Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostMon May 06, 2019 10:26 am 

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 9:29 am 
No. Not at all. Fundamental physical units have no or very little room for subjectivity and no one with any sort of skill in any of the hard sciences could ever mistake megawatts for megawatt hours. It would be like saying my car is moving at 3 gallons so i got a speeding ticket.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1510 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 9:37 am 
drm wrote:
Yeah, you always dismiss anything that doesn't fit your ideology.
My ideology is simply physics. If you don't understand basic parts of physics, you of course do get dismissed. And rightly so.
drm wrote:
Would those utilities be building all of this grid storage if it weren't economical?
Yes. There are 3 main reasons why such uneconomical things get made. I suspect in this case it is a combination of 1 and 2. 1) Government grants fund all sorts of unwise things and 2) Tiny test cases(and yes a few hundred megawatt hours is pretty tiny) for experimentation are a valid use of funds. Nat gas turbines will completely dominate batteries for a while, but that doesn't mean we should stop battery research. Just don't expect any major grid-scale battery storage in the next 10 years. 3) Someone in the planning chain is bad at math/science.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 1:01 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
The bottom line: Except for your very rare "turn-on-everything!" desperation hours at the afternoon peak of the years worst heat wave, natural gas is so cheap and gas turbines so awesome that batteries are not going to compete with natural gas peakers on their own financial merits in the next decade. No chance.
This is why it is so important to oppose subsidies for *any* players in industry. It empirically sorts out the wheat from the chaff.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 1:04 pm 
drm wrote:
Yeah, you always dismiss anything that doesn't fit your ideology. Would those utilities be building all of this grid storage if it weren't economical?
Yes. They're doing so because of mandates and subsidies. If your claim is that it is economically valid, then of course the proper answer is to kill the mandates and the subsidies, and find out for real. Depending on the ideology, this can be perfectly defensible, or not. When the ideology is that of proper scientific method without any excuses or mulligans, it is entirely defensible to dismiss anything which doesn't fit the ideology, because the ideology is science and what doesn't fit, doesn't belong in any argument dealing with empirical reality or science, to begin with.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 7:18 pm 
Saw both of these posted on Facebook today. The first is a video from Outside Magazine on local resistance to the proposed Klukwan mine near Haines, Alaska. The second is Tesla asking the government to support the mining industry in order to head off a serious shortfall of copper, nickel and other minerals required for battery manufacturing and other electronics. According to the article, demand for copper is expected to be ~40x current demand by 2030. I'm not unsympathetic to the people of Haines who are opposed to the mine, but you rarely if ever hear the climate community grapple with this issue. How many of those who advocate for a large-scale energy transition are also keen on many, many new mines on the landscape? https://www.outsideonline.com/2395045/klukwan-people-fight-its-life https://interestingengineering.com/tesla-warns-us-government-about-the-shortage-of-battery-minerals-in-the-immediate-future "New mines are being developed and older sites being rapidly refurbished to deliver on the increasing demand. It isn’t only electric cars that have sent the demand for copper skyrocketing, devices like Amazon Echo and other home assistants require large amounts of copper in their production. According to data from consultancy BSRIA these devices will consume about 1.5 million tonnes of copper by 2030, up from 38,000 tonnes today."
renewable-energys-hidden-costs
renewable-energys-hidden-costs

