the US's energy needs.

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by contracycle

And if you were paying attention, which you weren't, you would know that these issues are as old as the problem of global warming, and have been in discussion since the 70's. But you choose to be ignorant so that you can maintain your venom.
.

Good, then perhaps you'll actually answer the question.

Which are the hundreds of millions of people you've got picked out to let starve to death when the cost of efficient mass production of food goes through the roof?

[Justin]

Some posts with blatant violations of Rule 1.1 have been moved to the Hole. Sorry if this screws up the continuity of the thread a bit, but personal attacks are not acceptable.

-Justin

[Fredfredson]

A geosynchronous orbit is one that travels in the direction opposite to the rotation of the earth on or near the equator, such that it appears in the same place in the sky once a day, hence synchronous.

Ummm...

Where did you get that from?

Geosynchronous Orbit

Refers to the orbit in which the speed of a satellite’s orbit is synchronized with the speed of the earth’s rotation so that they are always positioned above the same spot on the earth. ...
www.novastars.com/vsat/vsat-glossary%20.htm

Which is also called "geostationary".

Also known as the Clarke Circular orbit, which is cool.

F