Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/
Can any scientists on here come to any conclusions on drought ?
Looks highly variable to me.
I'm no scientist, but it looks cyclic to me, probably those terrible twins, el nino and la nina
There will soon be many GW churches up and running here by tbe sounds of it.
No one can verify this GW we just take it purely on trust their scientists have got their calculations correct.
Religion is based on trust for most unless you have some type of spiritual connection going on with God.
I guess it can also be true that most of the Extinction Rebellion crowd (outside of the paid shills) have some type
of supernatural connection with their scientists that enables them to have this truly unwavering devotion to their science that once again cannot in any way be practically verified by the public.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
There will soon be many GW churches up and running here by tbe sounds of it.
No one can verify this GW we just take it purely on trust their scientists have got their calculations correct.
Religion is based on trust for most unless you have some type of spiritual connection going on with God.
I guess it can also be true that most of the Extinction Rebellion crowd (outside of the paid shills) have some type
of supernatural connection with their scientists that enables them to have this truly unwavering devotion to their science that once again cannot in any way be practically verified by the public.
Can you practically verify the existence of your god Pete ?
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
There will soon be many GW churches up and running here by tbe sounds of it.
No one can verify this GW we just take it purely on trust their scientists have got their calculations correct.
Religion is based on trust for most unless you have some type of spiritual connection going on with God.
I guess it can also be true that most of the Extinction Rebellion crowd (outside of the paid shills) have some type
of supernatural connection with their scientists that enables them to have this truly unwavering devotion to their science that once again cannot in any way be practically verified by the public.
YES! Good man! Is totally a religion which justifies their dishonesty and their bullying............the media largely responsible, ALWAYS maximising disaster etc. see YouTube "How not to be ignorant about the World" They take gloom and doom - more starvation; girls not going to school; more poor people etc and DEBUNK them all, AND Chimps getting the answers BETTER than Swedes!!! Ha, ha.
The Chimps do not read the paper or watch TV so not force fed lies/exaggerations.
Off topic, I present a Prize to Chris 249 for being the silliest alarmist out there. His prize? 3 weeks in Canadian Arctic. He knows only a few skinny polar bears left, so no need for a rifle, eh? By the way, polar bears are BLACK with white fur Unafraid of fire which they have never seen.
While there, Chris, if you last longer than 20 minutes, look for Inukshuks - piles of rocks in the shape of a man; the longer arm points towards shelter.
(My son maintained the medevac planes up there. Cost $5,000+ just to open the hangar doors!! Kind of neat place - no number plates; guns everywhere. Much drinking and murders. Average sentence 4 years for murder. Some have killed 5 people. Can get in 4 by 4 and just DRIVE ANYWHERE. No roads. Bug city!)
Probably 50,000 bears now, up from 7,000 in 1950. Even pessimists say 28,000.
And the walruses falling of cliffs due to GW? Lookit! Their number around 300,000 now but will crash to 25,000. They have vacuumed up all the fish, and being stupid animals, insist on gathering in crowded groups while miles of beach empty.
Yes, stop pissing away money on this alt. energy rubbish..........here the Gov giving $15,000 to rich people to help them buy Teslas! Makes SO much sense, eh?
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..kilo54 said..
You obviously do not understand what positive feedback is. It is RUNAWAY. Faster and faster. Would mean all the oceans would have evaporated.
Wrong, idiot.
Positive feedback does not have to be exponential.
A simple example, based on what you have been telling us about how rich you are, would be that some commoner gives you better gifts than they would give somebody poorer because of your status. So you get a bit richer. Positive feedback.
Seems you have some understanding challenges. Never said i am rich, though have moved Tranches of $200K around. "Never move all at once. Tranche by tranche."
By DEFINITION, "PF is when output exceeds input, so making the next cycle bigger and bigger." How are you on exponential functions?
And then "exponential function to the power of minus j omega t?" Omega being the angular velocity of course.
Lookit. If not going runaway, then not PF, regardless of what the poorly educated Google entry says.
"Google, what is the cause of GW?" Man made CO2. several times. Bollocks. How about unspellable Russian guy planet cycles? Interaction of the 2 magnetic Sun fields? Decrease in cloud cover (200 times more forcing than CO2.) Synodic Resonance; fluctuations in cosmic rays?
Go to your alarmist church. Stop ALL CO2 emissions outside China/India. CO2 will continue to INCREASE. So WHY bother? Expensive GESTURES; useless!