John
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 7:54 pm 
drm wrote:
As to the issue of past [Antarctic] melting not attributed to human activity, the key question is attribution. If attributed to human emissions, and those emissions don't stop or significantly decrease, then what we have seen now is just the tip of what we will see.
In an article earlier this year, Eric Rignot estimated Antarctic ice mass loss at 252 gigatons per year (a gigaton being slightly more than a cubic kilometer). At that rate, it would take about 1100 years for the continent to lose 1% of its ice mass. Whether or not that's a significant factoid is debatable - the significance is mostly in the related sea level rise. Whether Rignot is right or wrong in his estimate is also a legitimate scientific question as illustrated in the Climate Audit post and disagreement among top glaciologists. It's fairly well understood that the current mode of ice loss in Antarctica is basal melting by the upwelling/intrusion of relatively warm circumpolar deep water and the resulting grounding line retreat. The upwelling is due to winds that displace the colder surface waters. I don't think anyone has suggested that the deeper waters are warmer due to anthropogenic effects, but Rignot does suggest that "increasing greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere have caused the winds to shift and hence are to blame for increased melting. Maybe he's right - I have no idea. But in a sense he's in the business of attributing melting ice to human causes - that's just what a lot of climate scientists do as a result of their worldview. Again, it doesn't mean he's wrong, but it's entirely reasonable to be skeptical, just as Eric Steig expressed in the RealClimate post, and he's hardly a climate skeptic. (edit to add Steig comment) "I think the evidence that the current retreat of Antarctic glaciers is owing to anthropogenic global warming is weak. The literature is mixed on this, about 50% of experts agree with me on this. So you’ll get no argument from me there." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/so-what-is-really-happening-in-antarctica/#comment-637719 Tropical forcing of Circumpolar Deep Water Inflow and outlet glacier thinning in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica https://atmos.uw.edu/~david/Steig_etal_2012.pdf ABSTRACT. Outlet glaciers draining the Antarctic ice sheet into the Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE) have accelerated in recent decades, most likely as a result of increased melting of their ice-shelf termini by warm Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW). An ocean model forced with climate reanalysis data shows that, beginning in the early 1990s, an increase in westerly wind stress near the continental shelf edge drove an increase in CDW inflow onto the shelf. The change in local wind stress occurred predominantly in fall and early winter, associated with anomalous high sea-level pressure (SLP) to the north of the ASE and an increase in sea surface temperature (SST) in the central tropical Pacific. The SLP change is associated with geopotential height anomalies in the middle and upper troposphere, characteristic of a stationary Rossby wave response to tropical SST forcing, rather than with changes in the zonally symmetric circulation. Tropical Pacific warming similar to that of the 1990s occurred in the 1940s, and thus is a candidate for initiating the current period of ASE glacier retreat.

John
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostWed May 08, 2019 8:17 am 

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Mongo
Member
Member


Joined: 22 May 2002
Posts: 302 | TRs | Pics
Mongo
Member
PostWed May 08, 2019 11:03 am 
An article by a British researcher in sustainability and the environment that posits that any optimism we have in our current approach to climate and ocean changes is unrealistic. https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed May 08, 2019 2:18 pm 
When even more decades pass without catastrophe, following the non catastrophe of the 3 decades prior (when we'd been told we'd all be roasting by now) unless the little people handed over control to the Smartest and Best People so everyone else could have their standard of living destroyed for no valid reason... more folks will see the facts for what they are, and what is actually unrealistic. Credentialism is not science, and not even logic. Actual experts get claims *right*, and produce provably valid work which is correct. When someone says they're an expert, judge that on what they get empirically correct, not on their claim to expertise... no matter how many degrees they have.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Mongo
Member
Member


Joined: 22 May 2002
Posts: 302 | TRs | Pics
Mongo
Member
PostThu May 09, 2019 7:07 am 
Massive environmental change (not just climate) is happening on all environmental fronts, in some areas even faster than predicted. We can all evaluate that.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostThu May 09, 2019 9:50 am 

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu May 09, 2019 10:04 am 
The calm perspective that change is continuous and never ending on it's own, for reasons still poorly grasped at best, may not be comforting to folks whose lives are impacted by natural changes and events, but comfort is not the goal of science. Truth is. The vastly superior standard of living created by millions of people working independently and without asking anyone 'mother may I' in an infinite number of cases which violate no one's rights, put us where we are today. In a situation where the result of freedom and creativity has produced so much wealth that some of those enjoying it are afflicted with affluenza and think that this bounty is simply a given. It is not. It is not natural, it is distinctly unnatural, the natural state of humanity is not productivity and bounty, it is starvation and poverty. Only through reason, trade, and the recognition of valid human rights is starvation, poverty,and chaos kept at bay. So yeah, I think we do disagree on where, what, who, and why.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Doppelganger





Doppelganger
PostThu May 09, 2019 10:39 am 

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu May 09, 2019 10:44 am 
You can decide whatever you want for you, and then live it. For yourself, and of course, with and for those who agree. You are free to attempt to show an actual contradiction in my argument, rather than merely claiming one exists. If you find arguments you don't like distasteful or archaic, that's your buisness. As is claiming that clear statements are 'railing', rather than being mere arguments, explicitly stated. Showing they are empirically false, however, is another matter.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum