He's right. The stats were fudged. Global temperatures have dropped in the last decade.
Global temperatures of what?
Heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean (through ice melting) moves heat energy from the air into the water, so the atmosphere loses heat energy through that process. The overall average warming is fueling that melt.
He's right. The stats were fudged. Global temperatures have dropped in the last decade.
That's a bold statement, if you are referring to the decade that records indicate contained 8 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history, of which 2014 was the hottest? Can you support your assertion that the "stats were fudged"?
I'm not all for "butchering land" but I fail to see what could be a better use of land than a solar farm that is continually generating energy from the sun. Residential? Commercial? Industrial? It just seems like a more efficient, beneficial, and cleaner use of land than almost everything else one can think of building.
Yes, maybe solar does fry a few birds a year. There is nothing in the world that has NO negative consequences, especially when it comes to energy generation. And from what I know, pretty much every other available feasible method has a much higher cost.
I think it would be interesting to be a company pioneering solar on top of 1300 acres of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. That would also help reduce a portion of the heat island effect in metropolitan areas.
In desert areas, where heat islands are most noticeable, the roof surfaces are usually painted silver or white to reflect the sun/heat. Replacing this with dark-colored solar cells would cause these areas to absorb heat. So, while providing electricity generation -- they could actually make the heat islands worse ...
In desert areas, where heat islands are most noticeable, the roof surfaces are usually painted silver or white to reflect the sun/heat. Replacing this with dark-colored solar cells would cause these areas to absorb heat. So, while providing electricity generation -- they could actually make the heat islands worse ...
Interesting point. Solar panels are better than black shingles, from an absorbtion/radiation standpoint, and similar to gray shingles regarding heat absorption (around 70%), but half of that absorption is converted to electricity and not radiated. They still shade the roof under them (with an air gap), so the AC load for the home is lower than the plain shingles.
Looking at Phoenix, it looks like half of the roofs are still darker than light gray/white. Maybe panels would be a wash?
I'm pro nuclear, but thorium-based reactors are new to me.
Thorium is a brilliant technology. No weaponization possibilities, no meltdown possibilities, half-life in the hundreds of years, abundantly available in countries such as US, China, India....
Unfortunately, when there was a fork in the road many many decades ago, the US chose uranium over thorium (since the latter did not allow for nuclear weapons)!
Thorium is a brilliant technology. No weaponization possibilities, no meltdown possibilities, half-life in the hundreds of years, abundantly available in countries such as US, China, India....
Unfortunately, when there was a fork in the road many many decades ago, the US chose uranium over thorium (since the latter did not allow for nuclear weapons)!
Thanks, DoD. :\
Agree. Pebble bed reactors are very promising and work right down to an individual home scale.
Interesting point. Solar panels are better than black shingles, from an absorbtion/radiation standpoint, and similar to gray shingles regarding heat absorption (around 70%), but half of that absorption is converted to electricity and not radiated. They still shade the roof under them (with an air gap), so the AC load for the home is lower than the plain shingles.
Looking at Phoenix, it looks like half of the roofs are still darker than light gray/white. Maybe panels would be a wash?
You would basically be looking at the differences in both absorption and emission for both the solar panel and the roof, and at the same time, looking at the fraction of total roof area that solar panels would be installed on. You would also analyze over at least a 24 hour period as both panel and roof would be emitting to the sky, a black body, at night and that would have a cooling effect.
In reality, you would be looking at roofs as a very small fraction of the land surface, and so I also agree that it would be a wash thermally, but a win energy wise. There may be solar panels available with a thin heat exchanger on the back that would capture some of the excess heat as hot water.
I actually have a CFD program that could be configured to calculate this with a prevailing wind or breeze, but it would really require some actual testing to validate it.
I was just looking for a lighter moment, like the one you posted, to mention it ...
Wouldn't that be "SOTDOTB"?
Well, technically yes/maybe ... but I didn't want to discuss the grammatical correctness or settled linguistics -- rather, practically, I thought DOB was more likely to elicit a response ...
Ultimately, when organic hybrid panels are deployed you'll be able to deploy them in any climate, store for weeks ahead and off-load excess power to larger backbone distribution networks that can then eventually deploy power to third world regions of the globe.
Then there is the NIF&PS nearing its work on Fusion.
As a Mechanical Engineer I'm well versed in PB Reactors. The most recent project was shutdown by Westinghouse and South Africa. It's always looked promising since Fermi patented it in 1945, until the Atomic Energy Commission shut them down and derailed their progress for the next 40+ years, leaving it mostly as grad projects from the likes of Cal Tech and MIT.
The PMBR was a very promising project, until cost overruns revealed the infancy of its development, even after several decades of work.
The pictures I've seen don't blend in very well, unless you like dark blue everywhere.
But I just did a search, and Germany seem very progressive with roof tiles and shingles that have integrated PV panels in them, and they do look a lot better (if you like a dark roof).
[image]
I think that blends very well from what I'm used to in the US.
The biggest problem with these solar farms is the dramatic waste of land. The claim here is 1300 acres which would have been two family farms where I grew up. The displacement of wildlife is also troubling. Look at it this way, one can strip mine 1300 acres for what ever and fifteen years later you will have a young forest growing in hat location. A plant like this wastes that land forever.
I must say, given electricity can be easily 'moved' from the point of origin, it occurs to me that using desert areas for solar arrays would seem to be the most sensible way forward.
How about marshes, tidal areas and swamp lands?
Edit: and Detroit and the South side of Chicago ...
Problem is, those kinds of areas tend to be critical for wildlife. No easy answers.
What you're trying to do is to take scientific work, and say it isn't scientific. Why would that be? Would it be because it damages your position?
You keep saying that you're convincible in one sentence, but then a little bit later, you say something that shows you are not.
The studies I've looked at have not shown any bias. There was work done. Plants were grown in differing amounts of CO2, lighting, etc. and the results measured, weighed, and whatever else was needed to be done to evaluate what was done. The evidence showed what happened as CO2 levels rose. You want to say these studies show a bias, but you haven't read them. If you did, you would know that there was no bias. The results speak for themselves.
What I think is strange that with the scientific evidence mounting up so rapidly, is that there are some who still refuse to believe it, and refer to is as biased, because it goes against their views. Let's face it, you are biased yourself. You sint want to believe it, so you say it's biased.
Everyone can agree that what Apple is doing is good, except for that right wing organization that buy a share of stock of companies whose shareholder meetings they attend to harass. That happened last year to Apple. Fortunately, he was told to invest in another company.
No, again. Not my point. My point, again, is that actual, real, verifiable scientific evidence was interpreted in a biased fashion. I don't know how to be more clear about this. Data is unbiased, but interpretations of data often are, and in the example I pointed out, blatantly so. The counter to this, would be your seemingly unflinching belief that the interpretation of the data is not at all wrong, when in fact this is a real possibility, particularly when these models have been PROVEN to be wrong by the same scientists that currently swear on their life are true.
I have no interest in being wrong or right about this; I'm pointing out inconsistencies that are blindly ignored by global warming alarmists (which again, those who insist on continually being condescending, is not scientific). If my bias is to be skeptical of these dogmatic proclamations, then your apparent bias is to blindly focus on them.
I want to reiterate, again, that these facts CANNOT BE VIEWED IN A VACUUM. Even if we accept the current findings as true, do we really think they can be extrapolated out for decades (past evidence, and common sense, says no)? Even if we accept the current findings as true, does that warrant the changes being suggested, which have very real economic impacts (particularly for developing nations)? Even if we accept the current findings as true, does that mean that focusing 90% of our environmental focus on CO2 emissions is an effective way to help the environment, when it comes at the expense of dealing with other, more immediate, and concretely addressable environmental issues (again: habitat destruction, pollution, sustainability, fishery protection, invasive species damage, species extinction.....)?
If it seems like I'm repeating myself, I am, because, as is usual, none of the issues I'm bringing up are really being addressed. What the typical response seems to be is condescension, and referencing that there is "overwhelming data" that disproves me. But again, my point isn't so much with the data (although I believe it should be open to skepticism), but on the interpretation and implications of this data.