Heard of King Canute? Sits on throne in surf, "Tide stop!" Now, did it? Hm>
The public showing they've had their fill of these zealots. Then again they may well be paid shills.
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/17/watch-climate-protesters-climbing-london-underground-trains-physically-removed-angry-public/
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..Foghorn said..
www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/
Can any scientists on here come to any conclusions on drought ?
Looks highly variable to me.
I'm no scientist, but it looks cyclic to me, probably those terrible twins, el nino and la nina
Surely the govt can interpret this and encourage them to build more dams.It would be an economic stimulus package after all.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
How about unspellable Russian guy planet cycles? Interaction of the 2 magnetic Sun fields? Decrease in cloud cover (200 times more forcing than CO2.) Synodic Resonance; fluctuations in cosmic rays?
It appears that our govt is quietly betting in this direction. It might be a long shot, call Robbie Waterhouse for the odds, he'll take a bet on anything. A big fear of climate scientists might be a run of 3 mild summers and cold winters. Maybe just a blip in the scheme of things or maybe not just a blip? Wouldn't matter, still disastrous.
Anyway Mr Milankovitch would say our interglacial has peaked and a 100,000 yr cold spell is waiting to sneak in.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
The public showing they've had their fill of these zealots. Then again they may well be paid shills.
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/17/watch-climate-protesters-climbing-london-underground-trains-physically-removed-angry-public/
breitbart.com is alt right wing trash
I see where you are getting persuaded
At least they get paid for pumping out the trash
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Ian K said..
Give him a green thumb.
Not so fast.
Insulating roof doesn't make any sense.New homes should be designed in such way to utilize solar panels as a roofing structure in first place.
Putting ceramic tiles, insulating beneath, then drilling holes and installing solar panel damaging all below, that is how homes are done today.In few years from now , homes will have completely flat roof at specific angle to the sun, to capture the most of the light.Solar panel will be build in long strips, insulated already at the bottom and will serve as construction material.
No need for tiles or steel roofing.
New panels could provide all: structural strength, insulation, carry water, produce electricity.
Amazingly nobody invented yet such solar panel that meet all those tasks above.
We need possibly another Nobel Prize Winner, Tesla size inventor , Elon Musk entrepreneur to make such simple panels possible.
Solar panels have a limited life. It makes more sense to fix them to a more or less permanent roof.
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..>>By DEFINITION, "PF is when output exceeds input, so making the next cycle bigger and bigger."
Hmm I need to think about that.
So what is it when Jimi is only getting reverb? It;s exactly the same effect but not enough gain to be sustaining, all he has to do is move the guitar a cm or so closer to the speaker, and it becomes self sustaining. How can the constantly singing guitar be caused by a different effect than the reverb guitar??????
So I think your definition is misleading.
I like this better.
PF is when the output is increasing the input.
If the gain isn't high enough it doesn't necessarily go into oscillation.
Soo had a few more thought,s "when output exceeds input", is a definition of amplification, not positive feedback.
if the output of an amplifier with a gain greater than 1 is fed back in phase to the input then you get oscillation.
But if you only feed back a small percentage of the output, or if the amplifier gain is less than 1 then you probably don't get oscillation.
This is important to get right, as it's a major factor in the "tipping point" worry. At the moment climate change is still controllable, if we hit the runaway point it won't be.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..kilo54 said..>>By DEFINITION, "PF is when output exceeds input, so making the next cycle bigger and bigger."
Hmm I need to think about that.
So what is it when Jimi is only getting reverb? It;s exactly the same effect but not enough gain to be sustaining, all he has to do is move the guitar a cm or so closer to the speaker, and it becomes self sustaining. How can the constantly singing guitar be caused by a different effect than the reverb guitar??????
So I think your definition is misleading.
I like this better.
PF is when the output is increasing the input.
If the gain isn't high enough it doesn't necessarily go into oscillation.
Audio feedback is a special case, a 360 phase lag in the system. Jimi gets a mention.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_feedback
Well I guess the ice disappearing is also a special case, the similarity is how the effect can be self sustaining.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Not so fast.
Insulating roof doesn't make any sense.New homes should be designed in such way to utilize solar panels as a roofing structure in first place.
Putting ceramic tiles, insulating beneath, then drilling holes and installing solar panel damaging all below, that is how homes are done today.In few years from now , homes will have completely flat roof at specific angle to the sun, to capture the most of the light.Solar panel will be build in long strips, insulated already at the bottom and will serve as construction material.
No need for tiles or steel roofing.
New panels could provide all: structural strength, insulation, carry water, produce electricity.
Amazingly nobody invented yet such solar panel that meet all those tasks above.
Mehh, maybe people will, maybe they won't. Sometimes looks matter more than functionality. Especially when you need to consider maximum heights and all the other council requirements.
I avoided installing a solar hot water system for years as my roof is made up of brittle clay tiles, until I figured out that I could just mount the panels on the flat skillion roof at the back of the house and make up stands for them to put them at the optimal angle for winter, which is when you really need the heat.
I think for Sydney the ideal angle is around 50 degrees, and in the councils development controls it allows for this. Its steeper that you would initially assume. If you had a roof pitched like this you would have to an assymetrical roof profile, which I think would look good, but a lot of people wouldn't.
I am far from up to speed on photovoltaics, but I think they can get away with less precise angles to the sun and still produce a decent percentage of their rated output. I think in a lot of cases people will advocate more panels instead of angling them correctly as its cheaper and easier.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
No one can verify this GW we just take it purely on trust their scientists have got their calculations correct.
All the data is made public for other researchers to verify it. People like yourself, if you had the time and inclination, could learn how to do that.
They call it "science". That's pretty much science in a nutshell.
Select to expand quotePoida said..
breitbart.com is alt right wing trash
The mainstream media is censoring video of the incident as it shows the majority of the public have had enough of their fanatical behaviour.
In the link I posted from Breitbart you can see footage of what happened.
The mainstream media narrative is to push the publics acceptance of ER - hence why they censor the footage of the public taking action against them.
In the only mainstream link I could find - NBC do mention the protesters being removed by the public with a 'fight' ensuing.
Not much of a fight when there's hundreds against one. Pure spin.
"Town station in east London, commuters threw drinks at one protester who was walking on top of a train before pulling him off and launching in to a fight".
www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-change-protesters-spark-fight-london-train-several-arrested-n1067966
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
There will soon be many GW churches up and running here by tbe sounds of it.
No one can verify this GW we just take it purely on trust their scientists have got their calculations correct.
Religion is based on trust for most unless you have some type of spiritual connection going on with God.
I guess it can also be true that most of the Extinction Rebellion crowd (outside of the paid shills) have some type
of supernatural connection with their scientists that enables them to have this truly unwavering devotion to their science that once again cannot in any way be practically verified by the public.
It seems to me that in a situation of uncertainty that one should follow the precautionary principle.
Global warming deniers certainly can't be more confident than the bulk of climate science and yet they carry on as if they have been blessed by a vision from God his omniscient self. And you top that by suggesting those that accept the conclusions of climate science are the ones who are religiously deluded.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
The public showing they've had their fill of these zealots. Then again they may well be paid shills.
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/17/watch-climate-protesters-climbing-london-underground-trains-physically-removed-angry-public/
I agree with you. But it is more that the media makes money from disasters/terror/FEAR. These sons of bitches are making us WASTE trillions JUST so they can make cash. **** them! Time for some SCHOOLING for them!
Off topic, here, a long piece. The alarmists have a wishy washy vision but do not bother running the numbers. This article DOES! The Loonies are driving the bus - they are lazy, poorly educated, not very bright, regurgitating the pap the media feeds them.
Want California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona completely COVERED in solar cells?
WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050
Contributed by Robert Lyman ? May 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robert Lyman is an energy economist with 27 years' experience and was also a public servant and diplomat.
A number of environmental groups in Canada and other countries have recently endorsed the "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS)" vision articulated in reports written by Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucci and others. This vision seeks to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) in the world by 2050. Jacobson, Delucci et. al. have published "all-sector energy roadmaps" in which they purport to show how each of 139 countries could attain the WWS goal. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the 100% goal is feasible. While a range of renewable energy technologies (e.g. geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and wave energy) could play a role in the global transformation, the world foreseen in the WWS vision would be dominated by wind and solar energy.
Of 53,535 gigawatts (GW) of new electrical energy generation sources to be built, onshore and offshore wind turbines would supply 19,000 GW (35.4%), solar photovoltaic (PV) plants would supply 17,100 GW (32%) and Concentrated Solar Power plants (CSP) would supply 14,700 GW (27.5%). This would cost $100 trillion, or $3,571 for every household on the planet.
