More like a sign of how things have always been.

As a Californian, we are constantly bombarded with stories about climate change worsening drought. They never mention this study that says climate change will significantly increase our rainfall...

https://www.nersc.gov/news-publications/nersc-news...

I guess setting new records has always been... look for new ones in the future. I just realised it, the second day of people on earth set a new record... it was either the hottest or the coldest day on earth. It's just a heads up of what could be coming. I cannot imagine 50C weather... even when I was young and skinny... I didn't like high 20s. As a Californian, you may be more vulnerable.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Having lived in California basically my entire life, I can say one thing pretty comfortably about the weather. In California, you are either:
a) In a drought
b) Just got out of a drought
c) Just about to get into another drought.

We just don't get much rain here. Granted, we do have the Sierra Nevada mountains and the associated snow pack and reservoirs that get filled by it. But, we're still very, very dry.

Also, our politicians have decided that protecting a small species of fish (the Delta Smelt) is more important than providing water to the central California farmers. If we reversed this policy, then we'd be much better off as far as our water supply goes.

And, our population is too squeamish when it goes to using reclaimed water. Our waste water processing plants have to process water to near drinkable levels to release the waste water back into streams. We'd be much better off (as far as water supply goes) if we just finished the extra processing and turned that water into water supply used in our houses. But, Californians are too "privileged" (in general) to consent to using this water in their homes.

Thanks Josh... I think things could get a lot more interesting... take a gander at Lake Mead...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Dorothea Mackellar wrote this poem about Australia, land of droughts and flooding rains, in 1904. Coincidentally, the start of our winter this year has been the coldest since 1904.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5bNhQrKay0

...with climate change, some places will remain largely the same. Other areas could get positively wild. This is likely the beginning with more change to occur. We've accomplished in decades what previously has taken millennia.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

What is interesting to me that is related to this is the urban heat island effect. This plot along radials in Melbourne shows how modern cities run crazy hot.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karyn-Bosomwo...

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (This plot along radials in Melbourne shows how modern cities run crazy hot.)

Understandably, I think... during the winter, they are adding heat to the ground and the building area has no snow cover to reflect sunlight. All year, they have a huge surface area, because of the building height, that wasn't there to catch sunlight.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Is the prevailing wind in Melbourne usually from the west? The SE side seems much hotter. Perhaps the buildings cause turbulence like wind turbines do?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1000493107

The buildings would tend to add a roughness that would prevent heat from being carried away from by wind. Any time I've looked at Ventusky, the north part seems to be the hottest. It appears to have cooled down today...

https://www.ventusky.com/?p=-0;109;2&l=tempera...



Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

I wonder how well this will work?

https://gwynnedyer.com/2022/how-to-stop-sea-level-...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Well not being a Californian, I could not possibly have any clue about the impacts of drought, fire, water-intensive farming, overpopulation, brownouts, endless freeways, etc. so I can't comment.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

ironic... there may be changes coming to places other than California. Hold on to your hat and 'enjoy' the ride. It could get really interesting.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Today is slightly cooler than the historical mean for 17 June, so I'm going with 'nothing to see here'.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

there will be places that will see little change... others, maybe not so lucky.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

We need to keep in mind that the predictions are for AVERAGE temperature rises, and there are a multitude of ways the average can change with and without affecting the total distribution.

Seems to me that median temperature might have been interesting to know.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

IRS: Unfortunately the average temperature is going up, based on the summation of the temperatures around the world... not warming in places and cooling in others... that is happening, but the net average is going up!

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

What about the enthalpy? Why can't we have meaningful data? Even small changes in humidity can cause big changes in temperature without a change in heat.

@Tugboat dominant wind direction in Melbourne is SW, but the real stinkers of days are when we get a Northerly.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

What does a northerly wind bring?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Meaningful data it does not.

I'm not interested in what it doesn't do... I'm more interested in what it does. Is it like an expression, "an ill wind...?"

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (Having lived in California basically my entire life)

I just noticed that parts of California and Arizona are on the low 40Cs... I know they have high temperatures down there, but this may be a harbinger of the future.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

dik, a northerly or northwesterly wind in Melbourne brings hot air from the red centre in summer, November to March. It can be up to 50C out there, as ever it was. No reason for preaching the doomsday gospel. But if you want to know what the weather is in Melbourne, it is extremely variable. Four seasons in a day.

Thanks hokie... and nice to know about Melbourne... Calgary, in Canada, is like that. As far as doomsday goes, I hope not, but I can imagine some not so pleasant things coming up, and no one seems to be concerned. I don't usually overreact; it might be my age or the onset of senility.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (dik)

no one seems to be concerned

Seriously? There is a worldwide faction that is SO concerned they have convinced children they have no future.

Spare you my opinion on that :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Quote (they have convinced children they have no future.)

...not in my neighbourhood. They will have a future, it might just be a whole bunch different. The potential is horrendous... substantially high populated areas with extremely high temperatures, running out of water for drinking and crops, mass starvation. These could have serious political impacts.

Travel and transportation still remains essentially the same. You have dozens of politicians, celebrities, and people, world wide, jetting around the world, doing stuff that can be handled by video conference. This includes the world climate guys. There can be some really big issues. In an extreme, can you imagine the effects, if the US runs out of arable land and water, and Canada has a large supply of both? It might not be pretty.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

My niece, a working PhD in zoology, when informed I was going up to Port Douglas to snorkel on the Great Barrier Reef, said "But isn't it all dead?"

That is an example of the extent to which the political scum have indoctrinated our children, even the scientifically literate ones. When we have an El Nino/La Nina switch a great glob of cold water rushes down the east coast, and kills many of the more colorful warm water coral jelly like objects that live in the holes in the hard coral rock, and are replaced by cooler water tolerant organisms next season. They work their way north, until there's a switch the other way, they die off and the warm ones recolonise. Each time this happens the loons at James Cook Univeristy release another survey showing massive changes in coral coverage, claiming it is the death of the GBR.

This is separate to crown of thorns starfish, which eat any flavor of coral. They've been an intermittent issue since at least the 60s. One possible cause is overfishing of the predator seashell Triton, and there are theories about agricultural nutrient run off as well. Since they are also an issue in Vanuatu (not exactly an agricultural hotspot) the latter seems a bit unlikely.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Wow... thanks Greg. You've pointed out one of the major problems with climate change. You, myself, and most of the readers of this website are well aware that the Great Barrier Reef is not dead; it is simply 'dying' or deteriorating due to heat, etc. The fact that a Ph.D canditate, particularly in zoology was not aware of that, speaks volumes about the failed education system.

In addition to attack from preditors, overfishing, acidification, pollution and bleaching caused by heat, the reef is under attack, and portions of it are already 'dead'. The jury still out if it can be resuscitated.

The 'political scum' have taken advantage of the failure in education, just as the proponents of fossil fuels and coal have taken advantage of their position to promote their products. Australia still promotes their coal production. Australia's carbon footprint is 17.1 T/person. With the exception of a few small countries, this is right near the top. Australia tops the US. Canada is higher and for other reasons (our climate has a bit of an impact on that). Recent Numbers:



Much maligned, China, has half the carbon footprint of the US, and India has about 1/10, when looking at the per capita values. The fault lies not only with the snakeoil salesmen (women?) but with the failed government and the education system.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

dik,

That is a classical twisting of someone else's post to suit your agenda. The GBR is neither dead or threatened, and if Greg's zoologist niece were not indoctrinated by the Green alarmists, she would know that. And yes, Australia and many other countries will continue to rely on fossil fuel and coal for the balance of this century, and probably well into the next, until nuclear power becomes more acceptable to the misguided left, or the 'political scum' as Greg so aptly describes them. No matter how many 'zero emissions targets' they propose, the are whistling in the wind.

I don't have an agenda... and there are numerous reports that the GBR is threatened.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

That article didn't even bother joining the dots. Random talking points.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

or...

https://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/resources/explaine...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

It's complicated, and can't be explained in a few pages. If you are really interested, watch this video, or if you can get access to Dr. Peter Ridd's book, that might shed a different light on your opinion. Or maybe we just wait until Greg comes back to report on the observations of his dives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw86_qQHtH4

and another... connecting the dots seems to be going the wrong way... how many more to connect before anyone realises there is a 'real' problem and the reef is 'sick', and slowly dying. It's going to take a lot of work to restore the parts of it that can be.

https://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-health

There's so much of it that it is possible for Greg to visit a relatively healthy part of it. If I were to be diving at the reef, I'd choose a beautiful spot, rather than a 'bleached' spot.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Aerial surveys are akin to looking at a person's head to determine if their brain is healthy. Only the reef ridges are examined, and that is not the important part. But that site does show that Australia is concerned about the reef, and doing its best to look after it. Now if only the rest of the world would mind its own knitting...

Quote:

The fact that a Ph.D canditate, particularly in zoology was not aware of that, speaks volumes about the failed education system.

And I suppose that the fact that I can't fix a broken stereo is likewise due to a "failed education system" because I'm an EE? I don't suppose anyone bothered to ask this PhD candidate what her specialty was?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Her thesis was to do with the altruism of crows, feeding each others young. Her fieldwork has been on all sorts of animal behaviours. I don't now what her actual job is.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

It is not that Greg's niece is a specialist in anything, but rather that she has been duped into thinking the Great Barrier Reef is all dead. She is a "working PhD" not a PhD candidate, so should have a certain amount of accurate information about the world around.

Quote:

She is a "working PhD" not a PhD candidate, so should have a certain amount of accurate information about the world around.

Greg's response indicates that her start was as vertebrate zoologist, and may have zero interest or information about invertebrates, particularly if she more of an animal behavioralist.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I give up.

But she is at least scientifically literate and yet has fallen for the scare campaign. The propaganda works.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

I’d love to know the truth of the GBR. There is so much crying wolf over climate change that it’s hard to know what to believe.

Quote (GL)

But she is at least scientifically literate and yet has fallen for the scare campaign. The propaganda works.

We saw the same thing with face masks. The scientists bought in so hard that they tried to push face masks for monkey pox, a virus that is known to not be airborne.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/975299

Quote (The propaganda works.
Cheers)

I think the bigger and more important issue is that education has failed. My kids are well aware that the gbr is not dead, but is in serious trouble.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (I’d love to know the truth of the GBR.)

From the links I posted, the truth is that the GBR is not dead, but it is in serious trouble.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

...not going to go political, ironic... one of the reasons we are in this mess is because of rightist laissez faire capitalism.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (dik)

...not going to go political, ironic...

Proceeds to double down on the politics in the same sentence.

Quote (dik)

one of the reasons we are in this mess is because of rightist laissez faire capitalism.

Two Rules:

1) Posters are permitted to discuss the current global mess being exacerbated by politicians and governments (through inaction and/or willful negligence and/or outright malicious destructiveness).

2) Posters are not permitted to discuss politics.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Dr Peter Ridd

The Australian Institute of Marine Science recently released its annual survey of coral on the Great Barrier Reef. It shows spectacularly good results. For all three major regions of the reef, once data uncertainties are considered, there has never been more coral since records began in the mid-1980s.

This despite three supposedly catastrophic and unprecedented hot water bleaching events in the past five years.

This great news about the reef poses only a minor problem for those science and management institutions that have convinced the world that the reef is on its last legs. They use three strategies: first, ignore the data and hope nobody points out the great news; second, discredit the good news with “fact checks”; and finally, contrive a spurious but apparently plausible reason that the good news is actually bad news.

Ignoring the good news was on display last month in the latest reef-doom story when the ABC, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian all quoted an eminent reef scientist who stated that only 2 per cent of the reef had not bleached in the past few decades.

