Patrick.net

Global warming

By iwog   Follow   Sun, 8 Jul 2012, 1:30pm   20,439 views   402 comments
In Lafayette CA 94549   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (2)  

There has never been a summer like this one on the North Pole since detailed records have been kept. Not only is the United States experiencing a record heat wave, but the arctic ice cap is melting far ahead of schedule.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

Those of you who believe that global warming is a fraud created by Al Gore to win the Nobel Prize should probably rethink your positions.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/arctic-sea-ice-melting-at-a-record-rate-20120701-21b57.html

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 363-402 of 402     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

   363   7:48pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   New renter says Tide us over? To what? I don't see anything on the horizon that can replace fossil fuels EXCEPT nuclear. Tide us over to things beyond the horizon: 1) cold fusion 2) zero-point energy 3) "benevolent" alien invasion :-)

2. YesYNot Follow Befriend (2) 17 threads 443 comments Reston, VA

   364   8:18pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   New renter says To capture and transfer heat real time, liquid metal may be fine provided the system has adequate safeguards. However this does not address the question of why to store the heat at all? ... If you need to store energy locally just pump water up to a tower or onto a reservoir on a hill. Even better if you have to get the water over a hill anyway - pump it up to a reservoir during the day and have the falling water turn generators on the far side at night.... Build large underground pressure vessels and pump air into them during the day and use it to run turbines at night. It may even be possible to use excess hot water heated during the day to heat the stored air and further increase the pressure. You store energy to match production with demand. Pumping water to a reservoir is good if you have a hill and reservoir. Pumping air into the ground is less efficient, because compression generates a bunch of heat that will be wasted. Peter P says Wthrfrk80 is right. Heat is not a good energy source. Heat to electricity gets more efficient as temperature increases. In the example, it was 50%. Combined cycle gas to power is also about 50%. Production solar - electric panels were about 18% last time I checked. There are no natural sources of electricity. Hydro is probably the most efficient, but the supply is very low.

3. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

   365   8:31pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   YesYNot says There are no natural sources of electricity. Isn't lightning a form of static electricity?

4. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   366   8:37pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says Isn't lightning a form of static electricity? Yeah, but good luck capturing and storing the energy. I'm not sure how much useful electrical energy an average lightning bolt would give you anyway. Sure, the voltage is "off the charts" but the current lasts for only a split second. How much total energy (i.e. Joules) would a lightning bolt even give you?

5. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,116 comments

   367   9:20pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says Large dams can cause local climate change and affect rainfall. I guess nothing is free after all. I didn't say "large" .. !! lol

6. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,116 comments

   368   9:21pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   wthrfrk80 says Peter P says Isn't lightning a form of static electricity? Yeah, but good luck capturing and storing the energy. I'm not sure how much useful electrical energy an average lightning bolt would give you anyway. Sure, the voltage is "off the charts" but the current lasts for only a split second. How much total energy (i.e. Joules) would a lightning bolt even give you? enough to trigger the flux capacitor

7. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,116 comments

   369   9:29pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   actually, those lighting bolts could flash boil salt water, creating steam power to spin a turbin, but also resulting in hydrogen gas that can be used to do whatever you want, and also the DC electrified salt water makes a brine with a weak chlorine that is pretty handy. My buddy Tesla was no joke. DC is natures way.

8. bdrasin Follow Befriend 6 threads 490 comments Alameda, CA

   370   9:40pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   wthrfrk80 says Peter P says Isn't lightning a form of static electricity? Yeah, but good luck capturing and storing the energy. I'm not sure how much useful electrical energy an average lightning bolt would give you anyway. Sure, the voltage is "off the charts" but the current lasts for only a split second. How much total energy (i.e. Joules) would a lightning bolt even give you? nonsense!

9. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

   371   9:47pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Bap33 says enough to trigger the flux capacitor LOL! If we have a time machine...

10. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    372   9:58pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   My mistake. I forgot that your average lightning bolt has ten thousand jiggawatts of usable energy. ;-)

11. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    373   9:59pm Wed 18 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   But you have to time it perfectly. You will need a clock tower.

12. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,202 comments

    374   1:28am Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot_solar_cell

13. zzyzzx Follow Befriend (9) 434 threads 4,244 comments Baltimore, MD

    375   7:18am Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   YesYNot says You store energy to match production with demand. Pumping water to a reservoir is good if you have a hill and reservoir. Pumping air into the ground is less efficient, because compression generates a bunch of heat that will be wasted. True, but how much of the water evaporates from the upper reservoir before it gets used?

14. zzyzzx Follow Befriend (9) 434 threads 4,244 comments Baltimore, MD

    376   7:21am Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   wthrfrk80 says I like the idea of storing energy via water pumping. I also think it's the best way to store energy. In some places this could be difficult, but then again, some of this can be done underground or above ground closed systems (I.E. - upper reservoir can be a water tower) but I have no idea how economically viable it is if you have to build a water tower reservoir like that. I am not sure if it has even been tried.

15. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    377   7:30am Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   At any rate, nuclear power is the only proven way to reduce CO2 emissions on a large enough scale to slow AGW. But of course some places *cough* Japan *cough* probably shouldn't use it. At some point in the future other technologies might be able to do the same thing on a large enough scale to matter. But we're not there yet. I'd rather not wait for what *might* happen.

16. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    378   8:42am Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I think Japan was handling the situation just fine. It certainly could have been better. But it could have been MUCH worse. They should most definitely continue to use nuclear energy.

17. YesYNot Follow Befriend (2) 17 threads 443 comments Reston, VA

    379   9:13am Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   zzyzzx says True, but how much of the water evaporates from the upper reservoir before it gets used? It depends on how long you need to store the power, local temperatures, wind, and humidity levels. That is why you need to quantify these effects as average for typical parameters and also quantify them for each project individually. This is why energy generation and storage solutions going forward will be a mix based on what makes sense for individual projects.

18. New Renter Follow Befriend (3) 14 threads 2,446 comments San Jose, CA Premium

    380   10:22am Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says New renter says Let me expand on that. Heat capacity is itself also a quantum phenomena. Energy is stored in the vibrational and rotational modes of molecules. These are modeled in QM using the harmonic oscillator and rigid rotor models. Both are very efficient at storing energy. For example liquid water has several bending and stretching modes which is why its heat capacity is so high. The conversion of quantum level Brownian motion to useful energy is prohibited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You would literally be reversing entropy in a closed system. So no. I love the idea of harvesting energy from vacuum fluctuations or a heat sink, but still no. No argument there but we are not talking about a closed system. We are also not talking about an equlibrated system. Now harnessing particle kinetic energy from an open, non-equilibrium system? Lots of ways one can do that.

19. New Renter Follow Befriend (3) 14 threads 2,446 comments San Jose, CA Premium

    381   10:24am Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   YesYNot says True, but how much of the water evaporates from the upper reservoir before it gets used? Not very much if the water is stored in covered tanks or high altitude underground reservoirs. Keep in mind this works both ways. Think of the additional energy can you get from more water entering the system (e.g. rain)

20. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    382   11:09am Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Water is truly amazing with its unique "just right" properties. It is an evidence of intelligent design. On the other hand, panda shows that such grand design may not exist.

21. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    383   1:32pm Thu 19 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   God made our noses so they would fit glasses.

22. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,646 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    384   8:41pm Sat 21 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Peter P says Water is truly amazing with its unique "just right" properties. It is an evidence of intelligent design. No it's not. Water appears amazing because you evolved here and you're made of water. Water is not nearly so amazing on Venus where it is perpetually a vapor, or Mars where it is perpetually a solid and sublimates just like carbon dioxide because of the low pressure.

23. xrpb11a Follow Befriend (4) 2 threads 787 comments

    385   9:05pm Sat 21 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (2)   The 4.54 Billion year earth has gone through hundreds, if not thousands, of thermal cycles in it's lifetime, without any assistance from mankind. There is no way to tell with reasonable confidence whether the current thermal cycle is a natural event, or man-made. The technological advances of mankind has without doubt affected the quality of air we breathe. This is a man-made problem that should be addressed. As far as the glaciers breaking apart, record temperatures, etc....why take the financial and industrial hit trying to correct something that may be totally out of our hands, while the rest of the world prospers at our expense.

24. Bap33 Follow Befriend (3) 12 threads 3,116 comments

    386   9:20pm Sat 21 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   xrpb11a says As far as the glaciers breaking apart, record temperatures, etc....why take the financial and industrial hit trying to correct something that may be totally out of our hands, while the rest of the world prospers at our expense. Perfect. Awesome. Bravo. Cheers.

25. xrpb11a Follow Befriend (4) 2 threads 787 comments

    387   9:25pm Sat 21 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Water exists in three states: Liquid, Gasous, Solid. Peter P's statement does not specify what state "water" must be in to be "amazing". His statement is a blanket statement covering all three states. Life in Water, Solid State: Many living organisms are able to tolerate prolonged periods of time at temperatures below the freezing point of water. Most living organisms accumulate cryoprotectants such as anti-nucleating proteins, polyols, and glucose to protect themselves against frost damage by sharp ice crystals. Most plants, in particular, can safely reach temperatures of −4 °C to −12 °C. Certain bacteria, notably Pseudomonas syringae, produce specialized proteins that serve as potent ice nucleators, which they use to force ice formation on the surface of various fruits and plants at about −2 °C.[9] The freezing causes injuries in the epithelia and makes the nutrients in the underlying plant tissues available to the bacteria. iwog says Peter P says Water is truly amazing with its unique "just right" properties. It is an evidence of intelligent design. No it's not. Water appears amazing because you evolved here and you're made of water. Water is not nearly so amazing on Venus where it is perpetually a vapor, or Mars where it is perpetually a solid and sublimates just like carbon dioxide because of the low pressure.

26. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    388   10:09pm Sat 21 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Just imagine what would happen if ice happens to be denser than liquid water.