Western Europe has extensive experience with investments in renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. By the end of 2014, the generating capacity of renewable energy plants there was about 216 GW, 22% of Europe's capacity, but because of the intermittent nature of renewable energy production, the actual output was only 3.8% of Europe's requirements. The capital costs of renewable energy plants are almost 30 times as high as those of the natural gas plants that could have been built instead; when operating costs are also taken into account, onshore wind plants are 4.6 times as expensive as gas plants and large-scale PV plants are 14.1 times as expensive as gas plants. Wind and solar energy is not "dispatchable" (i.e. capable of varying production quickly to meet changing demand), which results in serious problems - the need to backup renewables with conventional generation plants to avoid shortfalls in supply, and the frequent need to dump surplus generation on the export market at a loss.
The current energy system in the United States, Canada and globally is heavily dependent on fossil fuels - they generally supply over 80% of existing energy needs in developed countries and over 87% in the world as a whole. Currently, wind and solar energy sources constitute only one-third of one per cent of global energy supply. The financial costs of building the 100% renewable energy world are enormous, but the land area needed to accommodate such diffuse sources of energy supply is just as daunting.
Accommodating the 46,480 solar PV plants envisioned for the U.S. in the WWS vision would take up 650,720 square miles, almost 20% of the lower 48 states. This is close in size to the combined areas of Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada. A 1000-megawatt (MV) wind farm would use up to 360 square miles of land to produce the same amount of energy as a 1000-MV nuclear plant. To meet 8% of the U.K.'s energy needs, one would have to build 44,000 offshore wind turbines; these would have an area of 13,000 square miles, which would fill the entire 3000 km coastline of the U.K. with a strip 4 km wide.
To replace the 440 MW of U.S. generation expected to be retired over the next 25 years, it would take 29.3 billion solar PV panels and 4.4 million battery modules. The area covered by these panels would be equal to that of the state of New Jersey. To produce this many panels, it would take 929 years, assuming they could be built at the pace of one per second. The WWS roadmap for the U.S. calls for 3,637 CSP plants to be built. It would be extremely difficult to find that many sites suitable for a CSP plant. Packed together, they would fill an area of 8,439 square miles, about the area of Metropolitan New York. They would require the manufacture of 63,647,500 mirrors; if they could be manufactured one every ten seconds, it would take 21 years to build that many mirrors.
The proponents of WWS grossly under-estimate the costs of integrating renewable energy sources into the electricity system. The additional costs of backup generation, storage, load balancing and transmission would be enormous. The WWS scenario calls for 39,263 5-MW wind installations in Canada at a cost of $273 billion for the onshore wind generation alone. Building a national backbone of 735 kV transmission lines would cost at least CDN $104 billion and take 20 years to complete.
The WWS includes a call to shut down all coal, oil and natural gas production. It implies the closing of all emissions intensive industries, such as mining, petrochemicals, refining, cement, and auto and parts manufacturing. The political and regional backlash against such policies in a country like Canada would threaten Confederation. In short, the WWS vision is based on an unrealistic assessment of the market readiness of a wide range of key technologies. Attaining the vision is not feasible today in technological, economic or political terms.
QED.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
The public showing they've had their fill of these zealots. Then again they may well be paid shills.
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/17/watch-climate-protesters-climbing-london-underground-trains-physically-removed-angry-public/
I agree with you. But it is more that the media makes money from disasters/terror/FEAR. These sons of bitches are making us WASTE trillions JUST so they can make cash. **** them! Time for some SCHOOLING for them!
Off topic, here, a long piece. The alarmists have a wishy washy vision but do not bother running the numbers. This article DOES! The Loonies are driving the bus - they are lazy, poorly educated, not very bright, regurgitating the pap the media feeds them.
Want California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona completely COVERED in solar cells?
WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050
Contributed by Robert Lyman ? May 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robert Lyman is an energy economist with 27 years' experience and was also a public servant and diplomat.
A number of environmental groups in Canada and other countries have recently endorsed the "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS)" vision articulated in reports written by Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucci and others. This vision seeks to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) in the world by 2050. Jacobson, Delucci et. al. have published "all-sector energy roadmaps" in which they purport to show how each of 139 countries could attain the WWS goal. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the 100% goal is feasible. While a range of renewable energy technologies (e.g. geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and wave energy) could play a role in the global transformation, the world foreseen in the WWS vision would be dominated by wind and solar energy.
Of 53,535 gigawatts (GW) of new electrical energy generation sources to be built, onshore and offshore wind turbines would supply 19,000 GW (35.4%), solar photovoltaic (PV) plants would supply 17,100 GW (32%) and Concentrated Solar Power plants (CSP) would supply 14,700 GW (27.5%). This would cost $100 trillion, or $3,571 for every household on the planet.
