Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1457 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostMon May 06, 2019 10:26 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
describes significant losses for all sheets described in the study for both the 4x scenario and the 2x scenario

Nah, the 2X scenario has no significant change for the antarctic cap.  You can see this in fig 9.  Or you can read the paragraph just before fig 9, which states not more than 1% ice cap loss in 3000 years, an insignificant value.

TH's Article from the RD Springer Site wrote wrote:
After 3,000 years in a +10C climate, the Antarctic ice sheet has lost about 8% of its ice volume and 5% of its grounded ice sheet area (Fig. 7).

thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
Can you point out the references in AE's article where MWh are specified?

That, of course, is the point.  If they knew what they were talking about, they would have talked about battery storage in a unit that one generally uses for storage, rather than a unit of power, which is used by no one talking about batteries ever except for those weird folk trying to attach weapons grade lasers to tanks and planes.

There is a need for MW / MWh to be defined within each industry where these terms are used, and for the public in general. Just wondering if you had a good answer wink.gif  I don't think there is going to be a consensus across the board yet, some people will say capacity some people will say rate of delivery,  sometimes it will be subjective.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 770 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 9:29 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 770 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 9:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10749 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 1:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10749 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 1:04 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 276 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 7:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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 isnt 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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 276 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue May 07, 2019 7:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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 youll 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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1457 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostWed May 08, 2019 8:17 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
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.

I'm just pointing out the crusade ahead of you if you choose to enforce this definition for everyone across the board, legitimate or not. Good luck.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mongo
Member
Member


Joined: 22 May 2002
Posts: 302 | TRs

Mongo
  Top

Member
PostWed May 08, 2019 11:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10749 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed May 08, 2019 2:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mongo
Member
Member


Joined: 22 May 2002
Posts: 302 | TRs

Mongo
  Top

Member
PostThu May 09, 2019 7:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1457 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostThu May 09, 2019 9:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
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)

This calm perspective would be interesting to present along the Mississippi. Anytime during the calendar year in 2019, I'd wager. Or perhaps this would put things into a proper calm perspective for participants in the 2019 cyclone season, which is already breaking records with its first storms of the season. I think some people expect to see a single, absolute (perhaps even literal) result of "global warming". It's more akin to a rubber band being stretched, relaxed, stretched and relaxed repeatedly, with increasing frequency and intensity.

MtnGoat wrote:
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...

I'm honestly curious about what you are driving towards here. I agree that certain choices made by certain people (without the knowledge and/or consent of others who were affected by those choices) put us where we are today. I think we may disagree to some extent about who those groups are, what those choices were, and where we actually are right now biggrin.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10749 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu May 09, 2019 10:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1457 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostThu May 09, 2019 10:39 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
affluenza

Someone is proud of that term lol.gif I wonder where it got its start...

MtnGoat wrote:
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.

Ugh. You can decide what works for you. Aren't you deciding what works for me when you make these statements, and thereby becoming the very thing that you rail against in your previous posts? Sorry, this attempt to define human nature is somewhat distasteful and archaic.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10749 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu May 09, 2019 10:44 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday kayakbear, DanG, The Angry Hiker, hitda peakz!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy