Climate Change is a Hoax

[Doc Socks Junior]

Ah yep, it's a warped 2nd law misunderstanding.

[tmcom]

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

In 2014 Moore said he "fears a global cooling" and says that US statistics show "no global warming for nearly 18 years."  I have a question here:  how can US statistics show anything at all about GLOBAL cooling?  And in any case, I work with US data:  it's getting warmer here.  He's just plain wrong.

Doug

Ok, l don't agree that Nuclear is the only option if greenpiece goes on a rampage.

And it is getting warmer in the US if you go by dodgy NOAA data. US summers are getting milder and winters harsher, or two good indicators that the US temps are decreasing.

As he said any data going against warming, is caused by global warming, and l guess common sense and psychotic behavior and thought patterns are also caused by global warming?

"Human Stupidity is Caused by Global Warming" is going on a T-shirt, lol.

The Tesla site is a copy, lol, that is a new one, eventhough those points have been there since 2016, Musk only craps on about the impending doom to flog his Tesla battery farms.

[lost_shaman]

3 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Ah yep, it's a warped 2nd law misunderstanding.

That and the way photons interact with electrons at different wavelengths and thus energy states.

[lost_shaman]

Here Doc educate yourself, this is a decent simple general explanation. I'm also not getting into the weeds of the "shoulders" around the exact 15 um frequency.

"For an electron at the ground state (n = 1) to be moved up to the next level (n = 2) it must absorb a quantum of energy that is the perfect amount to make this move. If the quantum is too small the electron could not reach the next level, so it doesn't try. If the quantum is too large the electrons would overshoot the next level, so again, it does not try. Only quanta of exactly the right size will be absorbed and used.

Similarly, if an electron is already at the second level (n = 2), and there is a space for the electron at the lower level (n = 1), it can release a quantum of energy and drop down to the lower level. But the amount of energy given off will be a whole number quantum. If this energy is given off as light (such as happens with emission spectra) then the photons rushing away from the falling electron will be of only one size and quality (color). Hence glowing sodium, or LEDs, only give off very discrete bands of light with distinct colors or bands within their spectrum." - http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/LAD/C3/C3_elecEnergy.html

P.s. notice the "it doesn't try" part? It is as if it is not even there when the photons energy is < an object's temperature except for GHG's that are resonating standing electron waves at those certain frequencies. Thus GHG's like CO2 only absorb and re-emit at certain wavelengths, here CO2's main absorption band is 15 um (so it only re-emits at 15 um if that is what it absorbed). 

Now Doc, remember 15 um photons are very cold photons! 

Edited April 19, 2019 by lost_shaman

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Now Doc, remember 15 um photons are very cold photons! 

@Doug1o29 @Doc Socks Junior, these (15 um photons) are like the peak temperature you see in Antarctica where people show water freezing when poured in mid-air. 

https://www.theloop.ca/watch/life/you/antarctica-is-so-cold-that-food-freezes-in-mid-air/5848945037001/6006908301001/your-morning

Edited April 19, 2019 by lost_shaman

[tmcom]

There is hope @lost_shaman.

[Doug1029]

55 minutes ago, tmcom said:

There is hope @lost_shaman.

Global NEVER WAS a crisis.  Note the past tense.  Up until now, temps have only risen about 1.8 degrees; tornado tracks have only moved a few hundred miles, still causing about the same amount of damage, but in different places.  Whether some of our recent hurricanes were crises or not depends on your perspective.  If one took out Mar-aLago, tRUMP would think it was a crisis, but as long as it's somebody else, he (and most of his ilk) don't care.

The big problem is that once we cross a critical threshold, we may not be able to reverse the damage.  Once the glaciers are gone, there's no practical way to get them back.  Above 4.0C of warming, we will begin accelerated species loss with no way to replace them, even if we control warming.

We have passed up opportunities to head off problems while it was still easy.  We could be generating most of our power from clean energy sources right now, but we have failed to act.  We can still land this plane, but it's going to be a rough landing.

Doug

[Doug1029]

10 hours ago, tmcom said:

Ok, l don't agree that Nuclear is the only option if greenpiece goes on a rampage.

And it is getting warmer in the US if you go by dodgy NOAA data. US summers are getting milder and winters harsher, or two good indicators that the US temps are decreasing.

