Bad news for Climate Change.

a reply to: TrueBrit

My apologies; in my confusion over my inability to turn those funny-looking symbols into intelligent sounds, I missed a point:

our nation is surrounded by coastlines which could be tapped for their hydro electric potential, has high winds on its many moors and downs, which could be tapped for their wind power, and actually gets pretty decent sunlight during at least half of the year, meaning that solar is an option, one unexplored on an industrial scale.

With the sole exception of solar, I agree. England is well-situated for one of the most promising technologies to come along in a long, long time IMO: wave energy. The last I heard, there was a Dutch firm who had a timeline for a pre-commerical full scale production test not very far off your coastline. Do you happen to know what the status of that is?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

www.sciencealert.com...

www.technologyreview.com...


Depends what kind of solar.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: pteridine

Water vapor is the largest contributor to any greenhouse effect.

Are you saying that carbon dioxide has no effect on the temperature in a greenhouse?

During the era of the Vikings, they colonized Greenland; not white land or snow land.

Greenland was covered in ice when the vikings were around.

Water vapor is the largest contributor because of the amounts in the atmosphere. It is difficult to model its effects because of cloud formation. CO2 is also a contributor as is methane. The effects of methane make it prudent to burn it rather than release it unburnt as it is about 25 times as potent as CO2. If you want to worry, worry about methane release from melting permafrost and decomposing methane hydrates. Consider the fraction of total CO2 flux that is anthropogenic. Then, prepare to adapt to climate change because there isn't much the world can do about it.

Greenland had a glacier during the Viking era but had a green part to colonize because of a warmer ocean. When the little ice age came along, the green part turned white. Colonies failed because they cannot survive on sno-cones.

a reply to: luthier

Both good ideas. I am a fan of photovoltaic solar for use in remote, low-power DC applications. It's hard to beat there, even if it is expensive.

Neither research project addresses the inefficiency involved in the low voltage DC to high voltage AC conversion process, however, nor do they address that limiting factor of the solar output itself. Those are the two problems I see with photovoltaic solar. Efficiency of the cells themselves has been a limiting factor, but I have faith that technology in that regard will be able to overcome that problem with time (as your links show).

The second link does make me wonder if the overall efficiency can top that of simply using heat from solar radiation to produce the electrical energy directly. Perhaps it can; Peltier junctions are pretty inefficient.

I have to admit that I am looking forward to the day when solar panels can e manufactured cheaply enough to make a rooftop solar collection system economically viable. If low-voltage lighting (as in LED) were used, there would be no need to convert and the lighting could be completely operated by solar (with a grid backup, of course... AC-DC conversion is much more efficient than DC-AC conversion). That wouldn't remove the need for traditional electrical grid ties, but it would decrease the needed energy draw on the grids.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Oh, I see exactly what is before my eyes. Do you?

Do you know how spectral absorption works?

Do you understand black body radiation principles?

Do you understand acidification processes?

Or do you just listen to the reporter on the news who tells you what he thinks scientists say while having no idea why they are saying what they're saying?

True science is not listening to others. True science is based on the core principle of questioning assumptions made by others. The second you start to accept what anyone else says without questioning it yourself based on your own knowledge and research, you abandon the scientific method and science itself.

TheRedneck

A. I do see what is before my eyes.
B. I know little about the first two that you mentioned.
C. I know very much about acidification of certain products that are very common in todays world.
I take everything I hear from talking heads with the smallest grain of salt. I like to do my own research.

a reply to: pteridine

I could survive on snow cones..


Maybe not the same flavor forever though

a reply to: Allaroundyou

B. I know little about the first two that you mentioned.

Then how is it you think others who do understand the scientific principles behind Global Warming claims are less informed than you are?

TheRedneck

a reply to: luthier

ty luthier.
www.natlawreview.com...

I don't know why he wants us to do the work instead of just taking 5 min to google it for himself.

Questionable methodologies to gather data then fed to statisticians using dubious computer models to create doomsday scenarios based on theories that are useful to a certain political agenda.

Does that about summarize the IPCC?

a reply to: network dude

If the study your article was based on wasn't made by a person that has admitidly been on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry since 2007 then I would consider it being of merrit.

Problem is Judith Curry has been a shill for the fossil fuel industry since 2007. The entire OP is based off of Judith Currys paper.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

Both good ideas. I am a fan of photovoltaic solar for use in remote, low-power DC applications. It's hard to beat there, even if it is expensive.

Neither research project addresses the inefficiency involved in the low voltage DC to high voltage AC conversion process, however, nor do they address that limiting factor of the solar output itself. Those are the two problems I see with photovoltaic solar. Efficiency of the cells themselves has been a limiting factor, but I have faith that technology in that regard will be able to overcome that problem with time (as your links show).

The second link does make me wonder if the overall efficiency can top that of simply using heat from solar radiation to produce the electrical energy directly. Perhaps it can; Peltier junctions are pretty inefficient.

I have to admit that I am looking forward to the day when solar panels can e manufactured cheaply enough to make a rooftop solar collection system economically viable. If low-voltage lighting (as in LED) were used, there would be no need to convert and the lighting could be completely operated by solar (with a grid backup, of course... AC-DC conversion is much more efficient than DC-AC conversion). That wouldn't remove the need for traditional electrical grid ties, but it would decrease the needed energy draw on the grids.

TheRedneck

There is practically no need for the average house hold to have ac power.

Led lights, electronics etc...the only needs are high power motors and still I think you are wrong.

That was a joke at the end but text didn't come out that way.