The implication was that bleaching was unprecedented and had destroyed almost the entire reef. The fabulous coral statistics this year were not men­tioned by any of those articles.

Bleaching, cyclones and starfish plagues, which all occasionally kill parts of the reef, are akin to bushfires on land. They are completely natural and reset the ecosystem, which rapidly recovers, and are a necessary and import­ant feature of many Australian ecosystems. I could guess that roughly 2 per cent of western Queensland was not affected by a bushfire in the past half century. That would be a good thing, certainly not worthy of concern. Neither should it be for the reef.


To counter the latest good news about the reef, as reported in The Australian, the fact-check gods of Facebook also swung into action. They deemed that the coral has actually declined in the past decade. So what does the AIMS data, which was cited in the fact check, actually show about the change in coral since 2011?


For the northern region, the amount of coral this year is excellent and about the same today as in 2011; for the central region, it has roughly doubled; and for the southern region it has almost tripled. There is a significant uncertainty in the data because of the difficulty of measuring such a vast system, and the measurements are partly subjective in nature, but there is absolutely no doubt that the fact-checkers are extraordinarily wrong. They appear to be incapable of reading simple graphs.

The final strategy is to turn good news into bad. AIMS and other reef science institutions such as James Cook University Coral Reef Centre dismiss the obviously fabulous coral statistics by arguing that it is only the fast-growing corals that have regrown.

But they ignore that it is the fast-growing corals, the delicate staghorn and plate corals, that were killed in the first place by cyclones, bleaching and starfish plagues. So of course it is the fast-growing corals that have recover­ed.

In 2012, when the reef hit record lows of coral after a couple of very destructive cyclones, these institutions did not say: “Don’t worry, it is only the fast-growing corals – they will be back.” Instead, AIMS published a paper stating that, without intervention, the reef would likely crash much further by 2022. This is yet another failed prediction of the imminent death of the reef in the past 50 years.

Back in the early ’70s, scientists were claiming that plagues of crown-of-thorns starfish, a native Australian species, not an introduced pest, would totally destroy the reef. The plagues came and went, and we now know from geological evidence that the plagues have occurred across millennia.

The amount of coral on the reef fluctuates dramatically with time. The one thing that remains the same are the dire predictions of the loss of the reef. The other thing that remains the same is the reality that the reef is one of the most pristine, best protected, and brilliant ecosystems on Earth.

Early next year Environment Minister Sussan Ley must prepare an updated report on why UNESCO should not declare the Great Barrier Reef as endangered. She will be up against activist scientists, environmental groups and public servants. And in the background the false gods of big tech turn a huge increase in the amount of coral into a decline. Institutions such as AIMS and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that downplay the excellent condition of the reef will be a further problem.

After 50 years of doomsaying about the reef, and its stubborn refusal to die, how much longer will we have to wait before a government will audit the science institutions that have been scaring our children?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

and here's the data from the reefcloud project https://reefcloud.ai/dashboard/?x=146.78593&y=...

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Dr Peter Ridd

You should (cherry?) pick your horse more carefully next time.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Dr Peter Ridd did lose his appeal. JCU lost the case, but then won the appeal. Just goes to show there are consequences to having different opinions to your 'colleagues'. This is the second case of JCU hounding out a respected educator. The late Bob Carter was subjected to the same treatment. So much for academic freedom...

'academic freedom' ... the last bastion of the Denialist

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (IM's wiki link)

Beginning in April 2016, James Cook University took a number of disciplinary measures over two years against Ridd, which culminated in Ridd being fired, for refusing to take down confidential information which he had placed publicly online.

God forbid he share information that wasn't "cherry picked".

Nothing you have shared discredits Ridd.

We missed your contributions lately, IronicM. Where have you been for the last few weeks? Did you find a new hobby?

TBE, your professionalism and courtesy never fail to astound. (Your stickhandling ability around large factual obstacles is impressive too.)

Stay classy.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Back on topic, what confidential information did Ridd share that got him fired?. Context matters here.

About Lake Mead ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCBG_aVkv4s

What am I supposed to take from this? Do they explain why the level is dropping? Are they doing maintenance on the dam? Are we using more water because oil/gas is expensive or is climate change to blame? Maybe the extra water is air conditioning that new Raiders stadium? Why not pause power generation from the lake to allow the level to restore itself?

Oh that's classic, TBE, demanding I relitigate the dismissal of a tenured professor. Not biting -- you'll have to find your amusement somewhere else. You might find this stunt worth a chuckle. Myself I'm finding considerable amusement hearing a master whataboutist remind me to stay on topic!

You must be aware how difficult it is to get yourself fired from a tenured professorship, and that it doesn't necessarily involve a conspiracy? You really have to try hard!
Or maybe the fact Dr Ridd has almost no credible supporters is part of a larger conspiracy - The Great Meta Conspiracy?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Is it a conspiracy to think that a university may want to temrinate a professor that speaks against their major source of funding? Climate change is very profitable for universities and banks...

An article about Dr Peter Ridd, which contains links to other articles about his dismissal and legal fight.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/qld-controv...

Clarification of one misconception...Australian academics do not have tenure. Thus, they can be dismissed for cause, or for violating their contract, which was JCU's excuse for terminating Professor Ridd.

Erich, you seem to have a grievance. Let's connect off the forum and discuss. Are you willing to share some contact information?

It’s bizarre that they went after Ridd. Strange behaviour when they’re fighting the idea that there’s a manufactured consensus climate change.

Quote (Dik)

I wonder how well this will work?

Not as well as doing what we’ve done over the past 200m of sea level rise, which is to move further inland.

Quote:

Why not pause power generation from the lake to allow the level to restore itself?

Because power generation isn't the reason they release water.

The flow of water from the watershed, generally determines the amount of power that can be generated. The amount retained ensures that this can carry on 'forever'.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote:

Why not pause power generation from the lake to allow the level to restore itself?

The simple answer is the demand substantially outstrips an already diminishing/diminished supply, and even stopping power generation altogether won't do much to restore levels. We'd need a few years of above average rainfall to come close

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

If you graph the total rainfall for a watershed vs. time, you'll end up with a 'wiggly' line with a relatively uniform slope 'upwards'. The slope of that line is a measure of the amount of power you can get. If you draw a straight line with that slope, there are some areas above that line and some below (due to the wiggle). The area of the space between your straight line and the wiggly curve below is a measure of the amount of pondage or storage you require. The area of the space above that line is a measure of the amount of water you have to 'spill' or increase your storage. What's happening is that the line is no longer wiggly and moving up at the same rate... the wiggly line is flattening out, which means there is less power available. (Simplified a bit, but I hope the description is clear).

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

I don't mind quoting Ridd, he got fired (basically) because he contradicted his colleagues in public. Sadly his contract said he shouldn't do that. Of course attacking the man rather than his claims is standard internet practice, I'd rather hoped that anyone interested would look at the data I presented rather than waste time on character assassination.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Water is released from Hoover to meet downstream demands, it's just happens to be used to generate power on it's way out of the lake. Power generation or not, the same amount of water is going to get released.

I understand now, basically Ridd is just one more victim of the malicious Global Hockey Stick cabal.

But then this cabal could and should be doing much more, because there are a few more here in N America that could stand getting ridd of. I believe denialists should not be taxpayer-funded, although the real problem invariably is that their 'research' is generously corporate-funded.

Such a glorious concept, the Free Market of Ideas...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

You aren't making any sense. Removing government funding from those you disagree with doesn't promote a free market of ideas.

And the MSM giving equal time to a fringe corporate-funded denialist is called 'balanced reporting'. Read my trailer.

(I'm making perfect sense, you just haven't caught up to me.)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

So, "back on topic", are things starting to heat up or not?

One word response please.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Maybe

- Andrew

politics, religion, and the weather ... topics not to be discussed in polite company.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

I can't answer that, Ironic. There is no data about heat. How do we know the atmosphere is "heating" up?

Um, many thermometers in many places over many intervals? Just a wild guess.

But that raises the question: who is calibrating those thermometers?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

actually I think the problem is there's too much data, (data to show heating and cooling !) and not enough understanding.

The main problem is that people (yes, I mean you people) want to distill a very complicated problem down to simple talking points.
"the glaciers are melting" ... well, sure, some are, but there are some that aren't.
"the sealevel is rising" ... well, sure, but not in all places, and not significantly.
"CO2 is THE cause for anthropological climate change" ... sure, CO2 is responsible for some of it, but land use ? de-forestation ? cows ??

Mankind is certainly affecting the environment in a multitude of ways, none to be taken lightly. Burning FF may not be the best thing for the environment, maybe the levels of CO2 are an issue. But the pain of mitigating the effects of CO2 is so much that ...
1) we can't do the "right" thing (stop burning FFs today),
2) outlandish statements are made by both sides of the "debate",
3) to accept any pain we insist of factual statements but are possibly not as factual as we'd like to believe,
4) because we can't do 1) we end up doing a bunch of 1/2 (1/4? 1/n?) measures that'll probably have little effect in the long run,
5) and do we Know that this is the critical thing to address ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Ironic, thermometers don't measure heat. You would need a psychrometer to estimate heat. We all know the weatherman has those. Why can't we get enthalpy estimates for our atmosphere to determine whether or not we are truly warming by CO2. If CO2 traps heat there should be a clear rise in enthalpy.

Quote (rb1957)

5) and do we Know that this is the critical thing to address ?

That’s easy: the rapaciousness, tribalism and selfishness of the average member of the ironically named Homo sapiens. In a word: human nature. You would have to wilfully ignore 6000 years of operating experience to think that will change anytime soon.

The enormity of what is required to effect the change we need is equivalent to having every person in the world change their religion. Which, if one can resist narrow, literalist or institutional definitions of religion, is exactly what is required.

Free tip: you and others will have to practice your gaslighting if you want to be effective in muddying the waters.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

@im ... just deleted what I was about to post. There's no point.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

I only ask for a number that accurately represents the situation. Temperature is one dimensional in a 3 dimensional world.

No muddy waters here.

Did you know that you don't feel temperature or heat on your skin?

My son sent me a link (quite technical) with the following observation. I don't think he's far off the mark.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (TBE)

Did you know that you don't feel temperature or heat on your skin

That’s one superpower I sadly don’t seem to possess.
Which is a shame because with it I could be very useful saving lives in extreme California/BC/Australia/Siberia/Alberta/Spain/Greece/Arizona/California/Australia/New Mexico/Amazonia/Portugal wildfires (peer reviewed references upon request).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (TBE)

… thermometers don’t measure heat

Do tell!!

I actually prefer the indirect method of following lemming activity, including (and especially) the frequency of mass self destruction. Sadly the global heating cabal have so far not picked up my suggestion.

Your dissembling around thermodynamics is the most amusing thing I’ve encountered so far today (but the day’s not over).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

The worst bushfires seen in Oz were in the 1850s. Don't be a drama queen. The worst drought was 1900, don't be a drama queen. The worst floods, 1852. Stop being a drama queen.