As he said any data going against warming, is caused by global warming, and l guess common sense and psychotic behavior and thought patterns are also caused by global warming?

"Human Stupidity is Caused by Global Warming" is going on a T-shirt, lol.

The Tesla site is a copy, lol, that is a new one, eventhough those points have been there since 2016, Musk only craps on about the impending doom to flog his Tesla battery farms.

Nuclear is a dodgy issue.  Fast breeders use re-processed uranium as fuel, reducing the amount of pollutants in the process, but they can have meltdowns, with attendant extreme risks.  I think we could use them to reduce the amount of "hot" material being stored, thus reducing energy requirements for that storage (cooling systems, water pumps, etc.) and generate clean power in the process.  As for GreenPeace ever going nuclear:  Get real.  They're very much anti-nuclear.

If you don't like NOAA's data, you can always use the HadCrut4 data, available here:

Hadley-Crutcher 4 address is:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut4/

NOAA's data only goes back to 1880 and it is a bit iffy before 1892.  For the 19th century into the early 20th century, you can use the "Forts" data from the University of Illinois, available here:

EV2 Station Data Address:
Oklahoma:
http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/FORTS/inventory2.jsp

"Forts" because it was recorded by the Army Surgeon's Office and Signal Corps; weather stations were always located near a fort.  In Oklahoma, these go back
to 1824 (Fort Towson) and include Fort Gibson, Fort Sill, Fort Wichita, Fort Reno and Fort Supply.  So check it out:  As the dataset starts before the last local low of the Little Ice Age, it shows warming.  I leave it to you to determine how much is recovery from the Little Ice Age and how much is global warming, but it is a reasonable assumption that before 1850 it was the LIA and after 1909 it was global warming.  In between:  you decide.

The complete set of field notes for all weather stations run by the Weather Bureau and its successors is available on microfilm through the National Archives.  That will cost you about $500.  Microfilm is a bit inconvenient to work with, so I made a deal with a local library to transfer the data onto pdf files in exchange for a copy.  They show hand-written pages when the observer ran out of forms, coffee rings, and include notes about bud break, tornadoes, floods, people killed by lightning, condition of the peach crop and what farmer Jones planted last week.  There are gaps where the observer went to a Christmas party and didn't take any observations.  About a third of the stations didn't turn in reports for November 23, 1963 - they were watching the news broadcasts of the Kennedy assassination.  And then there's Hee Mountain where the observer didn't make any observations on days that were unusually hot or unusually cold.

There are also daily records available from some European cities, a few of which go back into the 1700s.  But these are isolated datasets and totally inadequate for determining global temps.

Before written records, there are proxies, like tree rings, ice cores and well logs.  These are listed on the NCDC website.  Fifteen tree-ring chronologies listed on that site are mine.  NOAA has not changed them.  When I discovered a missing ring in the Bokoma Log Pond Chronology, I had NOAA disable the link (It's still there, pending repair).  All these proxies have to show a similar pattern.  1855 is a marker ring (It was a drought year and is confirmed by weather observations and Indian history hides.  It is narrow in every Oklahoma and Arkansas chronology that goes back that far.  You can cross-check a series by cross-dating it against another, nearby series.  NOAA couldn't make changes without the original researchers getting wise to it and screaming bloody murder.

If you are going to claim global warming is false, then you need a dataset to back you up.  Without one, all you are doing is ranting.  There is no reason to believe you.  If you don't like NOAA's data, then use somebody else's.  It is the lack of supporting evidence that makes your claim unbelievable.  You won't defeat global warming without it.  So pick a dataset and go to work.

Doug

P.S.:  I found Tesla/Musk's site:  https://us.blastingnews.com/business/2018/03/tesla-elon-musk-and-the-environment-002461885.html

Not one of your 100 reasons is listed on this or any other company or individual site I have found.  They came from somebody else.

Doug

Edited April 19, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Here is an interesting article that deal with deniers.

Oreskes, N. and E.M. Conway.  2011.  Merchants of doubt:  how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming.  Bloomsbury Publishing.  355 p.  https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZeFcCAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=100+reasons+global+warming+is+false&ots=jbBmrAjOc-&sig=Xds_06bLtZu2pGxD9gg0FkRCL0s#v=onepage&q=100 reasons global warming is false&f=false

Doug

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Global NEVER WAS a crisis.  Note the past tense.  Up until now, temps have only risen about 1.8 degrees; tornado tracks have only moved a few hundred miles, still causing about the same amount of damage, but in different places.  Whether some of our recent hurricanes were crises or not depends on your perspective.  If one took out Mar-aLago, tRUMP would think it was a crisis, but as long as it's somebody else, he (and most of his ilk) don't care.

