Quote from: MileHigh on December 10, 2015, 10:27:58 PM
...Personally I don't give much credence to global drought/global warming/global cooling, etc, etc.  The media is way too hysterical when it comes to things like that.  There was a "mini ice age" in the 19th century and we are all still here.

20 years ago global warming was a figment of our imagination and now it's a technical problem. I guess that's progress but it's that slooooow progress that worries me. I haven't heard the media say hardly a thing about the global water shortage. I've heard some about the local water shortage and how we can only water our lawns twice a week now but that's about it. I found out about the global scale of it on my own and came to the conclusion it's a little more than a technical problem. Google NASA and global water shortage and you'll get a few hits that seems factual.

Here's just one...
https://www.rt.com/news/202311-nasa-drought-world-groundwater/

"Vanishing groundwater will translate to major declines in agricultural productivity and energy production, with the potential for skyrocketing food prices and profound economic and political ramifications." from  James Famiglietti, a leading hydrologist at JPL.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 10, 2015, 10:27:58 PM
...There was a "mini ice age" in the 19th century and we are all still here.

Climate change is a technical issue and a mini ice age is not a big deal? A lot more people are on this planet now then there were during the 19th century and a lot more would die in such an ice age. Would be nice if we could help prevent it or slow it down instead of helping it along like we have been doing. Not much else to say other than that's exactly the kind of sloooow thinking that helped get us here in the first place. I suppose it's better than the other 90% that don't think at all except for wondering what the next I-phone is going to look like. Hope they start rolling out those mega solar panel arrays of yours soon. We needed them yesterday.

As for the EESD, I hope it works out or we at least learn from it.

If you recall, perhaps two years ago people were talking about "peak oil" and oil was perhaps $100 a barrel.  The "commonly accepted knowledge" was that oil would remain above $100 a barrel for five or ten years or more, and it might even hit $150 or $200 a barrel.  Everybody "knew" this.  Now oil is $35 a barrel.

Many predictions related to climate change from 10 or 15 years ago that the "commonly accepted knowledge" said were going to occur in fact never happened.  The antarctic ice sheet is very large right now.   In my opinion you need at least 100 years worth of climate data to say there is a definitive trend.  The reason for this is that the Earth is so massive, it simply takes very long time scales to be sure you are really seeing a trend.

Quote from: MileHigh on December 11, 2015, 11:18:12 PM
If you recall, perhaps two years ago people were talking about "peak oil" and oil was perhaps $100 a barrel.  The "commonly accepted knowledge" was that oil would remain above $100 a barrel for five or ten years or more, and it might even hit $150 or $200 a barrel.  Everybody "knew" this.  Now oil is $35 a barrel.

Many predictions related to climate change from 10 or 15 years ago that the "commonly accepted knowledge" said were going to occur in fact never happened.  The antarctic ice sheet is very large right now.   In my opinion you need at least 100 years worth of climate data to say there is a definitive trend.  The reason for this is that the Earth is so massive, it simply takes very long time scales to be sure you are really seeing a trend.

Even 100 years could be short if there's 40 year cycles...
https://youtu.be/QiM_gLRIuGc?t=37m17s (from 37:17 to 38:20 or so don't really need to see the whole hour)

Quote from: MileHigh on December 11, 2015, 11:18:12 PM
...Everybody "knew" this.  Now oil is $35 a barrel.

Many predictions related to climate change from 10 or 15 years ago that the "commonly accepted knowledge" said were going to occur in fact never happened.  The antarctic ice sheet is very large right now.   In my opinion you need at least 100 years worth of climate data to say there is a definitive trend.  The reason for this is that the Earth is so massive, it simply takes very long time scales to be sure you are really seeing a trend.

The oil price is down thanks to fracking or it would be high. We need a hundred years of data but that NASA link I posted shows the water table going from green to red in just 12 years? Government red tape is great at wasting years and millions of $ on studies that tell us what a child could figure out. I don't think rising sea levels are a disputable prediction anymore. If we can affect the worlds rotation for just 1.7% of a cities energy needs, I'd like to think we are capable of doing a hell of a lot more to affect this planet in a positive way than we currently are. I hope you are right but I just don't see it.

I hope to do my part soon in crushing up some Graphene and seeing how much unicorn energy can be pulled out of this place.

Final comments on Robert Murray Smith's stuff.  I finally managed to watch his second long clip.

This is the offending clip where he fails to measure the energy per unit of weight in his device by making the outrageous error of not multiplying the voltage times the current times the time to calculate the energy in his B type EESD device.

A Perspective On The B Type EESD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-aOPQ9_MyM

One day later, he makes this clip:

A Perspective On The C type EESD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cDvzuP72Ac

He claims victory in this clip but I am not so sure, but I haven't watched all of his videos.  My preliminary feeling is that the "C type EESD" is much closer to a chemical battery than it is to a capacitor.  If that's true, then he is comparing a chemical battery to a capacitor which is not fair.

In this second clip he encourages the viewers to multiply voltage times current times the time to calculate the energy in his C type EESD device.

So the man makes what amounts to a 180-degree about face between his "retarded" B Type EESD clip (where he proves nothing to back up his claim) and his "sensible" (but possibly skewed battery-capacitor comparison) C type EESD clip.