The climate of the Earth is difficult to characterise and measure. One subset of climate is the average global temperature over a suitable time period, measured near the Earth's surface. This temperature has varied historically over a wide range. It is affected by many factors, both known and unknown. The main factor is the albedo of the Earth and the incoming energy from the Sun. These two directly interact and the combined effect raises the temperature of the Earth by about 250 deg C, from the background temperature of space which is about -270 deg C . The next most significant effect is the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, which raises the temperature by about 33 deg C. This is due to several mechanisms associated with turning incoming EM waves into heat (badly phrased) , and also complex interactions with the heat radiated by the Earth's surface, and probably some other knowns and unknowns. The greenhouse effect is affected by the gaseous composition of the atmosphere, and clouds. The most important gas for greenhouse is water vapour, approximately 80% of the non-cloud greenhouse effect is due to that. Water also directly affects the albedo of the Earth by forming clouds and snow and ice. Of the remainder the majority is due to CO2. In the absence of any other effects a further doubling of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere would be expected to raise the temperature by rather less than, but approximately, 1 deg C. However, this is a very weak effect and is easily dominated over any timescale from hours to hundreds of millions of years by the many known and unknown factors. There may be positive or negative feedbacks associated with temperature changes, which may modify this 1 deg figure. There are certainly simple feedback effects associated with CO2 levels, eg the greening of the Earth (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-d...) which will affect both the Earth's albedo and weather patterns. On the other hand the melting of the Arctic ice cap will reduce the Earth's albedo, so that's a positive feedback. One other overwhelmingly strong effect on an hourly to century timescale (at least) is the interaction between the oceans and the atmosphere. The thermal capacity of the oceans is about 1000 times that of the atmosphere. That is, cooling the ocean by 0.01 deg C (that's the limit of resolution of a thermometer typically, accuracy is perhaps 0.1 deg C) would provide enough heat to heat the atmosphere by 10 deg C. The interaction between oceans and atmosphere is hugely complex and data is lacking.

As to where the CO2 comes from - if you add up all the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels since 1880, it is about twice as much as the change in CO2 in the atmosphere. According to the DOE we've emitted 389 E12 kg of C. In that time the ppm of CO2 has increased from 280 to 400 and the mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480E18. The mean molecular mass of the atmosphere is 29 and CO2 is 44 obviously. So the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from 280E-6*44/29*5.1E18=2.2E15 kg to 400E-6*44/29*5.1E18=3.1E15 kg

And from the above we've created 389E12*44/12=1.4 E15 kg, of which 0.9E15 is still in the atmosphere (glad that came out right).

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Ironic, you feel flux, not temperature. Why do you think the weather report has has to list a temperature with a "feels like" to correct for humidity and wind chill?

Disassembling thermodynamics? I'm applying its most basic terminology. Should we not follow the science?

I live in California, I am close to the wildfires. There is one burning a few miles from me right now.


California gets normally 8000 wildfires in a year.

A reputable national laboratory says climate change will bring 15% more rain to my region. Will this make wildfires worse? Peer review? What does that even mean anymore.

Sorry Greg... from (one of many sources).

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-histo...



I think we're 'done like a turkey'. To make matters more interesting... it's just getting started. Hold on to your hat; it could get real interesting.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

I don't understand the graph. Were there ice cores to estimate CO2 when it was greater than 2000 ppm?

We may or may not be done like turkeys, but one thing I can guarantee is that any internal actions by the first world are practically irrelevant so far as CO2 ppm goes.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Also, what does that graph tell us? For a start the y axis should be ESTIMATED ppm. RCP 8.5 can be safely discounted, it bears no resemblance to reality. The economic study it was based on has the population of Nigeria at 1.4 billion in 2100, up from 216 million, almost double that of India today, squished into a country the size of Texas.

Secondly, due to the logarithmic impact of CO2 on temperature, RCP6 seems to max out at 800 ppm, maybe 1 degree or so warmer than today. Most of the warming is the Arctic and Antarctic.

As I said before, scary sciency presentations are designed to fool you.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

For all those who bemoan the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere, I suggest they stop exhaling.

Quote (TugboatEng)

Ironic, you feel flux, not temperature.

I guess then we're totally fluxed. Hope it's not too late.

Quote (TugboatEng)

Why do you think the weather report has has to list a temperature with a "feels like"

Because we've all gone softer than snowflakes. Now we get 'extreme cold' warnings at -15°C, when once that was reserved for -30°C.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Speaking of exhaling and the atmosphere, ff we can crack ironic metallurgist's mind I think we can solve climate change. His ability to temper a conversation could probably temper our atmosphere.

Quote (GregLocock)

The worst bushfires seen in Oz were in the 1850s. Don't be a drama queen. The worst drought was 1900, don't be a drama queen. The worst floods, 1852. Stop being a drama queen.

I know that three queens beats one joker.
Try to retain just a tiny bit of decorum will you?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (TugboatEng)

Speaking of exhaling and the atmosphere, ff we can crack ironic metallurgist's mind I think we can solve climate change. His ability to temper a conversation could probably temper our atmosphere.

Still keeping it classy I see.
Don't shoot the messenger.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Tell us how Marxism will combat climate change?! I agree that it will but I want to make sure we're on the same page.

Quote (GregLocock)

As I said before, scary sciency presentations are designed to fool you.

Your considerable intellectual exertions still fail to jibe with my own experience over a lifetime (assisted by my uncanny ability to remember how conditions were 40 and 20 years ago). The harder you try the more it becomes clear you are looking for facts and doing calcs to fit your firm beliefs.

Suggest you pause the selective number crunching and get outdoors more often. Just be sure to prepare for the new normal by hydrating well beforehand.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

It's weird seeing the civil engineering forum so close to the climate change forum. We all know there is a certain group of members that can't remain civil on this subject.

Maybe, ironic, you need to start a new Reddit account to vent on? To release some heat, if you catch my drift.

Whatever you do, your signature needs an adjustment.

and another climate change thread goes down the googler !

Everyone has data or "data" to support their position.

We Know we're pushing CO2 into the atmosphere. We don't Know the impact of this. Quite certainly burning FF is not a "natural" process, and so is having an "unnatural" impact on the environment.

We are quite certainly in the Anthropocene, for a multitude of reasons.

We should, IMHO, recognise that we are affecting the environment and take measures to reduce this.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Quote (ell us how Marxism will combat climate change?)

Marxism will not help, but we are not in this mess because of Marxism.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Marxism will help because it will tank economies and cause a mass die-off of the human race. This is what ironic wants.

Sure, Tug... but that may happen anyway. We're only seeing the beginning of this mess, I fear.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Aha, finally found someone looking in the right direction. Here is a study of equivalent temperature which factors in moisture content to estimate enthalpy.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&...

TBE,

Enquiring minds and armchair analysts demand to know, what else about me can you share with the group? I’m dying to know too.

You know if you don’t have a personal monitor to check your stuff before hitting send, try reading it out loud to hear how it sounds. That technique has saved me posting some boffo comments. Comments like (for example) “crush the Capitalist Pigs!!”, or “Scrap everything and go back to living in caves!!” I keep those brilliant thoughts to myself.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (ironic metallurgist)

Such a glorious concept, the Free Market of Ideas...

Another problem with that CO2 graph is they've cut and pasted results from different proxies together with the instrumental record, ignoring the different time constants of the various estimates. The correct thing to do is to display each proxy forward to the present day so you can see how well they agree. If you do this with the hockey stick reconstruction for temperature the proxies (specifically the Biffa pine trees) don't actually indicate much warming. That is not to say that there isn't warming, merely that proxies aren't instruments, and any reconstructions are totally reliant on the integrity of the methods used to create them.

Here's Biffa's 20th century reconstruction. Woo frightening warming. As anybody who lives in a forest will tell you, rainfall is a much more important indicator for tree growth than temperature.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

and some parts will be cooler... but last year parts of Siberia hit +30C, releasing more CO₂... stuff happens.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Do say: “Things are enthalpying up.”
Don’t say: “I feel hotter than I did before.”

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

You have a basic misunderstanding of the physical world.

No Tug... I think his statement is OK, almost... because it is happening, I think he could be feeling hotter, too.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

But you could feel hotter due to an increase in solar irradiance without an increase in temperature. That's how shade works.

It seems like the sun rays are hotter now than when I was a kid... might just be old age, but it seem hotter.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Just your age. My Dad talked about walking to school as a boy. The older Dad got, the farther he had to walk to school, and the deeper the snow was.

No such luck... back and forth twice a day, 200 days per year minimum (was a requirement for minimum school year), neither up hill or downhill (Winnipeg's flatter than p*ss on a plate), rain or snow and cold winters...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (TBE)

That's how shade works.

Well shade would work if I hadn’t cut down my only tree for firewood because of Global Cooling.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

I should maybe have given this thread a different title, "Things are Starting to Warm Heat Up"

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Nah, it should have been "let's have another argument about the climate".

could add the adjective "pointless" to qualify "argument".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Pointless because they are not doing anything about it? or because there is no need to do anything? I'm in the first group and it makes a big difference.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

has anything discussed above had much point ? No one has changed their minds, each has data to support their view. Each has their own hill (that they wish to die on), ie an opinion passionately held. these threads (on climate change) have a predictable trajectory, and as they all end up at the same impasse then the argument is pointless.

Whether it's pointless because we're not doing anything (or enough) about it or because there's no need to do anything is a pointless demarcation.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

rb1957,

There's reality, and there's what we believe ( more ‘believe' than 'think') reality is.

The former is objective, the latter heavily subjective and shaded by our geolocation and in what perspectives our minds have been steeped in.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (SuperSalad)

Maybe

You probably think you're clever, but that answer reveals more than an outright 'no'.

So no marks for cleverness. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, etc.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Aw shucks

- Andrew

Quote (...is a pointless demarcation.)

'Pointless'? The end result may be same, but with a definitely different focus. The way things are going, I'm just waiting for things to happen; there's little I can do about it. It requires a major effort by 'the world'... starting with the greatest offenders, and it's not going to happen.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (SnTMan)

Seriously? There is a worldwide faction that is SO concerned they have convinced children they have no future.

Many children I know have figured things out for themselves; nobody brainwashed them.

Sadly it is that people who should be having their own children who are not, while less thoughtful types mindlessly follow what has forever been the cultural imperative in all societies and will continue going forth and multiply. And continuing commuting to work in monster diesel pickups, etc.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (There is a worldwide faction that is SO concerned they have convinced children they have no future.)

I have no idea of what it could be. There is, however, a potential that it may be very bleek. I've revised my tagline to reflect a recent comment from my son...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (SnTman)

There is a worldwide faction that is SO concerned they have convinced children they have no future.

This shows how deranged and detached from reality the climate movement has become. A lot of people now believe that human life will shortly be WORSE than at any other time in all of human history. So much worse in fact that life isn’t worth living. We are increasingly seeing people not having children because they don’t want their child being born into “hell”. We are seeing impressionable school children taking their own lives after being taught this extreme stuff. Being taught they’re going to BURN. It’s like those religious sects who take their children to “hell house” museums, to show them vivid descriptions of the horrific tortures that await them if they fail to repent.

It’s no coincidence that climate activists latch onto these same emotive terms “HELL”, “BURN”, “APOCALYPSE”. It’s the same twisted mindset.

Not sure where you are coming from, but do you know you sound just like whoever it is you are ranting about?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (This shows how deranged and detached from reality the climate movement has become.)

The real problem is that no one knows where this will end up. It may be a simple 'blip' or it could get really bad. I mean really bad, with mass starvation and political upheaval.

The approach to the problem (and I think it's a real problem) isn't being addressed. With doing little or nothing, it's a matter of letting things 'play out' and picking up the pieces, if req'd. No one can hazard a guess... it's a matter of waiting.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (Ironic Mettalurgist)

Not sure where you are coming from,

You haven’t heard the people talking about the climate hell that is upon us? A hellish world in which our children will be better off never having been born?

Seems like anyone expressing the opinion that AGW is happening and is a threat to life as we know it is a member of the deranged and detached from reality climate movement (favourite drink: Koolaid).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

and this discussion of "pointless" clearly shows how pointless this is.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Quote:

The real problem is that no one knows where this will end up. It may be a simple 'blip' or it could get really bad. I mean really bad, with mass starvation and political upheaval.