The big problem is that once we cross a critical threshold, we may not be able to reverse the damage.  Once the glaciers are gone, there's no practical way to get them back.  Above 4.0C of warming, we will begin accelerated species loss with no way to replace them, even if we control warming.

We have passed up opportunities to head off problems while it was still easy.  We could be generating most of our power from clean energy sources right now, but we have failed to act.  We can still land this plane, but it's going to be a rough landing.

Doug

From what Attenborough and others are saying if we don't take immediate action then we are screwed, (well, screwed is a word l use).

This is assuming that humans have primarily caused world temps to go up since 1970, eventhough previously it went up by the same amount, and we didn't cause that one. Which means present rises cannot be attributed primary to us, (or is unreliable data, when an attempt is made to attribute to our actions).

The problem is is that the charts show dramatic rises and falls, and when it is rising, scientists get greedy and stir the pot with end is nigh speeches, and we have to do something or perish. And that in turn scares a percentage of the population and they vote in the next party who say we will do the most to fix this.

Which is reality damages the economy dramatically increases electricity prices, and kills of pensioners that die due to freezing in their homes.

 

Most of our power from clean energy, lol, no we can't.

I had a talk to someone who bought that one, and my state, (Vic) could only do it if, 30% of our power came from new dam/hydro schemes across our state and the rest from solar/wind.

So hydro, still produces when the sun goes down and there is no wind, or too much, (wind turbines are turned off in high winds).

Unfortunately this model is nonsense, as when we have a drought, and dams dry up, so water restrictions are in place, even with the Desal plant, most if not all the dam/hydro plants would be useless or turned off.

So when our state has a drought, on top of a hot day with no wind and overcast, we are totally *****d.

Doesn't matter how hard we try, and the media gets off of it, the fact remains that wind/solar are not 24/7 and NEVER will be. Battteries same thing, very expensive and they provide little in return.

Australia would need to spend almost a trillion dollars, (recent study in my local paper) in order to hopefully shore up wind/solar, or give us a few hours of power.

And in ten years time, when they need replacing, another trillion, (which is a lot of money for our country, or it is too much).

 

So yeah a big mess, or we have nothing to fear by highs and lows, or that we have cuased it, since data, before the 70's, does not support it. We can certainly be p****ed by institutions and individuals who sell the fear for a buck, and by others who follow this religiously and refuse to think it through.

Edited April 19, 2019 by tmcom

[Doug1029]

15 minutes ago, tmcom said:

From what Attenborough and others are saying if we don't take immediate action then we are screwed, (well, screwed is a word l use).

That may be a little over-kill.  The actions we need to take will take time.  Converting to wind power will take the US at least ten years.  Most of the problems are simple logistics:  inadequate financing, not enough trained workers, not enough concrete production capacity, court cases involving imminent domain of rights-of-way, etc. etc.  With time, any of them are soluble.  The sooner we get started, the sooner we get done.

20 minutes ago, tmcom said:

This is assuming that humans have primarily caused world temps to go up since 1970, eventhough previously it went up by the same amount, and we didn't cause that one. Which means present rises cannot be attributed primary to us, (or is unreliable data, when an attempt is made to attribute to our actions).

The current temperature excursion started in 1909.  Between then and 1950, temps rose 0.30C.  There were local highs of +0.07C in 1953, 1958 and 1963, roughly coinciding with the 1950s drought.  There was another local high of +0.16C in 1973 with a rise of 0.90C beginning in 1978 and ending in 2016 (The "hiatus" was a dip in temps between 1998 and 2005.).  CO2 concentrations have been rising since at least 1880 - the ice layer for that year at Vostok showed CO2 concentration of 290.8 ppm.

The evidence strongly suggests that we were the cause of the temperature rise since 1909.  Before that, one could make a good case for the temperature rise having been the result of the end of the Little Ice Age; although, the solar record says it ended in 1841.

