Page 4 of 4

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:45 pm
by kramer
tLIB wrote:Amazing. Some one did the calculations.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that they did these calculations without clouds. Still, with clouds, we get tremendous amounts of energy from the Sun.

tLIB wrote: All we have to do now is figure out how to convert the solar energy to power and to store it. I think it can be done. Good find Kramer.
We do have a way to convert Sunlight to electricity: solar panels. But they are not too efficient, last I heard (if I'm remembering correctly), their efficiency is around 25%.

As to storing the energy, I just read the other day a plan to use trains for generating power at nighttime. The plan was to move these long trains up hills during the (sunny) days and then at night, let them roll down the hill using gravity while generators are connected to the wheels and the power from the generators sent down the tracks. -- I'm not kidding...

There's an animated TV show called "electric city" that (if I'm remembering correctly) shows the cities going into darkness at nighttime. I think this is the future for our children unless a practical way can be found to store the massive amounts of energy required at night.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 12:07 am
by tLIB
I think this is the future for our children unless a practical way can be found to store the massive amounts of energy required at night.
I have always been concerned about moving stuff around.

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:32 pm
by Luca
First off, this is a badly flawed poll. A freshman psychology major could see the defects instantaneously. For example, the question asked was:
"Do you believe global warming is a hoax, or not?"

That is a ridiculous way to ask the question. What is meant by "hoax"? The way the question is asked implies that someone who does not believe in global warming and answers "yes" - meaning only that he does not believe the earth is warming - must simplistically believe there is a sinister international conspiracy promulgating the concept. If he were to answer "no", this could be taken as an implication that he does believe in global warming. It's a crappy question and actually it appears that the poll itself is the hoax here.

There is an attempt with this article to make a political issue out of skepticism. You'll note that there is no controversy over whether cardiac output is related to myocardial cellular health, or whether gravity represents a distortion in space-time, or whether the speed of light is 186,000 mi./s, etc. etc.

One problem with the global warming issue is that climatology is not a very strong science, similar to psychology, economics, or ecology. Each of these employs a wealth of basic knowledge, careful observation, sophisticated statistical analysis........ and comes up with very weak prognostication. So maybe it's the scientific field itself that is responsible for skepticism rather than purported anti-science knuckle draggers.

Put another way, you could say that climatology is a strong science but that we are asking it to reach conclusions it is not capable of supplying, e.g., the global temperature - whatever the hell that means - 50 years from now.

To take seriously the concerns of the seriously hyperventilating environmentalists you have to have a solid answer to several questions. Which we do not:

One). Is the earth actually warming? Well, it's never static, it's always moving in one way or the other. Whether warming or cooling depends on your starting point. The earth has been warmer at some points and colder in others.

Two). If the earth is warming, is this necessarily a bad thing? Do we know whether we are better or worse off 1.2°C in either direction?

Three). If it's a bad thing, is it man-made or natural?

Four). If it is man made, can it be stopped? Can it be stopped by unilateral action on the part of the United States and Europe if China/India/the remainder of the developing world are now producing the majority of man-made change?

You have to know the answers all these questions to embark on the path outlined by the environmental fringe. We don't know them..........Luca

Re: Six Persistent Scientific Conspiracy Theories

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:36 pm
by tLIB
I agree with you Luca. There used to be tropical weather at the North Sea. Climate is always changing - one way or another.