The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To

So what? Even the most intelligent being can be wrong. Can a large majority of highly intelligent human beings be wrong all at once? Yes, but highly doubtful.

http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

All of what you post above could be true, but probably isn't. Regardless however, the thing that sets science apart from more mundane human endeavors, where personal opinions really do matter, is that in matters scientific it only takes one bright person to upset the entire apple cart.

Nir Shaviv...

Shaviv started taking courses at the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa at age 13. He graduated with a BA in physics in 1990, and finished as best in class. His prizes and awards include:
  • 1996 Wolf foundation award for excellence as PhD student
  • 1996 Lee A. DuBridge scholarship at Caltech
  • 2000 Beatrice Tremaine scholarship in Toronto
  • 2004 Siegfried Samuel Wolf lecture for nuclear physics
  • 2014 IBM Einstein Fellowship, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
The following are excerpted from the Wiki article that GRULSTMRNN gave a link to...

He is best known for his solar and cosmic-ray hypothesis of climate change. In 2002, Shaviv hypothesized that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years. In his later work, co-authored by Jan Veizer, a low upper limit was placed on the climatic effect of CO2.

His best known contribution to the field of astrophysics was to demonstrate that the Eddington luminosity is not a strict limit, namely, that astrophysical objects can be brighter than the Eddington luminosity without blowing themselves apart. This is achieved through the development of a porous atmosphere that allows the radiation to escape while exerting little force on the gas. The theory was correctly used to explain the mass-loss in Eta Carinae's giant eruption, and the evolution of classical nova eruptions.

He has also shown that the Cosmic Ray climate link explains part the faint sun paradox, since the slowly decreasing solar wind will give rise to a cooling effect that compensates the solar irradiance increase. Moreover, long term star formation activity in the Milky Way correlate with long term climate variations.

In a more recent work with Andreas Prokoph and Ján Veizer, it was argued that the reconstructed temperature has a clear 32 million year oscillation that is consistent with the solar system's motion perpendicular to the galactic plane. The oscillation also appears to have a secondary modulation consistent with the radial epicyclic motion of the solar system.

[Shaviv argues that] while sunspot activity declined after 1985, cosmic ray flux reached a minimum in 1992 and contributed to warming during the 1990s. Secondly, Shaviv argues that short term variations in radiative forcing are damped by the oceans, leading to a lag between changes in solar output and the effect on global temperatures. While the 2001 maximum was weaker than the 1990 maximum, increasing solar activity during previous decades was still having a warming effect, not unlike the lag between noon and the hottest hour of the day. Later quantitative modeling showed that indeed there is no discrepancy. The perceived "hiatus" in the early 2000s is a natural consequence of the decreased solar activity.

Shaviv denies the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. He claims that solar activity changes have contributed between half to two thirds of the warming over the 20th century, and that climate sensitivity should be on the low side ΔTx2=1.3±0.4 °C compared with IPCC's range of ΔTx2=1.5 to 4.5 °C per CO2 doubling.
 
All of what you post above could be true, but probably isn't. Regardless however, the thing that sets science apart from more mundane human endeavors, where personal opinions really do matter, is that in matters scientific it only takes one bright person to upset the entire apple cart.

Nir Shaviv...

Shaviv started taking courses at the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa at age 13. He graduated with a BA in physics in 1990, and finished as best in class. His prizes and awards include:
  • 1996 Wolf foundation award for excellence as PhD student
  • 1996 Lee A. DuBridge scholarship at Caltech
  • 2000 Beatrice Tremaine scholarship in Toronto
  • 2004 Siegfried Samuel Wolf lecture for nuclear physics
  • 2014 IBM Einstein Fellowship, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
The following are excerpted from the Wiki article that GRULSTMRNN gave a link to...

He is best known for his solar and cosmic-ray hypothesis of climate change. In 2002, Shaviv hypothesized that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years. In his later work, co-authored by Jan Veizer, a low upper limit was placed on the climatic effect of CO2.

His best known contribution to the field of astrophysics was to demonstrate that the Eddington luminosity is not a strict limit, namely, that astrophysical objects can be brighter than the Eddington luminosity without blowing themselves apart. This is achieved through the development of a porous atmosphere that allows the radiation to escape while exerting little force on the gas. The theory was correctly used to explain the mass-loss in Eta Carinae's giant eruption, and the evolution of classical nova eruptions.

He has also shown that the Cosmic Ray climate link explains part the faint sun paradox, since the slowly decreasing solar wind will give rise to a cooling effect that compensates the solar irradiance increase. Moreover, long term star formation activity in the Milky Way correlate with long term climate variations.

In a more recent work with Andreas Prokoph and Ján Veizer, it was argued that the reconstructed temperature has a clear 32 million year oscillation that is consistent with the solar system's motion perpendicular to the galactic plane. The oscillation also appears to have a secondary modulation consistent with the radial epicyclic motion of the solar system.

[Shaviv argues that] while sunspot activity declined after 1985, cosmic ray flux reached a minimum in 1992 and contributed to warming during the 1990s. Secondly, Shaviv argues that short term variations in radiative forcing are damped by the oceans, leading to a lag between changes in solar output and the effect on global temperatures. While the 2001 maximum was weaker than the 1990 maximum, increasing solar activity during previous decades was still having a warming effect, not unlike the lag between noon and the hottest hour of the day. Later quantitative modeling showed that indeed there is no discrepancy. The perceived "hiatus" in the early 2000s is a natural consequence of the decreased solar activity.

Shaviv denies the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. He claims that solar activity changes have contributed between half to two thirds of the warming over the 20th century, and that climate sensitivity should be on the low side ΔTx2=1.3±0.4 °C compared with IPCC's range of ΔTx2=1.5 to 4.5 °C per CO2 doubling.

Just watch. These people will not argue on facts because they can’t.

CO2 doubling here refers to all CO2 right. Human contribution is still only 2%. But guy with the low IQ had to bring up cyanide. Where the proper logical sequence would be - if you are gonna die from 100 inches of cyanide what does 2 inches gonna matter anyway.

Usually debates on the internet are more miss than hit. On average you get a guy with 100 IQ. and that is way too low for anything meaningful.
 
Here is why I am skeptical of "climate change":

1. Mention of taxing carbon emission. Huge red flag here.
2. If everyone is genuine about reducing carbon output, why move all the production to China where the CO2 to power efficiency is much less? Nuclear power plant would be built everywhere to replace coal plant.
3. No concrete evidence except "consensus", empty slogan like "Climate change is real", really?
 
Here is why I am skeptical of "climate change":

1. Mention of taxing carbon emission. Huge red flag here.
2. If everyone is genuine about reducing carbon output, why move all the production to China where the CO2 to power efficiency is much less? Nuclear power plant would be built everywhere to replace coal plant.
3. No concrete evidence except "consensus", empty slogan like "Climate change is real", really?
I believe your skepticism is justified. If you put science, public opinion, and the profit motive into a blender you don't get liquid gold out, you get shit.
 
I believe your skepticism is justified. If you put science, public opinion, and the profit motive into a blender you don't get liquid gold out, you get shit.
On the flip side, you could just as easily say this about anything, right. I mean we tax to support fire stations, should we suspect the fact that buildings burn down and we need fire protection? We tax to support police, should that lead us to suspect the fact that crime occurs. Or how about the biggie, responsible for the vast majority of our discretionary federal budget, the military. Talk about profit motive of the military industrial complex, does that mean that we should put "national defense" in quotes as if it's not real? And let's not start with the "lack of concrete evidence" bullshit. Let's not let the @dozu888 morons of the world pull "facts" out of their ass here. There are a bunch of things that are easy to measure and completely beyond dispute. Like the fact that the concentration of CO2 in the air has indisputably gone up by more than 40% since the industrial revolution started. And ocean acidification as a direct result of that is established fact. That's a massive experiment on a global scale. Even if one is "skeptical", given the potential for massive disruption caused by this experiment why in the world wouldn't you be in favor of putting as much effort as possible into trying to find out what the impacts will be and at the same time trying to start us down the cost curve of alternatives that don't perpetuate the experiment?
 
Just watch. These people will not argue on facts because they can’t.

CO2 doubling here refers to all CO2 right. Human contribution is still only 2%. But guy with the low IQ had to bring up cyanide. Where the proper logical sequence would be - if you are gonna die from 100 inches of cyanide what does 2 inches gonna matter anyway.

Usually debates on the internet are more miss than hit. On average you get a guy with 100 IQ. and that is way too low for anything meaningful.
Sorry, you clearly lack the intellectual capacity to hold an intelligent conversation. Ignored.
 
So what? Even the most intelligent being can be wrong. Can a large majority of highly intelligent human beings be wrong all at once? Yes, but highly doubtful.

http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
I think your argument would be a very strong one were it not that exactly the same argument can be applied to the few thousand scientists worldwide that question the validity of the Hansen Hypothesis. This number of scientists is of course far smaller than the number of scientists that are convinced that anthropomorphic CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Nevertheless, to paraphrase your own remark, how is it possible that a few thousand well trained expert scientists, including some of the most intelligent people on this Earth, can be wrong?

You'll find this article interesting. https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-contrarian-uncovers-scientific-error.html
I found it interesting in that although the article is about an error in an important scientific paper, the last sentence in the article is itself in error. The last sentence is:

"The study is still the first to confirm that the ocean is warming using a method independent of direct ocean temperature measurements."
This is bizarre. The the article is about how the probability range in the original Scripps paper in Nature was incorrectly estimated, and that the correct range is 10-70%. Such a range only allows one reasonable conclusion. And that is that the test hypothesis that the ocean is warming can neither be rejected nor accepted at any reasonable level of significance. Nevertheless, the work has at least some merit in that the novel experimental method used -- ocean surface gas analysis as a proxy measurement for ocean temperature -- is quite "interesting."
 
Last edited:
I am extremely happy to delve with you into very specific details but NOT BEFORE we can agree on some big ticket items on human caused climate change. There is zero point in arguing with a human being about calculations about aerodynamics when such human being denies the concept of gravity. So far I sense on your part a steadfast denial that humans are to a large extent responsible for changes in the climate since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Unless we can find conceptual agreement what's the use to talk about ocean temperature warming.

I think your argument would be a very strong one were it not that exactly the same argument can be applied to the few thousand scientists worldwide that question the validity of the Hansen Hypothesis. This number of scientists is of course far smaller than the number of scientists that are convinced that anthropomorphic CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Nevertheless, how is it possible that a few thousand well trained expert scientists, including some of the most intelligent people on this Earth, can be wrong?

You'll find this article interesting. https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-contrarian-uncovers-scientific-error.html
I find it interesting that although the article is about an error in an important scientific paper, the last sentence in the article is itself in error. The last sentence is:

"The study is still the first to confirm that the ocean is warming using a method independent of direct ocean temperature measurements."
This is bizarre. The the article is about how the probability range in the original Scripps paper in Nature was incorrectly estimated, and that the correct range is 10-70%. Such a range only allows one reasonable conclusion. And that is that the test hypothesis that the ocean is warming can neither be rejected nor accepted at any reasonable level of significance. Nevertheless, the work has at least some merit in that the novel experimental method used -- ocean surface gas analysis as a proxy measurement for ocean temperature -- is nevertheless quite "interesting."
 
Can a large majority of highly intelligent human beings be wrong all at once? Yes, but highly doubtful.

It's actually a fairly common occurrence. Look at all the very smart people in our industry who collectively get things wrong. The author Michael Lewis has made a very good living writing books about how large populations of smart people (the ordained experts in the field) get things very wrong - from finance to professional sports.

preface: I'm not saying that climate scientists are collectively wrong, I'm saying that we shouldn't dismiss healthy critical review. If climate scientists are so certain of their work they should welcome inquiry and not dismiss it with mean spirited tropes and disdain. After all, they are asking mankind to spend untold Trillions of dollars and to make substantial changes to their very lives, the lives of families and generations to come, to their quality of life, their homes, their property.
 
Back
Top