40 minutes ago, tmcom said:

The problem is is that the charts show dramatic rises and falls, and when it is rising, scientists get greedy and stir the pot with end is nigh speeches, and we have to do something or perish. And that in turn scares a percentage of the population and they vote in the next party who say we will do the most to fix this.

Daily, or monthly or yearly, ups and downs are weather doing its thing.  Climate change is slow, averaged over thirty-year periods.  The popular press writers who can't tell weather from climate are the ones stirring the pot.  They seem to think that an unusually low or unusually high temp means something.

Example:  Oklahoma's all-time low temp was -28F, set in 2011 at Bartlesville.  It's all-time high was 120F set in 1936 at Poteau and Altus.  These numbers, alone, indicate nothing whatever about climate change.

What you're seeing is a reaction by people who don't know what they're talking about, few if any of them are climate scientists.

49 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Which is reality damages the economy dramatically increases electricity prices, and kills of pensioners that die due to freezing in their homes.

I'm really getting tired of pointing out that WIND IS THE CHEAPEST SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY.  And as of the end of this year, solar will be cheaper than oil.

It is predatory pricing that produces the higher price.

54 minutes ago, tmcom said:

I had a talk to someone who bought that one, and my state, (Vic) could only do it if, 30% of our power came from new dam/hydro schemes across our state and the rest from solar/wind.

So hydro, still produces when the sun goes down and there is no wind, or too much, (wind turbines are turned off in high winds).

So what's stopping you from converting to wind?  I don't know about Victoria, but in Oklahoma, the wind is always blowing somewhere.  Even when there is no apparent wind on the ground, those rotors are still turning.  And even if the wind wasn't blowing, we could throw a few switches and bring wind power in from Wyoming or Iowa.  It is REALLY hard to imagine no wind at all over the entire continent.  Of course, Australia is a small continent....

We don't have problems with hydro-electric dams drying up.  Our problem is that we have built dams everyplace that can hold a dam.  We have no more places to put them.  The exact mix of energy systems that is decided on will be different from country to country and even within a country.  One size does not fit all.  Not enough hydro-power?  Use solar or wind.

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

So when our state has a drought, on top of a hot day with no wind and overcast, we are totally *****d.

So flip a few switches and bring wind power in from somewhere else.  Or haven't you thought of electrical grids in Australia?

Germany is going solar.  Hard to imagine a place less-suited to solar, but they are doing it.  One can generate solar power on an overcast day.  Not as much as on a clear day, not it can still be done.

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

Doesn't matter how hard we try, and the media gets off of it, the fact remains that wind/solar are not 24/7 and NEVER will be. Battteries same thing, very expensive and they provide little in return.

Have you thought of tidal power or wave-generated power?  You're an island continent.  You have energy sources clear around your perimeter.  Engage your brains and solve the problem.

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

And in ten years time, when they need replacing, another trillion, (which is a lot of money for our country, or it is too much).

Wind farms began being installed around here in the early 2000s.  I am not aware of any that have been replaced or taken out of service.  Bearings might need replacing and/or the towers need maintenance, but that's just a normal part of operating any kind of power station.  The costs are borne by the power companies.

1 hour ago, tmcom said:

So yeah a big mess, or we have nothing to fear by highs and lows, or that we have cuased it, since data, before the 70's, does not support it. We can certainly be p****ed by institutions and individuals who sell the fear for a buck, and by others who follow this religiously and refuse to think it through.

Most of your assumptions don't hold up.  Global warming started with the Industrial Revolution, about 1850, not in 1950.  From 1909 to 1950 temps rose 0.30 C, while they rose about 1.0 C.  between 1950 and 2016.  Wind power is the cheapest source of electricity and there are few, if any interruptions of service caused by lack of wind (Maybe, if you only had one wind farm....).  The new solar technologies could eliminate the need for transmission lines and are capable of generating about three times the power needed by the typical house.  Battery technology is not quite there yet, but it is coming.  Give it a few years.

I suggest doing some reading on global warming and the new sources of clean energy.  It's a brave new world out there.  Why just sit in the dark and cry about there not being any light?

Doug

[Doug1029]

tmcom:

A lot of Florida's wind power is being generated in Oklahoma and north Texas.  Chicago's power is being generated in Iowa.  Florida can be in a dead calm with scorching temps and Oklahoma would still be generating power for them.  Windless days are a local phenomenon, but power grids operate over whole continents.  We have three grids in the US, plus Texas.  Doesn't matter where the power is being generated, we send it all over the country.

