[Al_U_Card]

 mike777, on 2017-July-14, 09:55, said:

agree Daniel.

I thought the article gave a glimpse of the future, a future of possibilities. I remain hopeful.

Mike, that future means only subsidies will keep renewables afloat. (Always relative to user-friendly energy sources.) With cheap, available energy, we can afford to do the research to improve efficiency and reduce waste. Wait for a future of inefficient and waste producing subsidized renewables. We don't have that much to squander.

[mike777]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-July-14, 19:21, said:

Mike, that future means only subsidies will keep renewables afloat. (Always relative to user-friendly energy sources.) With cheap, available energy, we can afford to do the research to improve efficiency and reduce waste. Wait for a future of inefficient and waste producing subsidized renewables. We don't have that much to squander.

Agree Al

Solar needs to be cheap, very cheap energy without subsidies. Agree it will take more innovation in nanotech.

I think the big difference between us is I see this as doable, very doable over the next ten years

Many issues to deal with....one current one is at what price should local home solar energy be sold back..big debate.

In other words my local tiny home generates excess solar energy to create electricity ....at what price should it be sold back to the grid at...
one of many issues is this is not repeat not a free market....it is controlled by state agency, controlled by the local prince

[Al_U_Card]

 mike777, on 2017-July-14, 20:23, said:

Agree Al

Solar needs to be cheap, very cheap energy without subsidies. Agree it will take more innovation in nanotech.

I think the big difference between us is I see this as doable, very doable over the next ten years

Many issues to deal with....one current one is at what price should local home solar energy be sold back..big debate.

In other words my local tiny home generates excess solar energy to create electricity ....at what price should it be sold back to the grid at...
one of many issues is this is not repeat not a free market....it is controlled by state agency, controlled by the local prince

It is sensible to construct "buildings" as energy efficient as possible. Incorporating geothermal, solar and even wind should be doable but the proviso of "buy-back" by the grid is not necessary BUT local load-sharing facility should be. Thinking globally and acting locally means community and neighborhood cooperation without the need for national (grid) involvement. Innovation into problematic but potentially profitable areas is the driver, never need or feel-good issues.

[Gerben42]

Solar power is not the future. It has major issues. To produce solar panels,which have limited lifetime, it requires rare metals which are limited. Not to mention heavy metals which are poisonous. In Germany we had a huge boom in solar panels. There is going to be a riot when the owners find out their precious solar panels are special garbage that require a special treatment to dispose them. Then there is the problem of efficiency. Solar power is not available when we neef iT. How we turn the light on when it is dark? Using solar panels? So we store electricity. Major problem. Batteries with so much storage don't exist and never will. No elements exist with a higher electronegativity than what we already use.

[Al_U_Card]

Mike's nano tech may help but basically renewables are grossly inefficient when compared to "fossil" fuels. Nuclear and especially Thorium LSRs are clearly the best alternative but current special interests on both sides will stop that idea in its tracks...

[mike777]

 Gerben42, on 2017-July-15, 15:23, said:

Solar power is not the future. It has major issues. To produce solar panels,which have limited lifetime, it requires rare metals which are limited. Not to mention heavy metals which are poisonous. In Germany we had a huge boom in solar panels. There is going to be a riot when the owners find out their precious solar panels are special garbage that require a special treatment to dispose them. Then there is the problem of efficiency. Solar power is not available when we neef iT. How we turn the light on when it is dark? Using solar panels? So we store electricity. Major problem. Batteries with so much storage don't exist and never will. No elements exist with a higher electronegativity than what we already use.

Yes, there are issues that need to be resolved, yes innovation in nanotechnology will be required.
The good news is the sun is always shining, always even when we are sleeping and photons can travel through clouds. As I have mentioned over and over again yes there will be many issues to resolve including storage and transmission. You ask how we do turn on a light when it is dark.. an excellent question...the good news is the sun is always shining even when it is dark. The good news is we can continue somewhere, somehow to generate electricity even when it is night outside. We know how today, the problem is today it is very costly in terms of money or pollution but we do know how to turn on a light when it is dark out right now.


I strongly agree that the current tech of solar panels, storage and transmission is not the final answer.
Success or failure will be measured in how fast solar gains market share in the generation of electricity.

None of the above is to say other approaches to creating electricity should be ignored. Your approach may indeed prove to be better.

[ldrews]

An interesting recent report that indicates that the data that has been used as a basis for climate change/global warming is not an adequate representation of reality: https://thsresearch....port-062717.pdf

[Daniel1960]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-13, 09:42, said:

All of the ice sheet? I would guess a very, very long time. Enough of the ice sheet to cause us serious issues? Well that is one o the key questions - certainly considerably less time than for Answer 1.


The papers I have read generally acknowledge a strong correlation between the NAO, blocking events and Northern European weather and are rather looking either at additional factors or at consequences of or explanations for the NAO effects. The warm water causing faster melt is also not really new as far as my recollection goes. I seem to remember reading about this mechanism in a paper from around 10 years ago, though my memory is hazy on the details. The idea of the NAO being an E-W displacement of blocking events is something new to me though. As far as the NAO correlation itself goes though, there has not been any new information rejecting this as far as I know. There have been attempts to tying it in with other natural variability, such as with the stadium wave hypothesis as well as the postulated relationship with solar activity. Unfortunately sites like RC tend pretty much to ignore things like the NAO, regarding it simply as weather rather than having any potential influence on decadal climate variability. Perhaps that will change if we are still having this thread in 10 years time, when the wave is due to turn "hot" again.