The approach to the problem (and I think it's a real problem) isn't being addressed. With doing little or nothing, it's a matter of letting things 'play out' and picking up the pieces, if req'd. No one can hazard a guess... it's a matter of waiting.

So, what's the solution? Massive upheaval based on not knowing what will happen? According to some of the science being posted here, nothing short of massive upheaval changes in society could have a chance of fixing it. The science saying we need to stop all carbon emissions doesn't mean net neutral by buying some carbon credits, it means stopping all emissions. Slowly switching to electric cars or capturing carbon or putting up some more solar cells are all good small improvements, but they don't go nearly far enough.

I will say that AGW works amazingly well at giving everyone something to focus on so we keep ignoring all the other destructive crap we're doing to the planet.

"I will say that AGW works amazingly well at giving everyone something to focus on so we keep ignoring all the other destructive crap we're doing to the planet." ... that's a statement I can support !

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Quote (So, what's the solution? Massive upheaval based on not knowing what will happen?)

It's too late now, but maybe we shouldn't have gotten ourselves in this mess in the first place... even space is littered with 'junk'. A comment that is common the the 'First Poeoples' is that we don't own the future, we borrow it from our grandchildren.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

"It's too late now" ...
see, that's the trap that climate activists set for themselves. They've painted the picture so dark that nothing will resolve the problem. So we might as well fiddle whilst Rome burns.

But then somewhat reasonable people will ask "but if the severity of the problem is slightly over-stated, and remedial measures can work, then we should deploy these other solutions".

Other reasonable people might ask "but what if the whole problem is over-stated, and reducing CO2 doesn't resolve climate change ?".

And others will also quite rightly say "fine, but what about ... (one of the other myriad human activities affecting the environment) ?"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

…and the future is calling our loan

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Lionel, rb1957:

It’s all part of the same problem.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

with respect, no it isn't. We are being told the the single thing we need to fix is our CO2 emissions. Sure, some activists champion their own specific interest but generally don't get the wide repetition, nor the massive publications in peer reviewed journals, nor the significant government interest.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Quote (LionelHutz)

So, what's the solution? Massive upheaval based on not knowing what will happen?

That seems to be the general strategy. What is Net Zero by 2050 if not a plan for massive upheaval? Net Zero requires us to stop burning fossil fuels. 80% of our current energy coming from those fossil fuels. There is nothing available to replace that 80%. If we cut that 80% what other result could there be aside from massive upheaval?

Here in Australia we’ve only just started shutting down our fossil fuel infrastructure, and already the #%^* is starting to hit the fan. The very same politicians who have been arranging for years to shut down our coal power stations are now scrambling to extend their lives in the face of the energy shortages.

Few seem willing to address just how dependent we are on fossil fuels. Instead we see these childish demands to just shut it all down.

Tomfh,
That position is just so old, tired, and unimaginative.

You are parroting yesterday’s politicians who are compelled to keep telling us we can have our cake and eat it too.

I don’t know what the solution is (or if there is an adequate one), but I do know that carrying on the way we have has a 100% probability of compound failure. Humans didn’t always burn coal, spread forever chemicals, walk the streets with loaded guns or elect psychopaths you know.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

rb1957,
If you’re responding to my post of 15:56 I humbly suggest you read it first.

The current crisis has multiple prongs, of which warming (sorry, enthalpying) is just one. In my amateur estimation it is not the one that will get us first, just because there is more scope for mitigation by adaption, and because it is in itself not poisonous. Other threats warrant equal attention.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (We are being told the the single thing we need to fix is our CO2 emissions.)

It's not just fix... it's a matter of seriously reducing... and that is nowhere on the horizon.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (ironic metallugist)

That position is just so old, tired, and unimaginative.

There are no wholesale alternatives to fossil fuels on the horizon. That remains the truth regardless of how boring you find it. If you have facts that prove otherwise then present them. I've been looking long and hard for them.

Any plan that ignores the hard reality of where our energy comes from is doomed to failure. Nature cannot be fooled. We cannot stop using fossil fuels and conjure up a replacement within a few decades. It won't happen.

We're going backwards even in terms of our grasp on reality. It's like everyone has committed to pretending. During Kyoto days we at least had vaguely achievable targets - e.g. a 20% cut by 2020. And now, having failed that target entirely, we've decided a better target is a number that is entirely divorced from reality - a 100% cut. Here in Australia we're off to a good start in the BS olympics - formally committing to a 43% cut within 8 years.

You’re saying you (we) are hooked on fossil fuels. I agree.

The first step on the road to recovery is admitting there’s a problem.

I have observed that your Aussie politics are extremely nasty, with misogynistic coal crusaders and climate deniers for leaders, evidently hand picked by Rupert Murdoch, who makes a tidy profit out of poisoning the well. Tony Abbott was a real piece of work, up there with our own vile Stephen Harper. I only mention this because it seems relevant to your perspective.

There is no real plan for Net Zero. Politicians in some rich countries have claimed they will get to Net Zero by 2050. Any 'plan' they have is uncosted. The nearest they have to a plan is Field of Dreams. The rest of the world doesn't even notice. The Maldives claim to be affected by climate change and have just built a big new concrete runway so that more jetplanes full of tourists can arrive.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote (ironic metallugist)

You’re saying you (we) are hooked on fossil fuels.

100%.

Quote:

The first step on the road to recovery is admitting there’s a problem.

Agree. I don't see much admission of that though. I see a lot of claims that amount to "I can quit any time I want". That's all that these stupid climate targets amount to.

Quote:

I have observed that your Aussie politics are extremely nasty, with misogynistic coal crusaders and climate deniers for leaders, evidently hand picked by Rupert Murdoch, who makes a tidy profit out of poisoning the well. Tony Abbott was a real piece of work, up there with our own vile Stephen Harper. I only mention this because it seems relevant to your perspective.

A new wave is on the scene. The new government just signed onto 43% cut within 8 years. Our parliament has a stack of greens and climate 200 candidates (the greens and the teals). Even the Murdoch press is flying the climate flags nowadays. But it'll all amount to nothing of course. Because no-one is actually prepared to admit to the issue. Everyone prefers to blame "coal barons" and "boomers" and "big polluters" and "climate deniers" and "government". They caused the problem?, right? So they need to go fix it.

Quote (The new government just signed onto 43% cut within 8 years.)

That's just so much horsesh*t... why not a 5% cut for next year?

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

why not a 5% cut for next year?

Because 43% sounds much better than 5%, and 8 years is easier than right now.

Because that too is horseshit.

"The new government just signed onto 43% cut within 8 years"

I'm pretty pleased with that. The outright failure to meet that will force them to accept that the Field of Dreams approach won't work.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

And hopefully, it will cause the new government to become the old government.

...and in 7 years time, you'll have over 40% to go...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

"That's just so much horsesh*t... why not a 5% cut for next year?"

Because you have to build stuff to make the CO2 reductions happen. First of all you have to send the coal to China so they can make the aluminium so they can build the turbines. I'd estimate even the simplest large scale renewables will take 2-3 years to come on line, in fact I know windfarms that haven't generated any power 5 years after they got approval.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Yes, that’s the way targets work. But then again, we may have 45% to go.

Quote (Greg)

The outright failure to meet that will force them to accept that the Field of Dreams approach won't work.

You reckon? No-one seems to have learned from the failure to meet the Kyoto targets. They just put forward a bunch of new targets that are even harder to meet.

It's like if I targeted running 100m in under 10 seconds by the time I'm 50, and when that fails to happen, I set myself a new target of running running 100m in 8 seconds by the age of 60. And when that fails, I get my lawyer to draw up a contract instructing me to do it in 5 seconds by the time I'm 70.

This is interesting, excluding forestry and land use changes, Australia's CO2 emissions have increased since 2009.

https://www.climatescorecard.org/2020/12/australia...

Other government policies include increasing tourism (are they going to get here by kayak?) and increasing immigration. Presumably we'll only allow migrants who promise not to buy a car or use any electricity.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

The "impossible" goals are possibly bigger motivators; the world thought that getting a man on the moon within 8 years in 1962 was "impossible," when we weren't even sure that the astronauts wouldn't just die from radiation exposure.

Not saying this is comparable, but human nature is such that incremental goals are not particularly motivating.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

True. There's a psychological aspect to targets.

The moon target? Very ambitious for sure. That said, we'd already put men into orbit and got them back, so it was a logical extension. We haven't managed to cut fossil fuel use at all in 40 years. Our annual emissions have doubled in that time. And somehow we're going to suddenly cut to zero? How exactly? It makes zero sense. It's completely incoherent. And yet it's the only acceptable position to have. If you question the notion of Net Zero you're deemed a denier. It's just insane.

The reality is Net Zero is complete nonsense. We will continue to emit well past 2050. It'd be an astonishing achievement to be emitting less in 2050 than we are today.

If the alarmists get what they want we'll be emitting more. 25 years to replace 125 years of energy infrastructure is going to greatly increase carbon emissions in that term.

IM has made it clear that his goal is not about reducing climate change but reducing humanity.

Quote (IM)

I don’t know what the solution is (or if there is an adequate one), but I do know that carrying on the way we have has a 100% probability of compound failure. Humans didn’t always burn coal, spread forever chemicals, walk the streets with loaded guns or elect psychopaths you know.

Let's turn this thread positive. Can anybody think of a broadly known policy or product that has reduced real world CO2 emissions? This must include start to finish CO2. We had a great debunking of Energy Vault here. What policy or projects have produced great CO2 reduction. I know there are a few. Maybe that will help motivate us.

I'll start, I believe variable frequency drives have contributed to a reduction in CO2 emissions. I also believe they're over-hyped.

A proper carbon tax is where I'd start, including on imports, and refunded on exports. My model would be a VAT, that is it gets passed along the food chain, so the ultimate consumer pays for all the incremental carbon use/sequestration as it moves from raw materials to end user. However this is meaningless unless it is global.

Pumped hydro is I think the poster boy for proven tech that works. All the good sites are gone.

On a much smaller scale LED lights and domestic heat exchangers help a bit.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

"The outright failure to meet that will force them to accept that the Field of Dreams approach won't work." ...

greg, I never took you for an optimist !

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

There is a difference between ambitious goals and impossible ones ! Going to the moon was IMHO mostly a political statement, national prestige, countering the Soviet's in the Cold War, and not for overtly scientific reasons.

Greg is right (wow!) in that it'll take a lot of planning and a lot of spending before we're able to make significant reductions. And in that time the opposition will be bitching about spending without impacting the goal, and undercut any progress. For example ...
1) stop coal exports (wow !!) (keep the CO2 in the ground)
2) stop burning coal in power stations. Before this what alternate fuel stocks are there ? is fracking an option ? should fracking be an option ??
3) If no good alternative fuels, then alternative power stations ... solar, nuke, wind will take time to get online.

IMHO a modest strategy would be to plan to stop burning coal in power stations. To do this, plan to replace a limited number of power stations in four years. This'll give time to build some alternative (solar and wind for now, start planning for nukes in the future). This would set up the national strategy and show progress before the next election.

A really brave government would also reduce coal exports 50% in this term (ok, 10% might just be politically viable).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Quote:

I'll start, I believe variable frequency drives have contributed to a reduction in CO2 emissions. I also believe they're over-hyped.

Mostly over-hyped. VFDs are for process control. Using a VFD to reduce the work being done per period of time typically means both that the work is being done less efficiently and that it takes longer to do the total work you wanted done.

Another thing going in the wrong direction...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (A proper carbon tax is where I'd start)

That might be a place to start, but it has to be a 'sliding' tax, with everyone given an initial 'base' deductible, and it has to increase exponentially for those 'added' values. It has to address personal output, not industry output. Normally carbon taxes are just a means of avoiding the problem.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

the problem I see with carbon taxes is that they just get swallowed into the government coffers.