Western Europe has extensive experience with investments in renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. By the end of 2014, the generating capacity of renewable energy plants there was about 216 GW, 22% of Europe's capacity, but because of the intermittent nature of renewable energy production, the actual output was only 3.8% of Europe's requirements. The capital costs of renewable energy plants are almost 30 times as high as those of the natural gas plants that could have been built instead; when operating costs are also taken into account, onshore wind plants are 4.6 times as expensive as gas plants and large-scale PV plants are 14.1 times as expensive as gas plants. Wind and solar energy is not "dispatchable" (i.e. capable of varying production quickly to meet changing demand), which results in serious problems - the need to backup renewables with conventional generation plants to avoid shortfalls in supply, and the frequent need to dump surplus generation on the export market at a loss.
The current energy system in the United States, Canada and globally is heavily dependent on fossil fuels - they generally supply over 80% of existing energy needs in developed countries and over 87% in the world as a whole. Currently, wind and solar energy sources constitute only one-third of one per cent of global energy supply. The financial costs of building the 100% renewable energy world are enormous, but the land area needed to accommodate such diffuse sources of energy supply is just as daunting.
Accommodating the 46,480 solar PV plants envisioned for the U.S. in the WWS vision would take up 650,720 square miles, almost 20% of the lower 48 states. This is close in size to the combined areas of Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada. A 1000-megawatt (MV) wind farm would use up to 360 square miles of land to produce the same amount of energy as a 1000-MV nuclear plant. To meet 8% of the U.K.'s energy needs, one would have to build 44,000 offshore wind turbines; these would have an area of 13,000 square miles, which would fill the entire 3000 km coastline of the U.K. with a strip 4 km wide.
To replace the 440 MW of U.S. generation expected to be retired over the next 25 years, it would take 29.3 billion solar PV panels and 4.4 million battery modules. The area covered by these panels would be equal to that of the state of New Jersey. To produce this many panels, it would take 929 years, assuming they could be built at the pace of one per second. The WWS roadmap for the U.S. calls for 3,637 CSP plants to be built. It would be extremely difficult to find that many sites suitable for a CSP plant. Packed together, they would fill an area of 8,439 square miles, about the area of Metropolitan New York. They would require the manufacture of 63,647,500 mirrors; if they could be manufactured one every ten seconds, it would take 21 years to build that many mirrors.
The proponents of WWS grossly under-estimate the costs of integrating renewable energy sources into the electricity system. The additional costs of backup generation, storage, load balancing and transmission would be enormous. The WWS scenario calls for 39,263 5-MW wind installations in Canada at a cost of $273 billion for the onshore wind generation alone. Building a national backbone of 735 kV transmission lines would cost at least CDN $104 billion and take 20 years to complete.
The WWS includes a call to shut down all coal, oil and natural gas production. It implies the closing of all emissions intensive industries, such as mining, petrochemicals, refining, cement, and auto and parts manufacturing. The political and regional backlash against such policies in a country like Canada would threaten Confederation. In short, the WWS vision is based on an unrealistic assessment of the market readiness of a wide range of key technologies. Attaining the vision is not feasible today in technological, economic or political terms.
QED.Select to expand quotedecrepit said..kilo54 said..>>By DEFINITION, "PF is when output exceeds input, so making the next cycle bigger and bigger."
Hmm I need to think about that.
So what is it when Jimi is only getting reverb? It;s exactly the same effect but not enough gain to be sustaining, all he has to do is move the guitar a cm or so closer to the speaker, and it becomes self sustaining. How can the constantly singing guitar be caused by a different effect than the reverb guitar??????
So I think your definition is misleading.
I like this better.
PF is when the output is increasing the input.
If the gain isn't high enough it doesn't necessarily go into oscillation.
Soo had a few more thought,s "when output exceeds input", is a definition of amplification, not positive feedback.
if the output of an amplifier with a gain greater than 1 is fed back in phase to the input then you get oscillation.
But if you only feed back a small percentage of the output, or if the amplifier gain is less than 1 then you probably don't get oscillation.
This is important to get right, as it's a major factor in the "tipping point" worry. At the moment climate change is still controllable, if we hit the runaway point it won't be.
What do you mean about the definition of Positive Feedback?
Who the hell are you to make your own definition? Electronic feedback NOT what we are talking about at all!
The output exceeds the input making a new larger input with an even LARGER output et seq. . Burning might appear to be PF but is NOT because a chemical reaction taking place.
It appears you may be a musician. Leave the science stuff to scientists.