I agree completely with your last paragraph, that what Apple is doing is great, and that the individual that made that remark to Tim was an a-hole (I'm reading between the lines on this last bit).
I'd argue that it's actually worse than that. The level of attempted projection is really quite staggering. It is clear that many espousing these views do not have even the faintest understanding of science or how it is conducted but, faced with almost unprecedented scientific consensus and no actual counter-evidence, they attempt to portray those who doubt their unsupported counter-assertions as obstinate, dogmatic close-minded and unreasonable - precisely the characteristics that they, themselves, are displaying. It's somehow fascinating and yet horrifying, at the same time.
Trying to pin them down, inevitably, is doomed to failure. You cite peer-reviewed studies and request equivalent material to support their view - they ignore the studies and respond with links to blogs or newspaper articles that link to blogs. Their argument almost always starts with the assertion that their viewpoint is already proven beyond doubt, but they cannot produce even counter-hypotheses, let alone anything resembling proof, and clearly completely fail to grasp that most of science does not revolve around proofs. Last resort - don't trust the scientists, because they have not always been right. Talk about an infestation of logical fallacies. Where are the logic police when you need them?
Um, what exactly am I projecting? Or is that another condescending, nonsensical derisive remark meant to marginalize me and dismiss my viewpoints as somehow irrelevant? If you have an issue with a specific point I made, please point it out.
I seem to be upsetting a lot of people on here. That is CERTAINLY not my intention. I really enjoy this site, and mostly because of the contributions of you, melgross, and several others. I also have significant admiration for those that have worked for and been involved with Apple. I started out as a fan of Apple products, but have become a big fan of the company, as it seems to be the only large company (or any institution for that matter) that consistently acts with integrity. Although we seem to have some significant disagreements with this particular issue, I sincerely hope the hatchet can be buried when it comes to Apple discussions.
Superb posts from you, Patchy.
I'm not surprised at the unjustifiably condescending replies you've been getting. I guess the issue is just too emotional for people to discuss in a level-headed manner. We need another Patchy or two!
At any rate, I share your train of thoughts to a tee.
I stand by what I say. Scientific investigation is the willful attempt to find, and understand the facts. If something seems wrong, the further investigation is required. Looking at one article and denouncing it isn't scientific. There have been a number of experiments that show that increased co2 levels will be bad for agriculture, and even animal husbandry. We already see problems in wine grape growth. It's estimated that in 20 to 30 years, California wines will be close to a historical reference.
Weed growth will be enhanced, and more pesticides will be required to fight off the increased insect populations.
Wait, what... Weed growth will be enhanced? More insects? Sure sounds like increased levels of co2 could be good for plants?
And they are of course, which is the one thing you neglect to mention. Plants grow to be bigger with higher levels of co2 ppm, we know that not just from plenty of experiments, but also because the levels of co2 in the atmosphere has constantly gone up and down over the ages. If you look back at last hundreds of millions of years, there were times when the co2 ppm levels were as high or higher than today.
The fact that some of our agricultural crops don't tolerate that as well, doesn't mean much in the big picture. other crops will be planted instead, and farmers with the help from biologists will develop new varieties of plants. If you look back 50 or 100 years, farmers grew different varieties of crops then that they do now. Finding new, better more hardy crops is something farmers have done for thousands of years. And today they have geneticists to help them.
Virtually all climate scientists agree that global warming is fact, and that human activities are a major factor in that. At this time, the evidence is overwhelming. The problem is that you, and others, say;
The evidence! The evidence! The evidence you seem to ignore, is that climate science is a very new and untested field (unlike meteorologists, that they shouldn't be confused with) that more or less came into existence and prominence because of the idea of global warming. Their skills at actually predicting things aren't thar impressive (as evidenced by the lack of rising temperatures since around 2000) and there is still much that we don't know or understand about climate. Climate has always been changing: 700 years ago Greenland was actually green enough to grow crops on, before temperatures suddenly dropped with the little ice age. And something comparatively small like the little ice age, still can't be properly explained by climate scientists.