Maybe if the money collected was spent on some carbon reduction program, like building solar farms ?

Don't know how to implement a "sliding scale". How do you measure "personal output" ?
You could make it less for truck diesel, which has dedicated pumps, to lessen the impact of transportation costs.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

We already have a carbon tax in a sense. There are two fundamentals factors that contribute to "cost". That's energy and labor. In our modern automated society energy is by far the largest determining factor in cost for most things. As the overwhelming majority of our energy comes from carbon, we may as well assume that the cost of something is driven by it's carbon footprint. That's a big reason why I'm skeptical of renewable energy projects. They're all very high "cost". Building a solar panel or a battery certainly isn't high labor.

I'm not sure how a personal carbon output would be used. Carbon tax has to include people that have an unnecessarily high carbon footprint and they have to pay more... also events like Formula 1, etc. have to be 'hit' heavily. The carbon tax has to work on the output value beyond a reasonable personal limit. People need a basic amount for heating, travel, etc... anything more, gets 'hit' hard... and the more, the harder. That's why it has to be sliding.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

A carbon tax would exact a higher toll on the poor and disadvantaged, since they are most likely to be using the cheapest fuel available, which is FF. The better financially positioned have the luxury of using renewables because they can afford to do so.

So, a carbon tax would need to be progressive, but that would essentially turn a mandate into a goal, again.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

In my experience, the better financially positioned you are the more power you need which excludes the option of renewables. They can't keep up. Remember Al Gore's house?

True there is a psychological influence on small targets vs big goals.
There are 1000 little things that on aggregate could have a big mitigation impact if governments would put little incentives in place. Things like various kinds of insulation, more efficient computer power sources. Things that do not cost taxpayers but save consumers money. But then beyond that leaders must show leadership by heavily taxing or outright banning the worst offending vanity items, like monster pickups and gasoline lawnmowers. Sadly Westerners would revolt over those impositions on their ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’, and leaders are mostly cowardly.
We are stuck with reptilian politicians tuned to a 4 year election cycle (we have electoral politics, not direct democracy). They prefer big announcements that will ‘save the planet’ over the hard, unsexy work of improving 1000 small things. Also the American mantra of personal rights and freedoms works strongly against progress. (FYI TBE, that is not endorsing Marxism as you so ridiculously like to claim. If you even know what that is.)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (A carbon tax would exact a higher toll on the poor and disadvantaged,)

That's why I noted, "The carbon tax has to work on the output value beyond a reasonable personal limit."

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The attack on "monster trucks" never made a lot of sense to me. Is it more wasteful to have a commuter car that you regularly use and a truck that you occasionally use or just a truck that you use all of the time?

As for the "monster" part? Customizing your truck is no more wasteful than an artist building a sculpture or a philosopher publishing a book. All of these things consume unnecessary resources without providing benefit to society.

More whataboutery and point missing, TBE.
‘Monster pickup’ is merely representative of environmentally egregious, gratuitous consumer products that satisfy our need to be that actor we see in commercials.

You’re always either overthinking or underthinking, or moving the goalposts.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (Tug)

I'll start, I believe variable frequency drives have contributed to a reduction in CO2 emissions. I also believe they're over-hyped.

Is my variable speed pool pump one of those? That unit has saved a bunch of electricity, (and the associated carbon emissions). Not as much of course as not having a pool at all. But it certainly works in terms of reducing the power the pool uses.

Pools are mostly made using concrete

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

As are high density housing and above grade rail. Single family homes, on the other hand are mostly wood. Roads are made from a recyclable waste product called asphalt.

??? I don't recall making any comment about variable frequency drives. I don't know anything about them.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I should have been more broad and said inverter technology instead of VFD. Yes the comment was off topic but with all the doom saying and call for action I was just wondering what technologies or policies have actually worked to reduce greenhouse gas emission. All of the projects, policies, technologies that make headlines either unachievable, fail to deliver as promised, or worse, cause even more pollution.

Quote (dik)

??? I don't recall making any comment

Apologies, I misattributed it to you.

Quote (Ironic_mettalurgist)

Pools are mostly made using concrete

Yes, that's why I said a variable speed ecopump wouldn't reduce CO2 as much as not having a pool at all. A pool is a fairly indulgent thing in terms of energy and materials.

Whatabout whatabout whatabout.
Some of those structures are more essential than others.
It’s a little embarrassing having to explain that.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Tomfh,
Do not trust any product or company name prefixed by ‘eco’. Besides being mindless marketing, the thing is usually the opposite of eco.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (ironic mettalurgist)

Do not trust any product or company name prefixed by ‘eco’. Besides being mindless marketing, the thing is usually the opposite of eco.

Agree. Eco pool pumps are legitimate though. I was skeptical until I measured the energy consumption, and compared it to the old single speed pump. Massive difference. The difference in the power bill was obvious too.

There will be a lot of snakeoil coming out of the woodwork.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Is spending $1/2 billion worth shaving 100 seconds off a 24 mile ride? How about the increases emissions? I would expect to see ~1.2x increase in fuel consumption for that run at the higher speed as well.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxn8qx/amtrak-spen...

How about $33 billion for a train to nowhere in California?

We're doing everything we can to make climate change worse in the name of green.

Sad, Tug... but, it's likely the transportation of the future. Now that's highspeed. 240 klicks is about #80 from the top...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The Concorde went faster but we don't see it in regular use for transportation. What do some speed statistics contribute here?

High speed is great for long distances. Everyone I know that goes to China is in awe of their railways. They come back here to Australia saying things like "they are moving so far ahead of us".

High Speed rail for a 20 mile link? Why would you bother?

Bingo. It's an example of a "monster truck" as IM described it. The appearance of capable is all that is necessary.

Quote:

Agree. Eco pool pumps are legitimate though. I was skeptical until I measured the energy consumption, and compared it to the old single speed pump. Massive difference. The difference in the power bill was obvious too.

Did you compare it to the old pump operating on a timer and only running part of each day? Pool pumps don't need to be running 24/7.

New news...

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-tire-exting...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

dik,

That’s not an effective way to win friends and influence people. They should instead go after the lobbying-industrial complex.

My 2013 mid sized SUV with direct fuel injection gets better fuel economy and coughs out fewer emissions than any vehicle I have previously owned. Still far from perfect but a significant improvement.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

agreed, modern cars are much improved. They should be deflating tires (sic) on older model cars. But how much do cars actually contribute ? Or is it just that these cars are seen as a luxury, and people shouldn't be indulging themselves ? sack cloth and hair shirts anyone ??

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

rb1957,
You were doing great until lapsing into false choice.
Modern Conveniences vs Cave Living is not the question.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (LionelHutz)

Did you compare it to the old pump operating on a timer and only running part of each day? Pool pumps don't need to be running 24/7.

The old pump ran 6-8 hours a day. 1500W unit.

The new one runs 12 hours a day drawing 250W

"Modern Conveniences vs Cave Living is not the question." ... is the question (in your mind at least) "Modern Conveniences vs No Living" ?

How does destruction (albeit minor and annoying) of SUVs help us to whatever the goal is ?
As I said, modern cars are much better than older ones, so the older ones should be "attacked".

Just more stunts.
Reminds me of the joke "what's the difference between a magician and a chorus line ?"
"one as an array of cunning stunts"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

rb1957,
Your vehicle (whatever it is and whatever baggage it is carrying) has gone into the ditch, and will be stuck there until some better ideas come along to pull you out.
Good luck.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

maybe your SUV can pull me out ?

really not sure what I've said to upset you ... I'm agreeing with your observation (that late model cars are better environmentally) and by inference that these "Tire Extinguishers" are 1/2 baked.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

I just look at this chart and think, there is nothing man can do, one way or the other and we are truly living in blessed times for human beings.

Quote (That’s not an effective way to win friends and influence people.)

I agree, and I don't agree with it the activity , but ugly can happpen, and it could get worse.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The historical trend says that there is only enough water for it to get 10m worse.

And none of this faster than ever nonsense. The rises are all vertical in eooxybot's chart.

That's a relief... I think we're about 700' above sea level; there are parts of the southern states that could be a little worried.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The historical chart also shows that there are no steps on the rise. Once the rate of rise starts to slow, it stops. It appears we are nearly at a peak already.

That's only based on the last half million years... don't know what's coming. That's part of the problem. It's interesting that it follows a pattern.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

So what's the problem?

My problem is that it looks like my commute is going to get much longer over the next 50,000 years if the cycle continues.

Quote (Tug)

The historical trend says that there is only enough water for it to get 10m worse.

That curve only goes back half a million years. If you go back millions of years the sea level was quite a lot higher.

It's generally accepted we're increasing CO2 above what it's been for 800,000+ years, so unfortunately a 500,000 year chart of sea level mightn't represent an upper bound for sea level.

I don't think it's reasonable to go back 500 million years? Pangea hadn't even broken up yet. I would assume at one point everything was under water until tectonic action pushed some dirt above the surface.

You needn't go 500 million years back. It says that 5-10 million years ago the sea level was ~100m above current levels.

You're still talking in a timeframe that will have California beginning to leave the continental United States. We've got to draw a line somewhere for how far into the future we worry ourselves.

sorry, but that sealevel chart is one of the things I hate about this "debate".

1) What does historical data have to say about the future ?

2a) What does historical data have to say if we humans are increasing the atmospheric CO2 level ?

2b) ... and affecting the environment is a myriad of ways ?

3) Is the chart saying "carry on irregardless" ?

4) "Global sealevel" is such a nebulous (meaningless?) term (much like "global temperature") ... to condense the whole globe down to one data point ... seems to me like "climate change for tik tok".

I expect in the next 10 years we'll learn a lot about climate, climate mechanisms, and mankind's impact on them.

and in 10 years time I expect we'll be having exactly the same "debate".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

I wonder what else will come out of the woodwork?

https://www.sciencealert.com/fresh-water-in-lakes-...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (You're still talking in a timeframe that will have California beginning to leave the continental United States.)

I understand that some people in the US think that's a good idea.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (rb1957)

1) What does historical data have to say about the future ?

It shows us that the limit of sea level rise is about 200m. That's what it was hundreds of millions of years ago when the temperature was 10C warmer, and CO2 was in the thousands. A waterworld scenario is not feasible.

Quote (rb1957)

2a) What does historical data have to say if we humans are increasing the atmospheric CO2 level ?

No much. We are increasing atmospheric CO2. This issue is a bit of a red herring. I'm a climate skeptic but I don't deny we're raising CO2. Of the rise from 280 ppm to 420ppm, almost all of it is due to humans burning fossil fuels. What else could it be?

Quote:

2b) ... and affecting the environment is a myriad of ways ?

Here's we're it gets very murky. I would say, not nearly as much as your average alarmist likes to make out. Every single vaguely unpleasant climatic event is now attributed to climate change, regardless of how statistically normal they are. You can't see climate change without decades of careful statistical analysis. Yet we're assured now that climate change can be seen with out own eyes and is undeniable to everyone. It doesn't seem to occur to people that they might be engaging in confirmation bias and falsely attributing historically normal extreme weather events to their ideas of catastrophic climate change.

Quote:

3) Is the chart saying "carry on irregardless" ?

No, but we're going to carry on regardless.



4) "Global sealevel" is such a nebulous (meaningless?) term (much like "global temperature") ... to condense the whole globe down to one data point ... seems to me like "climate change for tik tok".

The idea of sea level being 10m higher is fairly concrete.

Quote (This issue is a bit of a red herring. I'm a climate skeptic but I don't deny we're raising CO2. Of the rise from 280 ppm to 420ppm, almost all of it is due to humans burning fossil fuels.)

