Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DrTskoul

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: May 28, 2017, 02:59:43 PM »
Vietnam makes a big push for coal, while pledging to curb emissions – “If the entire region implements the coal-based plans right now, I think we are finished”

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2017/05/vietnam-makes-big-push-for-coal-while.html?m=1


2
Holy crap.... :o

3
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: May 20, 2017, 01:35:36 AM »
May 18:     410.21 ppm
May 17:     410.03 ppm
May 16:     Unavailable
May 15:     411.27 ppm
May 14:     Unavailable

all over 410 :(

We''ll be high at 420

4
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: May 17, 2017, 02:55:51 AM »
Many were tired of Deep Throat.... Many are tired of whistleblowers. That is the danger with fake news. We brand all unnamed sources as fake news. Instead we should be tired of stupidity and malice...

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: May 12, 2017, 12:46:11 PM »
The season just started and we declare it over? No patience here...

We are down to 6th lowest on IJIS now

If no record set this year I think its just a blip year

Once the next El nino takes shape it will rip the rest of the Arctic to bits

7
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: May 12, 2017, 12:02:16 AM »
The Injustice of Atlantic City’s Floods

New Jersey's working class are forgotten as federal government funds fixes for wealthier neighborhoods

8
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: May 09, 2017, 04:31:00 PM »
This is weird.

Homeless Gasoline Tankers Are Drifting Around the Caribbean
At least three large ships awaiting delivery instructions
A few gasoline cargoes around the Caribbean Isles are looking for homes.

Three tankers holding about 1.35 million barrels of gasoline and alkylate, an octane-boosting component blended with motor fuels, are drifting with no instructions for delivery. The cargoes came from India with intent to land in the U.S., but now they’re in limbo as traders from Trafigura Group Ltd. and Mercuria Energy Group Ltd. shop around for the best selling value in the region.
...
“My sense of it is these may be barrels that end up in Venezuela,” Robert Campbell, head of oil products research for Energy Aspects, said by phone from New York. “They tend to bring in alkylate.”

Supplies are dangerously low in Venezuela, he said, and most of the country’s fluid catalytic cracker units that make gasoline are out of commission. Two gasoline tankers from Europe were diverted to Venezuela this week after state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela said it would boost imports after a traffic-stopping shortage in Caracas last month.
...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-06/homeless-gasoline-tankers-are-drifting-around-the-caribbean

There is large need for Diesel from US refineries. As a result there is a growing glut of gasoline in US and I guess those barrels in the tankers need to find a new home. Probably are changing hands and getting traded among companies trying to maximize margins. Soon shipping costs will force the holdings companies to unload the cargo somewhere..

9
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: May 07, 2017, 02:02:35 PM »
I get your point, but right now I don't think Venezuela is exporting oil.  At times during the last year it looks like they've been oil importers.

But if a war broke out between some of the lower cost producers Venezuela and other more expensive producers could come back into the market, driving prices up.

They imported light fractions to use as diluent for their heavy oil.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: May 06, 2017, 04:05:28 PM »
So I would say 2.5m thick ice is also surely vulnerable, depending on latitude and mobility, possibly even thicker than that. If you put the May map side by side with the same map at the Sep min, some more insights might arise.
Here is just over 2m thick, and below that, just over 2.5m thick, for May 2.

The Beaufort barrier is gone...

11
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: May 05, 2017, 07:02:02 PM »
April 30:     409.98 ppm
April 29:     409.46 ppm
April 28:     409.48 ppm
April 27:     408.64 ppm
April 26:     412.63 ppm

412.63 still there for 26th.

I estimate 409.02 for April 2017, from 407.42 so up 1.6, but I could be miles out again.

Numbers are in . 409.01 for April 2017 ( excellent estimate crandles ) and 1.59 ppm up.

12
Policy and solutions / Re: Biomass
« on: May 05, 2017, 02:16:02 PM »
From : "LCA of pellet burning technologies" by Thomas Willem de Haan

Pellets as a heating fuel in domestic appliances can be considered as a low carbon fuel, relative to the alternative fossil fuels. The emissions of a pellet heating system can be as low as 6,04 g CO2/MJ whereas its least polluting fossil counterpart emits 62,8 g CO2/MJ. If the pellets are being transported overseas, the CO2 emission would amount to 27,7 g CO2/MJ. This is still less than half the figure for the lowest fossil heating fuel but the most optimal use of pellets is for application on a local scale. The most influential parameters are the management of the forest the used wood is taken from and the transportation of the pellets. All the calculations are based on the premise that the harvested wood is regrown. As long as the wood is being harvested in a sustainable way, the low net CO2 emission as determined in this paper can be achieved. It should be emphasized, however, that sustainable harvesting is absolutely necessary to maintain the delicate balance.  Another conclusion to be drawn from this study is that the transportation of sawdust pellets over long distances has considerable impacts. Nevertheless, even transatlantic transported pellets have a lower net CO2 emission than heating with fossil fuels.