And:  in Oklahoma we have natural gas plants that use the same transmission lines as the windmills.  We have backup already in place.

Doug

[Doc Socks Junior]

12 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Again, you need to understand the basic physics. A cold object CAN NOT warm a hot object. Here we are talking specifically about radiated heat in the form of infrared EM radiation. CO2 as a molecule with three Atoms bonded together can absorb 15 um EM IR radiation (photons with 15 um wavelength).

The bolded part is what it's all coming down to.  A basic misunderstanding about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  And, just as at the beginning, you're simply confused about the net flow of heat.  Here is the paper by Clausius (1854), which makes much the same statement as your bolded one.

Quote

Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.

http://zfbb.thulb.uni-jena.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/jportal_derivate_00140956/18541691202_ftp.pdf

Again, this is talking about the net flow of heat.  Not one-way transfers, such as what we're talking about with regards to the emission of photons from GHGs.  Heat can definitely pass from a colder to a warmer body, however, the warmer body will be passing more heat back the other way. 

On the other hand, I'm glad we both agree that CO2 can absorb infrared radiation.  Whew.

12 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

This is a property of CO2 molecules at any temperature, but other matter that does not absorb 15 um photons then the 15 um photons just pass through or bypass that matter as if these photons were not there at all unless that matter is very cold -199 K then 15 um photons would be absorbed and warm that matter to -199 K. 

Are you saying that the photons hang tight turns in mid-air in order to bypass matter?  Oddly unphysical.  I can accept pass through, given how radiation physically works, but photons aren't going to fly through the human body for other reasons.  All that solid matter, you know?

Of course, states of matter matter too.

8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Here Doc educate yourself, this is a decent simple general explanation. I'm also not getting into the weeds of the "shoulders" around the exact 15 um frequency.

"For an electron at the ground state (n = 1) to be moved up to the next level (n = 2) it must absorb a quantum of energy that is the perfect amount to make this move. If the quantum is too small the electron could not reach the next level, so it doesn't try. If the quantum is too large the electrons would overshoot the next level, so again, it does not try. Only quanta of exactly the right size will be absorbed and used.

Similarly, if an electron is already at the second level (n = 2), and there is a space for the electron at the lower level (n = 1), it can release a quantum of energy and drop down to the lower level. But the amount of energy given off will be a whole number quantum. If this energy is given off as light (such as happens with emission spectra) then the photons rushing away from the falling electron will be of only one size and quality (color). Hence glowing sodium, or LEDs, only give off very discrete bands of light with distinct colors or bands within their spectrum." - http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/LAD/C3/C3_elecEnergy.html

Yes, this is how electrons are excited in atoms.  Good.  Great!

8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

P.s. notice the "it doesn't try" part? It is as if it is not even there when the photons energy is < an object's temperature except for GHG's that are resonating standing electron waves at those certain frequencies. Thus GHG's like CO2 only absorb and re-emit at certain wavelengths, here CO2's main absorption band is 15 um (so it only re-emits at 15 um if that is what it absorbed). 

Now Doc, remember 15 um photons are very cold photons! 

Again, it doesn't matter that they're 'cold' photons.

[tmcom]

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That may be a little over-kill.  The actions we need to take will take time.  Converting to wind power will take the US at least ten years.  Most of the problems are simple logistics:  inadequate financing, not enough trained workers, not enough concrete production capacity, court cases involving imminent domain of rights-of-way, etc. etc.  With time, any of them are soluble.  The sooner we get started, the sooner we get done.

The current temperature excursion started in 1909.  Between then and 1950, temps rose 0.30C.  There were local highs of +0.07C in 1953, 1958 and 1963, roughly coinciding with the 1950s drought.  There was another local high of +0.16C in 1973 with a rise of 0.90C beginning in 1978 and ending in 2016 (The "hiatus" was a dip in temps between 1998 and 2005.).  CO2 concentrations have been rising since at least 1880 - the ice layer for that year at Vostok showed CO2 concentration of 290.8 ppm.

The evidence strongly suggests that we were the cause of the temperature rise since 1909.  Before that, one could make a good case for the temperature rise having been the result of the end of the Little Ice Age; although, the solar record says it ended in 1841.