I don't think it's red herring... I think it's for real and there are some serious changes coming up in the next few decades... Cause is humans buring fossil fuels and other things... I hope you are correct, but I fear you're wrong.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

I don't think it's red herring

I mean it's a red herring in terms of the policy actions. CO2 is rising due to human emissions. The question is what do we do about it? That's the real debate. On one side are those who want to shut down fossil fuels ASAP. This side emphasises the increase in CO2. The other side of the debate fears the proposals to radically cut fossil fuel use, so they dispute how much humans have increased CO2.

There's almost no activity considering how disasterous this could be. Most of it appears to be doing 'lip service' instead of real activity. I usually don't get excited about stuff, but this can become 'real stuff' with huge social and political outcomes.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Alarmists have no solutions, and can't even identify the problem. They just worry about the sky falling.

I can not only identify the problem, but I can see it daily... I don't know how to stop the sky from falling and no one seems to be interested.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

More good news...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/06/supreme-co...

this says a lot about the country with over a hundred million in population having the highest carbon footprint per capita... maybe another reason for concern.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

All that says is that the deep state bureaucrats don't have authority from Congress to make all the decisions they have been making.

There are a number of countries with higher CO2 emission than the US, including your own.

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-em...

and Australia... but with a lot less than one hundred million population, that's why I added the qualifier. Canada's is higher than Australia, but we have a bit of an excuse... small population, and a very cold climate and huge travel distances. China's per capita footprint is half the US and India's is about 1/10.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

What that says is that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats shall not impose policy on the country. Congress shall DO IT'S JOB and legislate.

That's the intent as I understand it. We'll see...

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Sn... I don't think it's going to happen... they haven't indicated that they are up to the job yet.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I learned something interesting about the IPCC's language. Apparently when they say they are moderately confident that effect X is due to CO2, moderately confident means 50/50.

So the the layman if someone authoritative says they are moderately confident that something will happen, I bet most of them would not be expecting a toss of a coin.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Agreed, I've got no faith in 'em.

I have difficulty envisioning how the extra-constitutional behavior of my government is corrected....

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Most people accept the IPCC consensus that climate change is associated with human produced CO2. The problem as expressed by many in the forum is a realistic engineering perspective that a reduction in CO2 is not easy.
Unfortunately the debate has been monopolised politically by extreme greens who believe that energy change is necessary AND technically easy and cheap, and the extreme conservatives, who believe that there is no need for action AND replacement of fossil fuels is difficult. Both positions are only partly correct, but their incorrect assertions have confused a whole lot of people.

Quote (Greg)

I learned something interesting about the IPCC's language. Apparently when they say they are moderately confident that effect X is due to CO2, moderately confident means 50/50.

Where did you read that? I've seen different sorts of terms. Equally opaque of course - we can't go telling people the plain unvarnished truth, can we now? They mightn't take things seriously enough.

Sorry (memory error), their phrase is 'medium confidence', not moderate, and the definition is 'about as likely as not'. 50/50. https://theconversation.com/lost-in-translation-co...

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Linguistic magic out of the way, let's have a look at why nobody has a serious plan.

Take a deep breath.

Money.

So far governments have pandered to their electorate with the field of dreams approach, make things a bit easy for big ticket renewable schemes to get approval and become financially attractive to their backers.

While this has resulted in a somewhat greener (discuss) grid, it is undeniable that it is less robust. Most of the hard yards in CO2 reduction have been by substituting natural gas for coal, not windmills and silicon. That lack of robustness is a direct function of the lack of storage that the intermittent renewables need, and the inability of conventional fossil fuel and nuclear plants to operate economically as intermittent suppliers. Yes gas peakers can do that reliably, but they cost a lot to operate, $500/MWh (ie 50c/kWh) at the moment is not even break even.

As we have discovered in the past couple of years, if first world governments feel like it they can borrow $100000 per taxpayer to deal with 'existential' issues. This will of course have to be paid off by future generations and/or inflated into insignificance. So how much of our grandchildren's money do we need to steal to stop them moaning about climate change (well, infinite, there will always be a new crisis to solve)?

As of this instant Australia needs about 131 TWh of coal powered electricity per year, so as in that other thread, at $10B per GW for (expensive US style) nuclear or a gas peaker reliant basically renewable system, we'd need 15 GW, or $150B, or another $15000 per taxpayer. So given that we've just spent 5x that on a pandemic which mostly harvested a lot of very old people, money wise it seems doable, for Australia. But... India, China, and eventually Africa will need to also spend that much, and they haven't got the dough. Or the will. If they had the money they'd spend it on something else (hopefully schools and hospitals, not Mercedes and New York penthouses).






Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

dik,

You said a million population, not 100 million. Don't correct it now, as it would make my post in error.

Greg, I'm presently working with a colleague on trying to see what a (largely) non-fossil energy mix could look like in the National Energy Market (East coast of Australia). We have been using the NEM 30 min interval data to look at the actual energy mix which then allows theoretical substitutions to be considered.

My data for the fossil energy mix for 2021 is very close to yours (138.2TWh). Interestingly though, the peak fossil usage during 2021 was 24GW (evening peaks 6th Jul, 21 Jul 24 Jan) further increasing your capex estimates if this was be replaced by new nuclear/gas plant. It is obvious form the extract below that solar and wind were not able to shoulder the burden at these times, despite the considerable investment that has already been made. And batteries - that is another costly story.

Extract of Electricity Data from Australia's National Electricity Market (2021)


We really need a lot more mainstream transparent discussion on what the future energy mix looks like under the various scenarios and what it is going to cost.

Sorry Hokie, my error... over 100 million population. There are a whole bunch of little countries with per capita outputs that are higher. A BPS for your correction...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

No worries. I think most things to do with AGW are off by about that much, anyway.

Quote:

We really need a lot more mainstream transparent discussion on what the future energy mix looks like under the various scenarios and what it is going to cost.

That's not going to happen. The mainstream has declared war on discussion. Anything contrary to the mainstream will be labeled as misinformation/disinformation. As a person you will be labeled a denialists for simply asking questions.

Depending on the group, Tug, I think that works both ways.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

EnzoAus - I'm glad somebody else is thinking about this from a data-led approach, as opposed to hand wavy repetitions of talking points from the mass media. I wasted a morning wrestling with the AEMO website to try and pull those numbers you've got, all my estimates for renewable output variation are based on UK data. I stuck to day by day outputs as I was mostly interested in how many days batteries a 1 GW baseload renewable system would need (2.5 days as it turns out, and a massive overbuild of the generators). One big finding is that at least for the UK, offshore wind is economically untenable, onshore wind is the cheapest per MWh delivered (and the ugliest), and solar is good at filling some of the gaps. Of course in Australia we haven't actually had to pay for any offshore wind so far so real world data is lacking. The cheapest system was onshore wind, solar, and gas to fill in the gaps (the more gas the cheaper). I'd be tempted to stick an hour's worth of batteries in there just because, but that is one huge battery.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

solar ... in the UK ? on which day of the year ?? (ie ... it's usually very overcast)

1hr of battery ? ... enough to avoid the system crashing, but once the battery is on, then loads better start shutting down.

is fracking an option in Oz ? it's done wonders in the US, and some unknown future cost.

what does a 20GW nuke (or 2 or 3 10 GW) look like ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Quote (what does a 20GW nuke (or 2 or 3 10 GW) look like ?)

I like nuclear power if done safely and a means of getting rid of any waste is safely undertaken. This could be the future, but there also has to be a huge reduction in the use and manner in which fossil fuels are used.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (Greg)

EnzoAus - I'm glad somebody else is thinking about this from a data-led approach, as opposed to hand wavy repetitions of talking points from the mass media

Is anyone with any clout doing that? Only 6 months ago our NSW energy minister was secretly arranging for our largest coal generator to be shut early. Then only last week, when NSW's supply vulnerability started kicking in (despite Eraring not even being closed down yet), did Kean panic and cobble together his coal deal to extend the life of coal plants. This is the energy minister! He really did seem ignorant of the extent to which NSW depends on coal. He thought you could just shut down the plants, problem solved. It seems the politicians and even AEMO are proceeding in total defiance of the reality of where energy comes from. It's just inane talking points about the need to "transition to renewables as soon as possible". That's the answer to everything. Emissions. Supply shortages. Fuel bills. Just keep pushing renewables into the grid and problem solved.

Quote (GregLocock)

I wasted a morning wrestling with the AEMO website to try and pull those numbers you've got.

For those interested in the Australian National Electricity Market data, the following link may be useful. I had to employ my son's software skills to extract the data into the 12 month CSV that I was seeking. I may be able to share that in a future post after I've had a chance to do some analysis. Link

Quote (Tomfh)

Is anyone with any clout doing that?

A guess a few people are. Just saw an Australian Financial Review article on Linkedin this morning suggesting a total build price of $AUD320B. Link

By contrast the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) has revised its estimate down from AUD$1T in 2017 to AUD$500B in the following article. Link

All big numbers that will only be worthwhile if the energy mix provides stable power during all seasons and for all weather extremes.

@rb1957

"solar ... in the UK ? on which day of the year ?? (ie ... it's usually very overcast)"


To my surprise the solar farms in the UK whack out an average of 3 GWh per day for each GW of plate capacity. That's about 2/3 of what I get, but my panels are not optimised for energy output, they point east and west to get a broader shoulder, and should be angled more, they point at blue sky not the sun. I live in the rain shadow of the wettest place in Victoria, so it isn't exactly classic Australian outback, more like a sunnier, somewhat drier, version of Devon. Green field solar farms are probably oriented to give maximum energy output over the whole year.

Fracking is not politically an option (there is a lot of gas) in 2 states.

I think we need to build one or 2 nukes per state, otherwise the interconnectors will fry.

@TomH, read Enzo's articles. Here's a freeby of the Fin https://t.co/kxotPCWjWE

So estimates between 150-250 (mine, nukes, no cables included, only 15 GW, Enzo say 24GW needed really) to 500 for wind/solar/storage (oddly enough I agree with that figure too, 3 times as much as nukes). I'd call that close enough to at least start sketching out this 28 year project.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

The CSIRO article is just flapdoodle, but has good links https://www.transgrid.com.au/media/x4mbdody/transg... and https://www.csiro.au/en/news/News-releases/2021/Ge... which I haven't had time to read.

I am greatly looking forward to the day in parliament when these costs are mentioned.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Greg,

There is some fracking in Queensland, where it is warranted, and more to come. The other states have succumbed to the weather jihad.

https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/management/acti...

Yes and all the planets are lined up as well. All known for what 100 plus years this sort of wild weather was going to happen in the age of Aquarius or our present time.
Even books written about it years ago. Its a stunt.

if you've got "plenty of gas" why not change to gas powered PP ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

"where it is warranted"... Hopefully they have done their homework... too often they don't.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

"where it's warranted" may mean "not near the reef"

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

@dik Thanks for sharing this important information.

Quote (Justice Elena Kagan)

“Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” Kagan wrote. “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Quote (Thanks for sharing this important information.)

I think it's a serious problem that no one is addressing. I think it was Mark Twain that noted, "Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it." I think his other one I like, "I haven't had so much fun, since the orphanage burned down", maybe more appropriate.

The SCOTUS is just making it worse... with the US having the worlds largest carbon output, by a factor of two, for countries with over 100 million population. Things do not look promising.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (TugboatEng)

The historical chart also shows that there are no steps on the rise. Once the rate of rise starts to slow, it stops. It appears we are nearly at a peak already.

Except that what is different this time around is that earth’s peak predator is aggressively moving the goalposts. (A practice I think you are well familiar with.)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (dik)

"Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it."