13
How many taxis robo or not should a city like LA have for that scenario to work?

14
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: May 05, 2017, 01:53:24 AM »
Goodbye Tar Sands, and high-priced Calgary real estate. They should be building out their wind and solar resources before the pain really hits. Of course, they won't. It's Alberta, funny that even Texas has seen the way the wind is blowing!
Suncor still made a profit. Overall cost per barrel was $17US.

15
Policy and solutions / Re: Becoming Vegan.
« on: May 03, 2017, 08:33:26 PM »
Vegetarian + eggs, cheese etc good... Vegan? Way too much for most people...

16
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: May 03, 2017, 01:55:31 AM »
"The EU's economy is dependent on the availability of water in other parts of the world for many crops," said Christopher Briggs, WFN executive director. "That makes it vulnerable to increasing water scarcity and drought."

Exporting unsustainability...

17
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: May 03, 2017, 01:53:41 AM »
From Climate Central: Europe’s Farming Vulnerable with Water Scarcity

Water scarcity half a world away caused by climate change could push up prices for meat and diary products in Europe by disrupting supplies of soybean, which is widely used as feed for livestock, researchers said Wednesday.

The European Union sources most soybean from outside the 28-nation bloc — mainly from Argentina, Brazil and the United States, according to an EU-funded study by Dutch-based NGO Water Footprint Network (WFN).

But 57 percent of soybean imports are from regions that are highly vulnerable to water scarcity, exposing Europe to possible shocks in supply, said Ertug Ercin, the study's co-author.

"The highest risk that the European meat and dairy sector will face due to climate change and weather extremes lies outside its borders," he said in a statement.


Less beef less problems.....

18
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: May 01, 2017, 09:20:53 PM »
April 30:     409.98 ppm
April 29:     409.46 ppm
April 28:     409.48 ppm
April 27:     408.64 ppm
April 26:     412.63 ppm

412.63 still there for 26th.

I estimate 409.02 for April 2017, from 407.42 so up 1.6, but I could be miles out again.

You are probably right. March 2017 average was about 0.18 ppm higher compared to weekly average average. Right now April weekly average average is almost 409 ppm.

20
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 30, 2017, 09:43:32 PM »
Planning, design, regulatory and local government approvals, not in my back yard fights... All these take much much longer than the actual construction  ( 2-4 yrs depending complexity )

21
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 30, 2017, 09:41:58 PM »
Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100%
renewable-electricity systems
B.P. Heard, B.W. Brook, T.M.L. Wigley, C.J.A. Bradshaw


https://www.scribd.com/document/344418151/Review-for-100-Renewables-Systems

ABSTRACT

An effective response to climate change demands rapid replacement of fossil carbon energy sources. This must occur concurrently with an ongoing rise in total global energy consumption. While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible. Of the studies published to date, 24 have forecast regional, national or global energy requirements at sufficient detail to be considered potentially credible. We critically review these studies using four novel feasibility criteria for reliable electricity systems needed to meet electricity demand this century. These criteria are: (1) consistency with mainstream energy-demand forecasts; (2) simulating supply to meet demand reliably at hourly, half-hourly, and five-minute timescales, with resilience to extreme climate events; (3) identifying necessary transmission and distribution requirements; and (4) maintaining the provision of essential ancillary services. Evaluated against these objective criteria, none of the 24 studies provides convincing evidence that these basic feasibility criteria can be met. Of a maximum possible unweighted feasibility score of seven, the highest score for any one study was four. Eight of 24 scenarios (33%) provided no form of system simulation. Twelve (50%) relied on unrealistic forecasts of energy demand. While four studies (17%; all regional) articulated transmission requirements, only two scenarios—drawn from the same study—addressed ancillary-service requirements. In addition to feasibility issues, the heavy reliance on exploitation of hydroelectricity and biomass raises concerns regarding environmental sustainability and social justice. Strong empirical evidence of feasibility must be demonstrated for any study that attempts to construct or model a low-carbon energy future based on any combination of low-carbon technology. On the basis of this review, efforts to date seem to have substantially underestimated the challenge and delayed the identification and implementation of effective and comprehensive decarbonization pathways.

Some interesting points from the paper ...