Ok, we differ on that one.

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Daily, or monthly or yearly, ups and downs are weather doing its thing.  Climate change is slow, averaged over thirty-year periods.  The popular press writers who can't tell weather from climate are the ones stirring the pot.  They seem to think that an unusually low or unusually high temp means something.

Example:  Oklahoma's all-time low temp was -28F, set in 2011 at Bartlesville.  It's all-time high was 120F set in 1936 at Poteau and Altus.  These numbers, alone, indicate nothing whatever about climate change.

What you're seeing is a reaction by people who don't know what they're talking about, few if any of them are climate scientists.

So David Attenborough should not talk about the end is nigh, got it.

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I'm really getting tired of pointing out that WIND IS THE CHEAPEST SOURCE OF ELECTRICITY.  And as of the end of this year, solar will be cheaper than oil.

It is predatory pricing that produces the higher price.

Wind and solar are markedly more expensive than a coal fired power plant that has paid for itself!

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

So what's stopping you from converting to wind?  I don't know about Victoria, but in Oklahoma, the wind is always blowing somewhere.  Even when there is no apparent wind on the ground, those rotors are still turning.  And even if the wind wasn't blowing, we could throw a few switches and bring wind power in from Wyoming or Iowa.  It is REALLY hard to imagine no wind at all over the entire continent.  Of course, Australia is a small continent....

Probably since in AU, we don't tend to have any wind over several states at once, and currently we have to buy it from other states, but what happens when they close their coal plants down for wind/solar and barely have enough, we are back to ..ed..up again.

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Germany is going solar.  Hard to imagine a place less-suited to solar, but they are doing it.  One can generate solar power on an overcast day.  Not as much as on a clear day, not it can still be done.

Germany also only gets 10% of its power from solar, since it is so cold and overcast, so pretty useless there.

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Have you thought of tidal power or wave-generated power?  You're an island continent.  You have energy sources clear around your perimeter.  Engage your brains and solve the problem.

Wind farms began being installed around here in the early 2000s.  I am not aware of any that have been replaced or taken out of service.  Bearings might need replacing and/or the towers need maintenance, but that's just a normal part of operating any kind of power station.  The costs are borne by the power companies.

Most of your assumptions don't hold up.  Global warming started with the Industrial Revolution, about 1850, not in 1950.  From 1909 to 1950 temps rose 0.30 C, while they rose about 1.0 C.  between 1950 and 2016.  Wind power is the cheapest source of electricity and there are few, if any interruptions of service caused by lack of wind (Maybe, if you only had one wind farm....).  The new solar technologies could eliminate the need for transmission lines and are capable of generating about three times the power needed by the typical house.  Battery technology is not quite there yet, but it is coming.  Give it a few years.

I suggest doing some reading on global warming and the new sources of clean energy.  It's a brave new world out there.  Why just sit in the dark and cry about there not being any light?

Doug

Give it a few years, lol, apart from a Fission reactor, that is 30 years away or never, coal and nuclear are the only viable options.

[Doc Socks Junior]

 

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

Germany also only gets 10% of its power from solar, since it is so cold and overcast, so pretty useless there.

Cold doesn't matter for solar power...they power rovers on Mars with solar panels and it's pretty cold there so I hear.

In fact, they work quite well in cold. The overcast part is the bigger concern, so that's fair.

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

Give it a few years, lol, apart from a Fission reactor, that is 30 years away or never, coal and nuclear are the only viable options.

They do say fusion is always 20 years away.

Nuclear is a good choice.  Quite safe, good baseline power. Coal has the problematic negative externalities but it's "easy".

 

[lost_shaman]

12 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The bolded part is what it's all coming down to.  A basic misunderstanding about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  And, just as at the beginning, you're simply confused about the net flow of heat. 

pfft. Not at all. You are misunderstanding the radiative transfer of heat via the infrared spectrum. 

[tmcom]

29 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

 

Cold doesn't matter for solar power...they power rovers on Mars with solar panels and it's pretty cold there so I hear.

In fact, they work quite well in cold. The overcast part is the bigger concern, so that's fair.

True, but even with thermal protection, solar panels silica will break and be less effective in snow prown areas, or break at -40 if no protection is available.

The previous mars rovers had a special thermal blanket, underneath the panels that almost protected them from breaking, (neither were heated, by the battery). But if you look at Opportunitys panels before it died, you will find that some are broken.