Many recent reports are tying this year's increase in Greenland ice mass to the cooling North Atlantic sea temperatures.

https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

http://www.dmi.dk/en...ce-mass-budget/

http://www.climatece...l-melting-21643

[Al_U_Card]

[Al_U_Card]

Hallelujah...I always knew that it had a more practical side...apologies to Leonard.

[RedSpawn]

https://www.usatoday...blem/625788001/

This article suggests we have a bit more basis than global warming than the flimsy "correlation = causality" argument.

[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-September-02, 03:51, said:

https://www.usatoday...blem/625788001/

Can anyone find the origin of the "Nationwide, the climate assessment shows, the strongest two-day storms occurred about 40% more often from 2000 through 2009 than they did from 1901 through 1960." claim in the associated report? My experience is that claims like this are meaningless without examining the underlying data, particularly since historical storm data is often unreliable. Some questions to answer are why these specific period ranges were chosen, what the numbers are for one-day and 3+-day storms and, indeed, what definition of storm is being used (it should on the surface be Beaufort scale 11+ but different definitions are often used and can be used to manipulate the data). I was unfortunately unable to locate the relevant section on an initial quick search - if someone has enough time, I would appreciate a nudge in the right direction (chapter number or the like).

[Al_U_Card]

While we are waiting for Irma to make landfall, this retrospective of Harvey covers all the bases.

Weather vs. climate

[Daniel1960]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-September-04, 08:55, said:

While we are waiting for Irma to make landfall, this retrospective of Harvey covers all the bases.

Weather vs. climate

It should be noted that that is the list of tropical cyclone strikes in Texas. Thus far, this decade (with 2+ years remaining) has experienced 1 hurricane (Harvey) and 3 tropical storms, approximating the 1990s (to date). Interestingly, a spike has occurred every 60 years.

[Cyberyeti]

https://qz.com/10692..._eid=bc8fc9890e

[Al_U_Card]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-06, 09:33, said:

https://qz.com/10692..._eid=bc8fc9890e

The 97% "consensus" has been debunked so many times as to make it more of a virtue-signaling device among the devoted to alarmism rather than the science behind the phenomenon.

[Cyberyeti]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-September-06, 14:23, said:

The 97% "consensus" has been debunked so many times as to make it more of a virtue-signaling device among the devoted to alarmism rather than the science behind the phenomenon.

Yes, but there are virtually no credible studies in support of the alternative hypothesis, and almost all are done/funded by people with a vested interest in getting that result.

[Al_U_Card]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-06, 14:39, said:

Yes, but there are virtually no credible studies in support of the alternative hypothesis, and almost all are done/funded by people with a vested interest in getting that result.

The reason being that real science relies on replication and confirmation rather than the articles of faith generally presented by alarmists (hurricanes getting more frequent and stronger being a prime example).
Politics relies on consensus and religion relies on faith. EVERY study that flies in the face of carastrophy is sufficient to refute the CAGW meme. Even the IPCC's scientific portion contains "denial". It is only the SPM (a consensual and political document) that is the cry of wolf by the delinquent teen-age shepherd...

[onoway]

 Gerben42, on 2017-July-15, 15:23, said:

Solar power is not the future. It has major issues. To produce solar panels,which have limited lifetime, it requires rare metals which are limited. Not to mention heavy metals which are poisonous. In Germany we had a huge boom in solar panels. There is going to be a riot when the owners find out their precious solar panels are special garbage that require a special treatment to dispose them. Then there is the problem of efficiency. Solar power is not available when we neef iT. How we turn the light on when it is dark? Using solar panels? So we store electricity. Major problem. Batteries with so much storage don't exist and never will. No elements exist with a higher electronegativity than what we already use.

There is this: https://phys.org/new...-batteries.html Since these apparently are only able to do small power jobs alone, why not do as Musk has supposedly done for the home battery systems he is selling and put dozens of them to work together? (only in his case they are supposedly tiny lithium ion batteries). I am always a bit wary of anyone who uses absolutes in terms of having reached the limits of pretty much anything, that's been the barrier to increasing knowledge throughout man's history. Not only because nobody then bothers to look, but that because since science has already proven we know everything we need to know about xyz, anything anyone suggests differently is automatically discounted.

These days especially, when so many "scientists" are turning out to be corporate whores and the scientific community is doing nothing about cleaning up their house, so increasingly "science" is falling into disrepute.

[PassedOut]

It's not just the Guardian now. The New York Times has started working to educate folks in the US about climate change: Climate Change Is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions.

Quote

What is the greenhouse effect, and how does it cause global warming?

We’ve known about it for more than a century. Really.

In the 19th century, scientists discovered that certain gases in the air trap and slow down heat that would otherwise escape to space. Carbon dioxide is a major player; without any of it in the air, the Earth would be a frozen wasteland. The first prediction that the planet would warm as humans released more of the gas was made in 1896. The gas has increased 43 percent above the pre-industrial level so far, and the Earth has warmed by roughly the amount that scientists predicted it would.

So heat-trapping gasses trap heat! Makes sense, when you think about it.