Big Oil begs to differ!

Here is another Samuel Clemens quote I think is apropos:


One of our fundamental weaknesses is how much we forget, individually and as a society.
Many of us know little more than a few basic facts about our grandparents' lives.
In 2007 we forget that financial collapses have happened over and over again.
After WWII we kept on believing that only Germans had fascist tendencies, conveniently forgetting that before WWII there were National Socialist political parties active in most if not all Western nations.
There are many more examples.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (dik)

I think it's a serious problem that no one is addressing.

I really appreciate your quotes, they are relevant and help to paint the picture.

Fortunately, there are many people who have realized the extent of the problem and they are putting an incredible amount of effort into raising awareness and making real and valuable changes. Their power is limited but growing and they need all the support they can get. It is extremely hard, believe me, I have tried, to encourage people to even consider the possibility of climate change, even in the face of real hard evidence, once they have been convinced by their favorite exclusive source of news that the concept is fake.

@ironic metallurgist Thank you, I appreciate your input.

Quote (ironic metallurgist)

After WWII we kept on believing that only Germans had fascist tendencies, conveniently forgetting that before WWII there were National Socialist political parties active in most if not all Western nations.

I would like to add these references for context. I would be interested to hear if you agree.

National Socialist

fascism-vs-communism-vs-socialism

Quote (Greg)

So estimates between 150-250 (mine, nukes, no cables included, only 15 GW, Enzo say 24GW needed really) to 500 for wind/solar/storage (oddly enough I agree with that figure too, 3 times as much as nukes).

320B or 500B seems a bit optimistic for full transition to solar/wind/storage. Snowy 2.0 quickly blew out from $2 billion to $10 billion+, and 4 years to 12+ years. Swapping the whole grid to stored renewables will encounter similar hurdles.

From the Fin article, AEMO projections:

Quote (Fin)

AEMO says renewable energy as a share of the total energy generated on the grid will rise to 83 per cent by 2030-31, to 96 per cent by 2040, and to 98 per cent by 2050.

This seems so far fetched. 83% renewables within 8 years? 96% within 18 years?

What is FY? Is it 20? so the chart starts at 2024 and ends at 2050? Is the numbering such that FY can be 21? Just curious...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Ian and ironic: I don't think we want to take this thread into that area of politics, or even on this website.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Shouldn't that line be trending in the opposite direction? or even levelling off?

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

No, we have a big Australia policy, by 2050 the population will have doubled compared with today. As such we are building a city the size of Adelaide every year (really?), building 4% more rail per year (in somebody's attic roofspace), building better catchment for the water they need (subject to planning permission) and so on and so forth. We're also switching to EVs so will need to replace all the power used in cars and trucks. Oh its all joined up thinking. Also of course all gas heating, cooking and hot water will need to be replaced.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

IanCA,

National Socialism? I only live in N America because of it, not by choice. The German problem can be traced directly back a century to 1920s conditions in the Weimar Republic. Those conditions were in turn a direct consequence of the disastrous 1919 Versailles Treaty.

Folks will casually categorize me as a 'boomer', which I find hilarous (and almost a slur in the same way milennials often don't appreciate the way that term is used on them). It is not that much of a stretch to think of myself as closer to 'refugee', even if it was delayed. It took Europe more than two decades to overcome the physical and societal devastation of the war. Certainly my parents generation of immigrants were routinely called DPs (look it up), and many of their generation were exploited for cheap farm labour by their Canadian 'sponsors'. When I arrived it was only male WASPs who could take postsecondary education for granted.

But to your question: the first reference is a good one, but the second one I would shun. It is a grossly simplified scorecard, and oversimplifications are mistruths. Further, it falls back on the ridiculous 'left-right spectrum' scheme. There is actually no such thing; that 'model' is a dumbed-down, artificial construct that offers us the illusion we are having debates about politics, when the 'conversation' sounds more like two halves of a sports arena screaming epithets at each other. Even before the Interweb the level of political discussion was pathetically low; today it is nearly nonexistent. The media requires this scheme for their simplification and stupidification imperative; politicians utilise it to help Divide, Divert, and Demonize (the 'three Ds' that make up the standard issue politician's tool kit). But let's be honest, all of us prefer complex ideas to be dumbed down and predigested, so that we can easily pigeonhole anything and anybody. We sure don't want to do the required reading. We prefer to embrace the propaganda we are fed than do any self-examination into the past sins of our own tribe (and no tribe is without sin).

Back to the distinctions between political systems; your average voter cannot explain the difference between socialism and national socialism. That is a severe indictment of our educational system. But a totalitarian state is a totalitarian state, regardless of which sacred text they are reading from.

And my definition of ideology (provided by whichever sacred text)? It is the theoretical nonsense we cook up to justify and rationalize the sh!t we do to others, individually and nationally. I take my guidance firstly from Orwell (and I do not mean simplistic readings of Animal Farm).

Cheers

Quote (dik)

Ian and ironic: I don't think we want to take this thread into that area of politics, or even on this website.

Impossible to separate politics from this subject. I don't want to indulge in it, I just want folks to understand that politely setting politics aside is a refusal to comprehend how and why we are where we are.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote (epoxybot)

I just look at this chart and think, there is nothing man can do, one way or the other and we are truly living in blessed times for human beings.

Interesting contradiction: having a deterministic and fatalistic worldview, and feeling blessed about it.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

ironic... STOP

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

@ Ironic, I'm glad I asked because now I feel we completely agree on most of your points.

Paris 1919 by Margret MacMillan is an excellent book, I have my own copy right here and it was well worth the time invested to do the required reading. I think it was disastrous that the treaty was not ratified by the US Senate. Was Wilson really that far out of touch with his peers back in the US? Was there ever any set of conditions that would have been ratified?

Quote (ironic metallurgist)

self-examination into the past sins of our own tribe

That's what I prefer to do. There are plenty of good examples and it helps me to keep them in mind.

Quote (TugboatEng 30 Jun 22 05:42)

What do some speed statistics contribute here?

I believe that public transportation can play an important part in reducing CO2 emissions and the US is woefully behind many other nations.

Quote (ironic metallurgist)

I just want folks to understand that politely setting politics aside is a refusal to comprehend how and why we are where we are.

I completely agree. As far as I can see the climate change debate has been settled in the scientific community and the reasons for inaction are entirely political. It is critical for enough members of the public to understand the real threat to their own well-being and have sufficient trust in those who are willing to put in place legislation to change course away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy. It is also important to understand the motivations of those (and their supporters) who would undo efforts that stand to reduce the effects of climate change.

I think we are all well aware of that, and bringing up politics will not further the information to be learned. So, let's drop politics. It doesn't belong here and will only detract.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (IanCA)

the reasons for inaction are entirely political

That and the laws of physics.

...and economics.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

"No, we have a big Australia policy, by 2050 the population will have doubled compared with today. As such we are building a city the size of Adelaide every year (really?), building 4% more rail per year (in somebody's attic roofspace), building better catchment for the water they need (subject to planning permission) and so on and so forth. We're also switching to EVs so will need to replace all the power used in cars and trucks. Oh its all joined up thinking. Also of course all gas heating, cooking and hot water will need to be replaced."

ahh, greg ... always the negative waves ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

The Native Americans seem to have a different opinion on the cause of our wildfire in California. The tree density is too high.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01232-x

Maybe a little less rain would be beneficial?

An interesting article about Musk... it may be that working from home and using public transportation and high speed trains may be in the future... he's out of it, it would appear.

https://www.techradar.com/news/elon-musk-takes-cam...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (ahh, greg ... always the negative waves ...)

a big one Greg... and I don't have a clue about how that will work out.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (The Native Americans seem to have a different opinion on the cause of our wildfire in California. The tree density is too high.)

They might be wrong, but that could be one of the outcomes... I'm pretty sure California, or at least parts could use a little more rain.

I forgot, you have to rake the forrest floor.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

So, let's drop politics. It doesn't belong here and will only detract.

Politics was here from the get-go, in the form of extreme positions, conspiracy theorism, personal insults, or just plain bizarre. It is delusional to imagine this problem is a technical one, and that unprecendented political leadership is not essential to defeating it.

Here are some of the high(low)lights. In reviewing this entire thread the number of sideways shifts is impressive (but not in a good way).

Quote (JoshPlumSE 16 Jun 22 16:33)

Also, our politicians have decided that protecting a small species of fish (the Delta Smelt) is more important than providing water to the central California farmers.

Quote (SnTMan 18 Jun 22 15:26)

Seriously? There is a worldwide faction that is SO concerned they have convinced children they have no future.

Quote (GregLocock 19 Jun 22 00:32)

That is an example of the extent to which the political scum have indoctrinated our children,

Quote (hokie66 19 Jun 22 19:45)

Now if only the rest of the world would mind its own knitting...

Quote (GregLocock 20 Jun 22 07:42)

The propaganda works.

Quote (dik 20 Jun 22 16:51)

one of the reasons we are in this mess is because of rightist laissez faire capitalism.

Quote (GregLocock 20 Jun 22 23:26)

After 50 years of doomsaying about the reef, and its stubborn refusal to die, how much longer will we have to wait before a government will audit the science institutions that have been scaring our children?

Quote (TugboatEng 21 Jun 22 03:57)

Is it a conspiracy to think that a university may want to temrinate a professor that speaks against their major source of funding? Climate change is very profitable for universities and banks...

Quote (Tomfh 21 Jun 22 11:34)

It’s bizarre that they went after Ridd. Strange behaviour when they’re fighting the idea that there’s a manufactured consensus climate change.

Quote (TugboatEng 24 Jun 22 05:06)

Tell us how Marxism will combat climate change?!

Quote (TugboatEng 24 Jun 22 15:11)

Marxism will help because it will tank economies and cause a mass die-off of the human race. This is what ironic wants.

Quote (Tomfh 28 Jun 22 00:42)

You haven’t heard the people talking about the climate hell that is upon us?

Quote (Tomfh 28 Jun 22 20:48)

What is Net Zero by 2050 if not a plan for massive upheaval?

Quote (hokie66 29 Jun 22 01:16)

And hopefully, it will cause the new government to become the old government.

Quote (TugboatEng 29 Jun 22 06:33)

If the alarmists get what they want we'll be emitting more. 25 years to replace 125 years of energy infrastructure is going to greatly increase carbon emissions in that term.
IM has made it clear that his goal is not about reducing climate change but reducing humanity.

Quote (Tomfh 1 Jul 22 20:50)

It doesn't seem to occur to people that they might be engaging in confirmation bias and falsely attributing historically normal extreme weather events to their ideas of catastrophic climate change.

Quote (hokie66 1 Jul 22 22:35)

Alarmists have no solutions, and can't even identify the problem. They just worry about the sky falling.

Quote (hokie66 1 Jul 22 22:52)

All that says is that the deep state bureaucrats don't have authority from Congress to make all the decisions they have been making.

Quote (SnTMan 2 Jul 22 00:12)

I have difficulty envisioning how the extra-constitutional behavior of my government is corrected....

Quote (TugboatEng 2 Jul 22 03:27)

The mainstream has declared war on discussion. Anything contrary to the mainstream will be labeled as misinformation/disinformation. As a person you will be labeled a denialists for simply asking questions.

Quote (hokie66 2 Jul 22 10:20)

The other states have succumbed to the weather jihad.

Quote (enginesrus 2 Jul 22 14:54)

Its a stunt.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

ironic... LET'S DROP POLITICS. We all know they are an integral part to climate change. I should have added, that unless it's a real dumb political move that will make the problem greater, like the SCOTUS decision.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Anybody notice that the rise in climate change follows the exponential rise in college sports profits and tution? Universities will push anything that brings in revenue. Climate change grants and football are the two most profitable programs at the moment.