Even Google (operated by grade 10 students it seems!), when asked for examples of PF comes up with, "Giving oxytocin to women in labour."
Talk about fartless, useless. (If you give rag soaked in oxytocin to a woman to sniff, supposedly they have a series of violent orgasms! Would like to check it out. Is available at Pharmacies.)
Want interesting stuff? Entropy - "The tendency to disorder".........The energy of the Universe is a constant; the Entropy of it is increasing.
And Feynman's double slit experiment - "The most beautiful Physics experiment"...........if a HUMAN looks at which slit used, the interference pattern disappears (4 times FASTER than light!!!), BUT if a dog looks, the pattern stays!!!
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
And Feynman's double slit experiment - "The most beautiful Physics experiment"...........if a HUMAN looks at which slit used, the interference pattern disappears (4 times FASTER than light!!!), BUT if a dog looks, the pattern stays!!!
Proof you're a troll. If I was charitable, I'd say nuts.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..kilo54 said..
And Feynman's double slit experiment - "The most beautiful Physics experiment"...........if a HUMAN looks at which slit used, the interference pattern disappears (4 times FASTER than light!!!), BUT if a dog looks, the pattern stays!!!
Proof you're a troll. If I was charitable, I'd say nuts.
Hey that's a bit harsh. To be fair, the dogs could have been lying to him!
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..petermac33 said..
The public showing they've had their fill of these zealots. Then again they may well be paid shills.
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/17/watch-climate-protesters-climbing-london-underground-trains-physically-removed-angry-public/
I agree with you. But it is more that the media makes money from disasters/terror/FEAR. These sons of bitches are making us WASTE trillions JUST so they can make cash. **** them! Time for some SCHOOLING for them!
Off topic, here, a long piece. The alarmists have a wishy washy vision but do not bother running the numbers. This article DOES! The Loonies are driving the bus - they are lazy, poorly educated, not very bright, regurgitating the pap the media feeds them.
Want California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona completely COVERED in solar cells?
WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050
Contributed by Robert Lyman ? May 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Robert Lyman is an energy economist with 27 years' experience and was also a public servant and diplomat.
A number of environmental groups in Canada and other countries have recently endorsed the "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS)" vision articulated in reports written by Mark Jacobson, Mark Delucci and others. This vision seeks to eliminate the use of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) in the world by 2050. Jacobson, Delucci et. al. have published "all-sector energy roadmaps" in which they purport to show how each of 139 countries could attain the WWS goal. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the 100% goal is feasible. While a range of renewable energy technologies (e.g. geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and wave energy) could play a role in the global transformation, the world foreseen in the WWS vision would be dominated by wind and solar energy.
Of 53,535 gigawatts (GW) of new electrical energy generation sources to be built, onshore and offshore wind turbines would supply 19,000 GW (35.4%), solar photovoltaic (PV) plants would supply 17,100 GW (32%) and Concentrated Solar Power plants (CSP) would supply 14,700 GW (27.5%). This would cost $100 trillion, or $3,571 for every household on the planet.
Western Europe has extensive experience with investments in renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. By the end of 2014, the generating capacity of renewable energy plants there was about 216 GW, 22% of Europe's capacity, but because of the intermittent nature of renewable energy production, the actual output was only 3.8% of Europe's requirements. The capital costs of renewable energy plants are almost 30 times as high as those of the natural gas plants that could have been built instead; when operating costs are also taken into account, onshore wind plants are 4.6 times as expensive as gas plants and large-scale PV plants are 14.1 times as expensive as gas plants. Wind and solar energy is not "dispatchable" (i.e. capable of varying production quickly to meet changing demand), which results in serious problems - the need to backup renewables with conventional generation plants to avoid shortfalls in supply, and the frequent need to dump surplus generation on the export market at a loss.
The current energy system in the United States, Canada and globally is heavily dependent on fossil fuels - they generally supply over 80% of existing energy needs in developed countries and over 87% in the world as a whole. Currently, wind and solar energy sources constitute only one-third of one per cent of global energy supply. The financial costs of building the 100% renewable energy world are enormous, but the land area needed to accommodate such diffuse sources of energy supply is just as daunting.
Accommodating the 46,480 solar PV plants envisioned for the U.S. in the WWS vision would take up 650,720 square miles, almost 20% of the lower 48 states. This is close in size to the combined areas of Texas, California, Arizona, and Nevada. A 1000-megawatt (MV) wind farm would use up to 360 square miles of land to produce the same amount of energy as a 1000-MV nuclear plant. To meet 8% of the U.K.'s energy needs, one would have to build 44,000 offshore wind turbines; these would have an area of 13,000 square miles, which would fill the entire 3000 km coastline of the U.K. with a strip 4 km wide.