We can't get there without equal subsidies during the r and d phase. As it is solar is far less than nuke or oil during the phase

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I don't know why he wants us to do the work instead of just taking 5 min to google it for himself.

Because I don't see any sense in spending time to look up unsubstantiated claims. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. That's how it works.

As for the OIAI policy...

There have been no associated changes to pollution emission requirements. All the removal of OIAI did was to remove a requirement that did not take into account changes in a factory's ability to produce pollutive emissions. A factory classified as a major source is not automatically downgraded to a local source; a local source which exceeds thresholds is still upgraded to a major source. Without OIAI, a factory that was once classified as a major source may, if it meets qualifications, be downgraded to a local source. OIAI prohibited that, even if the factory in question had changed its potential for pollution.

Why would anyone even try to improve their pollution classification and reduce pollution beyond the bare minimum required by law if the law didn't at least recognize the efforts?

Thus there has been no additional pollution emitted over the policy change. Thus, this policy change does not meet the criteria of increasing pollution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: luthier

Lighting, sure. Electronic devices, sure. Heat/cooling? Not so much. Those are still high-power requirements, as are water heaters, clothes dryers (which dry by heating air), and ovens.

If you want to live in a home with no electrical HVAC, which has no hot water, uses only a microwave for cooking, and use a laundromat for laundry, sure, you don't necessarily need a grid tie. Most people don't want to live like that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I never made that claim. What I did say is that the evidence is there that this is happening. But those smart folks over at NASA have provided a lot of data to back up climate change.

I am no scientist nor would I ever claim to be.
Anyways here is a link

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: scraedtosleep

I don't know why he wants us to do the work instead of just taking 5 min to google it for himself.

Because I don't see any sense in spending time to look up unsubstantiated claims. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. That's how it works.

As for the OIAI policy...

There have been no associated changes to pollution emission requirements. All the removal of OIAI did was to remove a requirement that did not take into account changes in a factory's ability to produce pollutive emissions. A factory classified as a major source is not automatically downgraded to a local source; a local source which exceeds thresholds is still upgraded to a major source. Without OIAI, a factory that was once classified as a major source may, if it meets qualifications, be downgraded to a local source. OIAI prohibited that, even if the factory in question had changed its potential for pollution.

Why would anyone even try to improve their pollution classification and reduce pollution beyond the bare minimum required by law if the law didn't at least recognize the efforts?

Thus there has been no additional pollution emitted over the policy change. Thus, this policy change does not meet the criteria of increasing pollution.

TheRedneck

This argument is incredibly disengenous. One the data collecting and enforcement has been severely changed and two we wouldn't know the effects until the data is gathered and analyzed.

When trump talks about saving the 60k coal jobs this let's me know he is using idiology and not reason in these instances.

Now was Obama out of line with the speed and scope of regulating that is certainly possible. However, we are in serious trouble whether or not you believe in climate change as drinking, fresh, and salt water are under massive assault to cause harm to the habitats we need to survive.

The question should be the way we change not that we need to. We need more people designing things to clean the ocean not demanding we stop using technology. More people finding out how to manufacture plastics to biodegrade and be reusable not stopping the use of plastic.

Of coarse if we do that we can't complain and divide as easy during elections.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Questionable methodologies to gather data then fed to statisticians using dubious computer models to create doomsday scenarios based on theories that are useful to a certain political agenda.

Does that about summarize the IPCC?

Search on Climategate. The conspiracy was to keep the R&D money flowing and allow basking in limelight for environmentalists and to make Al Gore even richer selling carbon credits.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Cooling happens during peak sun, electrical heat is probably the least efficient heating, I have a radiator system as do moat people in the NE. I have no AC.

My food is done with a gas stove. As is my dryer.

A tesla roof for instance can handle the loads you are talking about.

One thing I love about solar power even here in the ne. Every storm doesn't knock off the neighborhood. A terrorist can't knock out my grid.

Biomass, hydroelectric, solar, wind and you could create a pretty good grid if that is your real desire.

www.treehugger.com...

And what about using sterling engines in places like Arizona?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

So what's your point. We should just ignore it?

sorry I forgot to write it in crayon for you. I was passing on an article I saw. I even mentioned in the OP about how we should still strive to do better, even if climate change isn't as dire as we might have been led to believe.

But in answer to your post, my point was to pass along this article. What was the point of your reply other than to show you have no clue what words packaged in paragraphs with punctuation are for?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: network dude

Maybe you should learn not to get so offended.

It's a hot button issue for me. It makes me explain to those who aren't smart enough to communicate regularly and must resort to labels that not everyone who questions the 97% of settled science is a denier, some are just not convinced that man is the largest contributor to the warming. I admit I was wrong before in my views, and my current views may evolve, but I'm pretty sure that if I was a denier, I would be saying there is no warming, and unless you are able to read further into what I write than my mind can go, I just don't see that being the case.

If I can educate one person to stop being "that guy" and discontinue using the idiotic term "denier" for any and all who don't think just like you, then I feel I have made a difference in the world I reside in. Please don't take it personal, just try to learn from it.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Ummm...I'm wondering if a combination of photovoltaic and rooftop solar heating...by using gravity/fluid thermal dynamics to operate a series of turbine's in the antifreeze jacket and thermoelectric generator's using heat flux to produce electricity...after using the hot fluid to produce in floor heat...closed loop system...might be viable...

I helped install a heat sump once...we coiled piping from the rooftop solar heat system through a large/deep bed of gravel under the Inn...the residual heat from that system would assist in heating the Inn through the night...with fireplaces which were more for ambiance...





YouSir