27. New Renter Follow Befriend (3) 14 threads 2,446 comments San Jose, CA Premium

    389   11:23pm Sat 21 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says Just imagine what would happen if ice happens to be denser than liquid water. You nor I nor anyone else would exist. That's pretty much it

28. zzyzzx Follow Befriend (9) 434 threads 4,244 comments Baltimore, MD

    390   6:41am Mon 23 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20KNrh0iD Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years Study of semi-fossilised trees gives accurate climate reading back to 138BC World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now How did the Romans grow grapes in northern England? Perhaps because it was warmer than we thought. A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today. German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century. This cooling was punctuated by a couple of warm spells. These are the Medieval Warm Period, which is well known, but also a period during the toga-wearing Roman times when temperatures were apparently 1 deg C warmer than now. They say the very warm period during the years 21 to 50AD has been underestimated by climate scientists. Lead author Professor Dr Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz said: ‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low. ‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant, however it is not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1 deg C.’ In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun. The study is published in Nature Climate Change. It is based on measurements stretching back to 138BC. The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming Professor Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. Professor Esper said: 'Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’ The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were. Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles. In the cold environment of Finnish Lapland, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years. The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age. In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.

29. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    391   6:51am Mon 23 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Either way it's probably not a good idea to add extra greenhouse gasses at the rate we presently are. We should use more nuclear power and less coal for electricity generation.* That's the only proven way to meaningfully slow CO2 emissions with current technology. *but not in locations with strong earthquakes and/or tsunamis.

30. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    392   8:28am Mon 23 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I think earthquakes alone should be fine. Fukushima was done in by the tsunami. There are not a lot of suitable locations free of strong earthquakes.

31. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    393   9:42am Mon 23 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says There are not a lot of suitable locations free of strong earthquakes. Really? Most places don't have strong earthquakes. Strong earthquakes mainly occur along major fault lines. For example, the West Coast of the USA (including coastal Alaska) should probably not have nuke plants (IMO). But why not the rest of the USA? Sure, there is the occiasonal tornado but containment vessels are built to withstand those (and worse).

32. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    394   10:04am Mon 23 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   But nuclear power plants need a large body of water for cooling though.

33. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    395   10:34am Mon 23 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Peter P says But nuclear power plants need a large body of water for cooling though. True. Rivers, lakes, and the Atlantic Ocean could do the trick. They do this now.

34. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    396   10:09pm Tue 24 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   HRHMedia says Greenland's massive ice sheet has melted this month over an usually large area, Nasa has said. The key phrases are: this month, speed, scale Given noise in any data set, if you dig hard enough, you can find evidence to any trend. I am not saying that climate is not changing, but fear-mongering is counter-productive.

35. robertoaribas Follow Befriend (23) 56 threads 4,075 comments Scottsdale, AZ robertoaribas's website

    397   11:34pm Tue 24 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   This effect has been noticed roughly once every 150 years historically... Notice how many "extremely rare" events seem to be happening commonly nowadays, with regards to warm weather? That is how global warming, if it is happening, would happen. More and more rare things on the warm side... (It would never be a perfect linear line, so there would always be room to argue...)

36. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    398   7:06am Wed 25 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   robertoaribas says Notice how many "extremely rare" events seem to be happening commonly nowadays, with regards to warm weather? Yep. Like not having winter in the northeastern U.S. And a massive heat wave and drought in the midwest. It's getting pretty crazy. I like not having winter. But famines are oh so inconvenient.

37. Auntiegrav Follow Befriend (5) 7 threads 228 comments Belgium, WI Premium

    399   7:59am Wed 25 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Peter P says Just imagine what would happen if ice happens to be denser than liquid water. It would sink? duh ;-)

38. Auntiegrav Follow Befriend (5) 7 threads 228 comments Belgium, WI Premium

    400   8:04am Wed 25 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   wthrfrk80 says robertoaribas says Notice how many "extremely rare" events seem to be happening commonly nowadays, with regards to warm weather? Yep. Like not having winter in the northeastern U.S. And a massive heat wave and drought in the midwest. It's getting pretty crazy. I like not having winter. But famines are oh so inconvenient. A problem that solves itself. Who's to say that the Gaia hypothesis is looney? It's just the Earth's immune system kicking in to get rid of an infection of 'intelligence'.

39. Auntiegrav Follow Befriend (5) 7 threads 228 comments Belgium, WI Premium

    401   8:16am Wed 25 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Peter P says New renter says Tide us over? To what? I don't see anything on the horizon that can replace fossil fuels EXCEPT nuclear. Tide us over to things beyond the horizon: 1) cold fusion 2) zero-point energy 3) "benevolent" alien invasion :-) 4. Thoughtful energy usage (need-based, rather than demand-based) 5. Lives that add more to the future environment than they take from it. 6. Intentional birth control 7. Scientific natural philosophy rather than imaginary dogma 8. Property(and environmental) rights of unnamed future people equal to property rights of people with names.

40. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    402   8:28am Wed 25 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Auntiegrav says It's just the Earth's immune system kicking in to get rid of an infection of 'intelligence'. You could be right, yes. "The planet's not going anywhere...WE are! -- George Carlin

« First     « Previous comments