To replace the 440 MW of U.S. generation expected to be retired over the next 25 years, it would take 29.3 billion solar PV panels and 4.4 million battery modules. The area covered by these panels would be equal to that of the state of New Jersey. To produce this many panels, it would take 929 years, assuming they could be built at the pace of one per second. The WWS roadmap for the U.S. calls for 3,637 CSP plants to be built. It would be extremely difficult to find that many sites suitable for a CSP plant. Packed together, they would fill an area of 8,439 square miles, about the area of Metropolitan New York. They would require the manufacture of 63,647,500 mirrors; if they could be manufactured one every ten seconds, it would take 21 years to build that many mirrors.
The proponents of WWS grossly under-estimate the costs of integrating renewable energy sources into the electricity system. The additional costs of backup generation, storage, load balancing and transmission would be enormous. The WWS scenario calls for 39,263 5-MW wind installations in Canada at a cost of $273 billion for the onshore wind generation alone. Building a national backbone of 735 kV transmission lines would cost at least CDN $104 billion and take 20 years to complete.
The WWS includes a call to shut down all coal, oil and natural gas production. It implies the closing of all emissions intensive industries, such as mining, petrochemicals, refining, cement, and auto and parts manufacturing. The political and regional backlash against such policies in a country like Canada would threaten Confederation. In short, the WWS vision is based on an unrealistic assessment of the market readiness of a wide range of key technologies. Attaining the vision is not feasible today in technological, economic or political terms.
QED.decrepit said..kilo54 said..>>By DEFINITION, "PF is when output exceeds input, so making the next cycle bigger and bigger."
Hmm I need to think about that.
So what is it when Jimi is only getting reverb? It;s exactly the same effect but not enough gain to be sustaining, all he has to do is move the guitar a cm or so closer to the speaker, and it becomes self sustaining. How can the constantly singing guitar be caused by a different effect than the reverb guitar??????
So I think your definition is misleading.
I like this better.
PF is when the output is increasing the input.
If the gain isn't high enough it doesn't necessarily go into oscillation.
Soo had a few more thought,s "when output exceeds input", is a definition of amplification, not positive feedback.
if the output of an amplifier with a gain greater than 1 is fed back in phase to the input then you get oscillation.
But if you only feed back a small percentage of the output, or if the amplifier gain is less than 1 then you probably don't get oscillation.
This is important to get right, as it's a major factor in the "tipping point" worry. At the moment climate change is still controllable, if we hit the runaway point it won't be.
What do you mean about the definition of Positive Feedback?
Who the hell are you to make your own definition? Electronic feedback NOT what we are talking about at all!
The output exceeds the input making a new larger input with an even LARGER output et seq. . Burning might appear to be PF but is NOT because a chemical reaction taking place.
It appears you may be a musician. Leave the science stuff to scientists.
Even Google (operated by grade 10 students it seems!), when asked for examples of PF comes up with, "Giving oxytocin to women in labour."
Talk about fartless, useless. (If you give rag soaked in oxytocin to a woman to sniff, supposedly they have a series of violent orgasms! Would like to check it out. Is available at Pharmacies.)
Want interesting stuff? Entropy - "The tendency to disorder".........The energy of the Universe is a constant; the Entropy of it is increasing.
And Feynman's double slit experiment - "The most beautiful Physics experiment"...........if a HUMAN looks at which slit used, the interference pattern disappears (4 times FASTER than light!!!), BUT if a dog looks, the pattern stays!!!
That'd be Robert Lyman of the Heartland Institute, a totally unbiased source, not.
Positive feedback is not synonymous with runaway feedback. Runaway feedback is a class of positive feedback. Reminds me of a quote from some bloke "Who are you to make up your own definition? Leave the science stuff to scientists" or at least look it up before mouthing off.
Oxytocin is not implicated in climate science as far as I know. Why do you raise the topics of entropy and "Feynman's double slit experiment"? (Young was the author of that by the way) That's an interesting take but its bollocks just the same. That too reminds me a quote from the same bloke "Leave the science stuff to scientists" or at least look it up before mouthing off.
You're not trying to impress us with your scientific chops now are you? It's painful to watch.
Select to expand quote
Positive feedback is not synonymous with runaway feedback.