But the point is, thermal protecting a few acres of these things would probably be impractical.

But greenies in Germany are finding even with solar on the roof and a Tesla battery in their garage that the battery goes dead since the panels typically generate 10% of their potential capacity.

Quote

They do say fusion is always 20 years away.

Nuclear is a good choice.  Quite safe, good baseline power. Coal has the problematic negative externalities but it's "easy".

I know that they are making progress with Fission, but it is still some way off, it will probably go online after 2100.

All other options pfft, it only makes this whole thing all the more funnier.

Edited April 20, 2019 by tmcom

[ChrLzs]

14 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The bolded part is what it's all coming down to.  A basic misunderstanding about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

While I applaud you for your patience in trying, you might as well have stopped there.  LS just posts word salad interpretations and handwaves.  I knew it was going down the toilet as soon as he used this inapplicable and silly statements like:

{LS} "A cold object CAN NOT warm a hot object".

In simplistic terms that is true, but as you correctly pointed out all objects that are not at absolute zero (aka 'all objects) have energy to contribute. 

LS is deliberately isolating two objects instead of properly considering them in their environment - he just doesn't get the whole concept of thermodynamics ... and the term 'net effect' whooshed far overhead...

[lost_shaman]

5 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

While I applaud you for your patience in trying, you might as well have stopped there.  LS just posts word salad interpretations and handwaves.  I knew it was going down the toilet as soon as he used this inapplicable and silly statements like:

{LS} "A cold object CAN NOT warm a hot object".

In simplistic terms that is true, but as you correctly pointed out all objects that are not at absolute zero (aka 'all objects) have energy to contribute. 

LS is deliberately isolating two objects instead of properly considering them in their environment - he just doesn't get the whole concept of thermodynamics ... and the term 'net effect' whooshed far overhead...

No ChrLzs you are wrong. You do not understand what you are talking about. You might as well be saying Antarctica warms New Zealand! We know how heat flows, you seem to be confused.

[ChrLzs]

20 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No ChrLzs you are wrong. You do not understand what you are talking about. You might as well be saying Antarctica warms New Zealand! We know how heat flows, you seem to be confused.

OK, so Socks and me both don't get it, and you do.  So why don't you simply provide the numbers - showing the actual measurable magnitude of the effect and how you got to it using your "doesn't matter about the energy contained in the colder object" principle?

In other words, make the point as you should have right at the start of this diversion.  I'll repeat, what is the magnitude of the effect and how has this been verified, in particular show/cite the actual maths for the alleged non-contribution of existing energy (or whatever it is you are claiming)....? 

[lost_shaman]

There is nothing funny, strange, or magical about it. If a photon does not have enough energy then there can be no absorption via blackbody radiation. CO2 will always absorb ~ 15 um radiation because that is where it can resonate in 3 of 4 vibrational states. The main absorption band for CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is the 15 um band. This is because it takes that exact amount of energy states to make CO2 vibrate. Any less and nothing happens, any more and nothing happens. 

Other matter that is not CO2 does not resonate at the 15 um band, and thus it is like it is not even there unless that matter is colder than 199 K!!! 

[ChrLzs]

You could have just said "NO, I can't/won't show you the numbers or anything to show the importance/magnitude of the claimed effect".  Next time read what I posted.

 

[lost_shaman]

3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

You could have just said "NO, I can't/won't show you the numbers or anything to show the importance/magnitude of the claimed effect".  Next time read what I posted.

 

I read what you posted. What do you want that "you" can't find? I'll help you.

[lost_shaman]

I'd like to see Doc SJ and Chrlzs go stand in a room where the peak emission was in the 15 um band! I bet they couldn't stand to be in such a room for more than 3 seconds or so before frostbite would start kicking in.

I wonder if they would still stumble out and claim all that 15 um radiation is melting the Earth?!!! HAHAHA! I think they would!!!

[Doc Socks Junior]

8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

pfft. Not at all. You are misunderstanding the radiative transfer of heat via the infrared spectrum. 

You're confused on the very basics. And since you can't grasp heat flow, you're truly useless to discuss this with.

I used to believe you were arguing in good faith, possibly. Definitely not anymore.  You're definitely clever enough to grasp the real physical concepts.  It's a little sad how you refuse to face reality.