IM, hopefully you see this comment in time to add it to your list.

Shifting the goalposts...and now, trolling.
You are nothing if not multi-talented TBE!

But here's the thing about trolling: it is most effective when performed subtly.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

SCOTUS...could anything be more political !?

More seriously though dik, I get that you have a block about seeing my contention that the climate crisis and mitigation are inseparable from politics. You are a non-partisan anchor of common sense here, and it is your thread, so I will commit to avoiding any direct or indirect mention of politics for the balance of this thread. Since I also do not indulge in selective data-crunching exercises (i.e. amateur climate scientisting), it means I am done here.

Cheers.

p.s., when I see the singularity approaching, what I see is our collective cranium disappearing up our collective large colon, accelerated by the Interweb Babel. Can't think of a better metaphor.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

I'd say Greg is the non-partisan anchor. He merely provides data and little speculation. Dik is just as partisan as the rest of us.

Speaking of SCOTUS. A major win with W. Virginia vs. EPA. We are returning law making to the elected legislative branch and stripping it away from an appointed bureaucracy with no checks or balances. It's a restoration of our Democratic rights. The again, climate change cannot be addressed with democracy standing in the way.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...

Quote:

Although there is general scientific consensus that measures are needed to avert global warming and possible consequent ecological disaster, forming and implementing policies for global warming is likely to be more difficult than has been supposed. The reasons lie in the nature of the threat and the radical mismatch between it and the types of problem normally faced by democratic governments.

Partisan only in that I have a high degree of confidence that climate change is real, and that there are potentially some serious changes that need to be done. I see little (for real) happening and I fear it will get a lot worse. The data I provide is generally correct.

Politically, I'm a conservative with a high social conscience. One of governments few purposes is to provide for the long term safety of their people and they have failed miserably with this.

Off my apple box.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

so in im's list of politic points ... none of the quotes were from im ? hummm ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

@TugboatEng Thanks for the link to the science direct article by Ian Christie, I was able to find a copy on acedemia.edu and I am in the process of reading it.

Quote (TugboatEng)

We are returning law making to the elected legislative branch and stripping it away from an appointed bureaucracy with no checks or balances. It's a restoration of our Democratic rights.

This point doesn't ring true for me. We know we need action to mitigate the effects of climate change, we had a government department being led by democratically elected officials, supported by the majority of the population, tasked with protecting the environment and they put in place legislation based on scientific data to move things in the right direction. Do you know if the SCOTUS decision was based on any consideration for the changes necessary to reduce the impact of climate change?

Carbon has nothing to do with anything other than helping plants grow etc. the sun does not run on hydrocarbon fuels, so we have nothing to worry about. Follow the $ and the reasons for climate change will be found.
Actually we are now living it. Top buck for energy now and all that follows.

Quote (Carbon has nothing to do with anything other than helping plants grow etc. the sun does not run on hydrocarbon fuels, so we have nothing to worry about.)

I sure hope you're right, but I don't think so. "When an ostrich sticks it's head in the sand, you know what's exposed", is an old expression that comes to mind.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

This is interesting:

Hope you can access it:
Climate change: 'Sand battery' could solve green energy's big problem - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-619...

Politicians like to panic, they need activity. It is their substitute for achievement.

Thanks pud... it may even be useful for cold climates like Canada... possibly part of a solution.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Things are starting to heat up a bit... I don't like temperatures that are much in excesss of 20C...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

The "sand battery" appears to be only effective as a means of providing stored heat, and as such, requires central heating. Otherwise, you'd have to generate electricity to distribute the stored energy, which incurs losses.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Yup... and that may be one of the things that may change in the future. Canada is not like Iceland.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

No capacity specifications or estimates for the existing sand battery. I'm going to assume this is another fantasy at this point

It's just a means of storing heat... if sufficient it can act like geothermal stuff...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

And heat can be quantified.

I hope this sand battery works. It seems a plausible idea. Sand is cheap and plentiful, and could be a reliable heat reservoir..

Quote (IRSStuff)

The "sand battery" appears to be only effective as a means of providing stored heat

It says it can keep the sand at 500C for extended periods. Couldn't that be used to generate electricity?

generating electricity from boiling the water into steam, then spinning turbines is not a particularly efficient process, particularly since the sand can't move.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

For this to work there has to be some way to circulate the sand. I'd assume there is some conveyor system that runs the sand by heat exchangers. At 500°C, the Carnot cycle efficiency for steam turbines is quite low.

I'm not shooting this technology down yet. I have experience similar technology when pulling a plug on the bottom of a boiler furnace and can personally attest to the high temperatures that remain in the ash for quite some time after shutdown.

But, if the unit is operational there must be some performance numbers available.

Sand has a specific heat ~1/5 of water.

Quote (IRStuff)

generating electricity from boiling the water into steam, then spinning turbines is not a particularly efficient process

It doesn't need to be, hence all the coal and nuclear power stations out there.

Quote (Tug)

For this to work there has to be some way to circulate the sand

The water would circulate, not the sand.

The problem is the thermal conductivity of the sand. Running tubes through the unit would only be able to remove hea immediately adjacent to the tube. I think it would be much more efficient to take the hot sand out via conveyor and blow air through it.

Quote (Tug)

Running tubes through the unit would only be able to remove hea immediately adjacent to the tube

The same as any heat exchanger.

I don't know how Iceland takes advantage of their geothermal heat... maybe something similar. I know that if it could be harnassed, it would have a real impact on Canada's carbon footprint.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Quote (dik)

I know that if it could be harnassed, it would have a real impact on Canada's carbon footprint.

If it worked it could have an impact everywhere.

concur, tom... but Canada is up near the top when it comes to carbon footprint per capita... our climate is a big cause. We do not need it for generating electricity; he have ample hydro power, I think.


So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Yeah it seems an especially good idea when heat itself is such a valuable resource.

Tom, heat exchangers, if they don't have pumped flow have convection. With sand there is no convection. There must be pumped flow.

Tug, heat exchangers are a basic technology that are used everywhere to suck heat from a mass of hot material. I don't understand this objection that you need conveyor belts to ferry hot sand back and forth when a long winding pipe thru the mass would achieve the same end.

Heat exchangers work by conduction, convection, and radiation. Sand is a poor conductor. Solids don't convect. 500C doesn't produce enough radiation. For this to work there needs to be some work done to get the heat where it needs to be.

Look at the structure. It's not shaped like a typical heat exchanger. It has a sloped side. I'd assume that's the conveyor that returns the sand to the top. That structure also contains the heat exchangers as they're not likely in the sand silo itself.

Quote (TugboatEng (Marine/Ocean)5 Jul 22 21:07)

No capacity specifications or estimates for the existing sand battery. I'm going to assume this is another fantasy at this point

"Vatajankoski and Polar Night Energy are building a heat storage facility where electrical energy is stored as heat in the sand. The warehouse, which has a heating power of 100 kW and a storage capacity of 8 MWh, will provide heat to Kankaanpää's district heating network." ... "The actual heat storage is a steel tank about four meters wide and seven meters high, inside which Polar Night Energy's patented automatic heat transfer system is installed."

On their web site: Link

Looks like the US is working on sand batteries too:

https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2021/nrel-option...

Politicians like to panic, they need activity. It is their substitute for achievement.

Good find, I didn't think to search in Finnish. Those numbers are in fact impressive.

... and the good news, "Construction will begin immediately." No waiting for 10 years to study the problem.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

hummm, I wonder if another "gravity energy storage system" ?
ie a scam

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

There will be a lot of snakeoil salesmen coming out of the woodwork.

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

so we're heating sand using surplus electricity. Ok, what's the efficiency of this process ? I thought resistance heating was woefully inefficient ?

then we store this hot sand, with presumably zero loss ?

then we extract the heat from the sand (with some efficiency) and convert that to electricity (with some efficiency).
I appreciate that part of the story is that we're using energy that would've otherwise gone to waste so getting anything back is better than nothing ?

oh, and somewhere we have to pay for transporting the sand to the top of the silos.

I have trouble seeing the sand flow "effortlessly" past the heat exchanger ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Resistance heating is highly efficient. The efficiency losses from other processes escape as heat, but if heat is your goal conservation of energy means you get all of it as heat.

Now going back to electricity is another story entirely.

I would assume these use direct contact heat exchange.

Yes, there is loss from transporting the sand around.

Even moving 100 tonnes of sand to the site uses a non-trivial mount of energy.

But, 8MWh is a decent amount of energy and rivals all but the largest battery installations.

For heating this is great. At 500C, only expect about 20% of capacity if used for steam cycle electricity generation.

A better use for power generation would be to augment the energy for the intake air heater or as a feedwater pre-heater of a conventional power plant.

Of course, this idea would get none of that sweet taxpayer funding or venture capital.

Resistive heating is 100% efficient. It is be very easy to turn energy into heat. It’s generally what we try to avoid doing!

Quote (Rb1657)

hummm, I wonder if another "gravity energy storage system" ?
ie a scam

The gravity tower is really stupid. It’s a Rube Goldberg energy storage device.

This sand battery makes perfect sense, if it indeed works.

3-5MWh of grid connectable battery can fit into a transportable e-house, so 8MWh of sand isn't competitive at all to the energy density of batteries or the energy storage of a big battery bank. It might be competitive on cost per MWh.

The 100kW energy transfer rate is due to the rate the heat can be put into or removed from the big pile of sand. That is also a low transfer rate compared to batteries. The above mentioned e-house could transfer energy at about a 1-4MW rate, depending on battery vs grid connected inverter capacity installed inside. I've seen one recently, it was 3MWh and had 4MW of inverter and was for stabilizing wind power.

I also highly doubt they are conveying the sand around during this storage process. That would make no sense.

From Pud's link.

why not have static sand and pump the water through it ? Maybe have a mixer to circulate the sand in the tank to get an even heating ?

But this does sound to me to be as feasible as that gravity storage concept.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Sand is a very good insulator. If you add water to it or start mixing it around you lose the property that helps it store energy.

I'm picturing a heat exchanger, with a bunch of tubes running through the sand.

But if sand is a good insulator, how will the heat get distributed through the sand ?
Maybe this is why they have moving sand ?

So we'd have a bunch of electrical elements heating the sand, and a bunch of tubes removing the heat.
Why not have one do both ? Surplus electrical energy heats a fluid which heats the sand. When we want to generate power we run the fluid through a reverse system (cooling the fluid) ?

This is such a croc !

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Heating the sand is simple, a tunnel or conveyor oven would do that well.

Getting the heat out would probably be a bit more challenging. The key is to minimize the distance heat has to move through the highly insulating sand. This could be done by pouring the sand over a flat plate. A slight slope and some vibration will keep the sand moving in a thin layer over the surface.

Another option would be to simply waterfall the sand and then blow air through it. This would require treatment of the air to remove dust.

In Pud's example a separate container with fluidized bed is used. I don't think this would be viable except on the largest scale.

If it needs conveyors etc then yeah, we’re back in gravity tower territory.

The very thing that works against gravity tower works in favor of this. The amount of energy required to conveyor 100 tonnes of sand up to 20 feet of elevation is only 2 KWh. That contribution to inefficiency would only be 0.2% (multiply by 3 if the power for the conveyor comes from conventional sources) if the unit truly stores 8 MWh of useable energy.

There's another big wrinkle in climate change, with the cards stacked against fixing it:

https://theconversation.com/energy-charter-treaty-...

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Time to move on...

thread1618-496614: Things are Starting to Warm Up Part II

So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

We finally settled on a climate change engineering subject and now it swings right back to politics.

P.S. I enjoy the politics...