It runs away more often than not. Apart from Jimi who carefully adjusted the 0 to 11 knob and dynamically varied his distance from the speaker, what other examples are there?
I remember an electronics lecturer once likened it to the double bed where the two electric blanket controls get crossed over. It only ends up one way. (Or was that the flip flop?)
Select to expand quotekilo54 said..
Who the hell are you to make your own definition? Electronic feedback NOT what we are talking about at all!
Just somebody that's been playing with feedback for the past 60years.
Yes I put it in electronic terms because that's my background. But feedback is feedback regardless, if the output affects the input you have feedback. I'm not big one remembering official definitions, and not interested in semantics, it's how stuff works that counts.
Just out of interest I checked what wikipedia has to say.
"Mathematically, positive feedback is defined as a positive loop gain around a closed loop of cause and effect.[1][3] That is, positive feedback is in phase with the input, in the sense that it adds to make the input larger.[4][5] Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations, chaotic behavior or other divergences from equilibrium.[3] System parameters will typically accelerate towards extreme values, which may damage or destroy the system, or may end with the system latched into a new stable state. Positive feedback may be controlled by signals in the system being filtered, damped, or limited, or it can be cancelled or reduced by adding negative feedback. "
Which basically says the same as I was saying only more succinctly.
For it to be runaway the gain has to exceed 1.
And adds in the chaos theory of strange attractors, that I mentioned earlier.
So Kilo, where did you get your definition from, out of your head presumably.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
>> what other examples are there?
Well luckily climate change at the moment.
Because +FB leads to instability as you say, it's rarely designed into things, so other examples are hard to come by. But I'll sleep on it and see what transpires
It's not just positive feedback we have to worry about, Our degradation of the natural negative feed back loops are also a concern.
Yes around 130000 years ago the earth was 2deg warmer, and nothing bad happened, (apart form the sea being 6m higher). But back then we weren't around as a civilisation.
Around 5,000 years ago we started to leave the sustainable hunter gather lifestyle and took up agriculture. Which led to replacing forests with crops. And the Amazon is still being cleared at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, human crops don't have the same capacity as forests to absorb CO2 and produce oxygen, so this time the earth may not recover quite as well.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Well I guess the ice disappearing is also a special case, the similarity is how the effect can be self sustaining.
97+% of the World's ice in Antarctica and Greenland, and it is not NET melting.
So LITTLE ice, that last year many Northern communities could NOT be resupplied because of, you guessed it, too MUCH ICE!!!
Only 3 ships went thru the NW passage that year. Bad this year too.
So? Less ice or more? Get a grip!........NO glaciers in S.America in 1000AD. Most glaciers in Europe were tiny in 1000AD. (you can tell from the grass etc in them.)
A glacier in Greenland moving at WALKING pace forward. Another in Iceland 2 kms in a year. Another in the Himalayas going so fast it nearly squished a village.........they prayed and it stopped!
Viking graves in SE Greenland have ROOTS in them. Today PERMAFROST. So warmer then, just ****ing maybe, eh? They exported cheese to Europe - today not a single slice exported. No cows at all. Wonder bloody why?
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..kilo54 said..
Who the hell are you to make your own definition? Electronic feedback NOT what we are talking about at all!
Just somebody that's been playing with feedback for the past 60years.
Yes I put it in electronic terms because that's my background. But feedback is feedback regardless, if the output affects the input you have feedback. I'm not big one remembering official definitions, and not interested in semantics, it's how stuff works that counts.
Just out of interest I checked what wikipedia has to say.
"Mathematically, positive feedback is defined as a positive loop gain around a closed loop of cause and effect.[1][3] That is, positive feedback is in phase with the input, in the sense that it adds to make the input larger.[4][5] Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations, chaotic behavior or other divergences from equilibrium.[3] System parameters will typically accelerate towards extreme values, which may damage or destroy the system, or may end with the system latched into a new stable state. Positive feedback may be controlled by signals in the system being filtered, damped, or limited, or it can be cancelled or reduced by adding negative feedback. "
Which basically says the same as I was saying only more succinctly.
For it to be runaway the gain has to exceed 1.
And adds in the chaos theory of strange attractors, that I mentioned earlier.
So Kilo, where did you get your definition from, out of your head presumably.
You need to reread your own words. "Exponential growth....." Got my definition from 3 years at Uni.
Wikipedia is JUNK! Write something bad about Mann and it is CHANGED within 10 minutes.
You are being doltish.. Quote me 2 examples of PF. (NOT electronic)