"...more immediate environmental issues that we actually have the ability to do something about."
That says that you are not looking at this with a sense that we can do anything, because, obviously, since we have nothing to do with it, we can't do anything about it. That's denial. You may want to deny that, but it's obvious by your own words.
No it's not denial. It's an excellent point: it's about priorities. Drastically limiting carbon emissions is a hugely expensive project. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. But the same amount or less, could pay for exterminating a deadly disease like malaria, or ensure safe, clean water to everyone in Africa. We can't afford both so we have to prioritize. Where is the money better spent: Drastically limiting carbon emissions, or drastically eliminate malaria, that cost millions of lives every year?
The costs to our lifestyle and society of this hasn't been explained either. If you ask most people, they assume that we could do something about global warming and not change anything except maybe getting an electric car or have a solar panel installed.
But in reality, there's no way we can limit co2 emissions enough without drastically changing how we live. It would be the end of 300$ TVs and tablets, 10 dollar shirts and inexpensive toys. No more daily carrides for the majority of people or more than one car in the family. Denser living, plane tickets that costs many times as much as they do today, and on and on? Would people be willing to make that trade based on climate models? Would you? And keep in mind, there would be no guarantees of success, especially without everybody cooperating. Including countries like China and India, which is far from likely.
As is noted, research is ongoing. Considering all that science gets wrong (or flat out lies about), healthy skepticism of any scientific theory is essential.
Your so called healthy skepticism isn't going to stop the droughts, and they are likely going to get worse for the Southwest. The Colorado River basin is already impacted, and so are the states that make it up. If long term drought impacts the Central and Southern Plains, then our breadbasket is going to be impacted in a very bad way; the aquifers have been pumped dry in the Southern Plains and you won't be able to fertilize your way out of it to increase production. Note that the Dust Bowl was manmade; poor agricultural practices. Prairies survive droughts; plowed fields dry and blow away.
Last centuries wars were over oil and resources; this centuries will be over water.
Your so called healthy skepticism isn't going to stop the droughts, and they are likely going to get worse for the Southwest. The Colorado River basin is already impacted, and so are the states that make it up. If long term drought impacts the Central and Southern Plains, then our breadbasket is going to be impacted in a very bad way; the aquifers have been pumped dry in the Southern Plains and you won't be able to fertilize your way out of it to increase production. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Note that the Dust Bowl was manmade; poor agricultural practices. Prairies survive droughts; plowed fields dry and blow away.</span>
Last centuries wars were over oil and resources; this centuries will be over water.
Everything will be fine... We'll just water the crops with Brawndo. It's got electrolytes.
Comments
He's right. The stats were fudged. Global temperatures have dropped in the last decade.
Global temperatures of what?
Heat transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean (through ice melting) moves heat energy from the air into the water, so the atmosphere loses heat energy through that process. The overall average warming is fueling that melt.
Huh?
He's right. The stats were fudged. Global temperatures have dropped in the last decade.
That's a bold statement, if you are referring to the decade that records indicate contained 8 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history, of which 2014 was the hottest? Can you support your assertion that the "stats were fudged"?
In desert areas, where heat islands are most noticeable, the roof surfaces are usually painted silver or white to reflect the sun/heat. Replacing this with dark-colored solar cells would cause these areas to absorb heat. So, while providing electricity generation -- they could actually make the heat islands worse ...
In desert areas, where heat islands are most noticeable, the roof surfaces are usually painted silver or white to reflect the sun/heat. Replacing this with dark-colored solar cells would cause these areas to absorb heat. So, while providing electricity generation -- they could actually make the heat islands worse ...
Interesting point. Solar panels are better than black shingles, from an absorbtion/radiation standpoint, and similar to gray shingles regarding heat absorption (around 70%), but half of that absorption is converted to electricity and not radiated. They still shade the roof under them (with an air gap), so the AC load for the home is lower than the plain shingles.
Looking at Phoenix, it looks like half of the roofs are still darker than light gray/white. Maybe panels would be a wash?
I'm pro nuclear, but thorium-based reactors are new to me.
Thorium is a brilliant technology. No weaponization possibilities, no meltdown possibilities, half-life in the hundreds of years, abundantly available in countries such as US, China, India....
Unfortunately, when there was a fork in the road many many decades ago, the US chose uranium over thorium (since the latter did not allow for nuclear weapons)!
Thanks, DoD.
Agree. Pebble bed reactors are very promising and work right down to an individual home scale.
Interesting point. Solar panels are better than black shingles, from an absorbtion/radiation standpoint, and similar to gray shingles regarding heat absorption (around 70%), but half of that absorption is converted to electricity and not radiated. They still shade the roof under them (with an air gap), so the AC load for the home is lower than the plain shingles.
Looking at Phoenix, it looks like half of the roofs are still darker than light gray/white. Maybe panels would be a wash?
You would basically be looking at the differences in both absorption and emission for both the solar panel and the roof, and at the same time, looking at the fraction of total roof area that solar panels would be installed on. You would also analyze over at least a 24 hour period as both panel and roof would be emitting to the sky, a black body, at night and that would have a cooling effect.
In reality, you would be looking at roofs as a very small fraction of the land surface, and so I also agree that it would be a wash thermally, but a win energy wise. There may be solar panels available with a thin heat exchanger on the back that would capture some of the excess heat as hot water.
I actually have a CFD program that could be configured to calculate this with a prevailing wind or breeze, but it would really require some actual testing to validate it.
Some general information about PBR's (does not stand for "Peanut Butter and Rabbit"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
Mmm ... PBR ... What about DOB?
Mmm ... PBR ... What about DOB?
Mmmm...."Date of Birth"....
Nah!
This is a serious suggestion for this thread!
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/sitting-on-the-dock-of-the-bay/id947040414?i=947040551
Number 18
I was just looking for a lighter moment, like the one you posted, to mention it ...
Nah!
This is a serious suggestion for this thread!
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/sitting-on-the-dock-of-the-bay/id947040414?i=947040551
Number 18
I was just looking for a lighter moment, like the one you posted, to mention it ...
Wouldn't that be "SOTDOTB"?
Well, technically yes/maybe ... but I didn't want to discuss the grammatical correctness or settled linguistics -- rather, practically, I thought DOB was more likely to elicit a response ...
Touché
As a Mechanical Engineer I'm well versed in PB Reactors. The most recent project was shutdown by Westinghouse and South Africa. It's always looked promising since Fermi patented it in 1945, until the Atomic Energy Commission shut them down and derailed their progress for the next 40+ years, leaving it mostly as grad projects from the likes of Cal Tech and MIT.
The PMBR was a very promising project, until cost overruns revealed the infancy of its development, even after several decades of work.
http://www.southafrica.info/news/pbmr-mothballed.htm#.VNvHkFB46EI
Sorry, but the rate of progress in Solar dwarfs anything from Nuclear.
Those panels look dreadful.
Problem is, those kinds of areas tend to be critical for wildlife. No easy answers.
Superb posts from you, Patchy.
I'm not surprised at the unjustifiably condescending replies you've been getting. I guess the issue is just too emotional for people to discuss in a level-headed manner. We need another Patchy or two!
At any rate, I share your train of thoughts to a tee.
Excellent thoughts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
As is noted, research is ongoing. Considering all that science gets wrong (or flat out lies about), healthy skepticism of any scientific theory is essential.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400082
Your so called healthy skepticism isn't going to stop the droughts, and they are likely going to get worse for the Southwest. The Colorado River basin is already impacted, and so are the states that make it up. If long term drought impacts the Central and Southern Plains, then our breadbasket is going to be impacted in a very bad way; the aquifers have been pumped dry in the Southern Plains and you won't be able to fertilize your way out of it to increase production. Note that the Dust Bowl was manmade; poor agricultural practices. Prairies survive droughts; plowed fields dry and blow away.
Last centuries wars were over oil and resources; this centuries will be over water.
Everything will be fine... We'll just water the crops with Brawndo. It's got electrolytes.