Lack of simulations / realistic simulations

"The absence of whole-system simulations from nine of the reviewed studies suggests that many authors and organizations have either not grasped or not tackled explicitly the challenge of ensuring reliable supply from variable sources ... Of the 16 scenarios that provided simulations, only two simulated to intervals of < 1 hour and only two tested against historically low renewable-energy conditions. Historical testing is useful in general, but such tests do not address the high variability of output from renewable resources, let alone the attendant uncertainties associated with future climatic changes. Because of these issues, the system-simulation approaches applied so far mostly cannot demonstrate the feasibility and reliability of 100% renewable energy systems"

Integration cost escalation after certain percentage penetration of variable energy sources

"The Mason and colleagues’ studies reinforce the notion that integration of variable renewable energy sources into existing gridscan be cost-effective up to penetrations of around 20%, after which integration costs escalate rapidly [120,121]. An upper threshold to economically rational amounts of wind generation capacity is also found in simulations for the United Kingdom [27]. Any further installed wind-generating capacity makes little difference in meeting electricity demand in times of low wind supply. While the cost-effective threshold for integration of variable renewable electricity will vary among grids, 100%-renewable studies such as these reinforce that penetration thresholds exist and that alternative dispatchable generation supplies are required to meet the balance of supply"

Possibility of sustained coincident low output of solar and wind on a regional basis

"There is ample evidence for conditions with sustained, coincident low output from both wind and solar resources in Australia"

Risky assumptions on future possible scale of energy storage technologies, including hydro

"It is reasonable to assume a greater range of cost-effective options in energy storage will be available in the future. Such solutions will undoubtedly assist in achieving reliability standards in systems with greater penetration of variable renewable generation. However, whether such breakthroughs will enable the (as yet unknown) scale of storage and associated paradigm shift required for 100% renewable remains unknown and is largely unaddressed in the literature (see
additional discussion in Supplementary Material). To bet the future on such breakthroughs is arguably risky and it is pertinent for policy makers to recall that dependence on storage is entirely an artefact of deliberately constraining the options for dispatchable low-carbon generation [127,128]. In optimal systems for reliable, decarbonized electricity systems that have included generic, dispatchable zerocarbon generation as well as variable renewable generation, the supply
provided by storage is just 2–10% ... . The year-to-year variability of inflows that ultimately determine hydro-electric output is wellknown — the minimum annual US output over 1990–2010 was 23% lower than mean output for the same period"

Assumption of low energy, high environmental impact (hydro and biomass) reality

"The demand-reduction assumptions in most of the scenarios considered here, when combined with their dependence on hydroelectricity and biomass, suggest that 100% renewable electricity is likely to be achievable only in a low-energy, high-environmental impact future, where an increasing area of land is recruited into the service of providing energy from diffuse sources."

Undersizing or leaving out transmission grid requirements

"Fürsch et al. [81] suggested that a cost-optimized transmission network to meet a target of 80% renewables in Europe by 2050 would demand an additional 228,000 km of transmission grid extensions, a +76% addition compared to the base network. However, this is an underestimate
because they applied a “typical day” approach to assess the availability of the renewable-energy resources instead of using full year or multiyear hourly or half-hourly data. Rodríguez et al. [83] concluded that to obtain 98% of the potential benefit of grid integration for renewables would require long-distance interconnector capacities that are 5.7 times larger than current capacities. Becker et al. [141] found that an optimal four-fold increase in today's transmission capacity would need to be installed in the thirty years from 2020 to 2050. An expansion of that scale is no mere detail to be ignored, as it has been in Elliston et al. [75], all work led by Jacobson [18,24,25,32,112,113], the global proposals from major environmental NGOs [15,108] and many more of the studies we reviewed. Transmission lines are acknowledged as slow projects, taking 5–10 years on average to construct, projects that are vulnerable to social objection that may force even more delay [82]. In one case, a transnational interconnection took more than 30 years
from planning to completion'

I've read it recently... I am always reminded about how long projects take in real life vs. wishful thinking...

22
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 30, 2017, 09:38:36 PM »
The more important point is what do you say to all the people who believed he was a real alternative, that had given up on Obama, and this kind of neo-liberal hyper-capitalist politics that calls itself liberal -- what do you say to them

Isn't Trump and his cabinet, and all his executive actions and law proposals so far the embodiment of capitalism? How can people say he was the alternative to hyper capitalist politics ??  Sigh...

23
Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: April 30, 2017, 09:34:27 PM »
The Energy Department is reportedly denying funds for already-approved grants
The grant-making ARPA-E program was targeted for elimination in Trump budget.
After proposing to eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) in its draft budget, the Trump administration, through the Department of Energy, has started withholding money for grants already approved by the agency, Politico reported Thursday, citing two unidentified sources.

The hold on the money for the grants began last week, Politico reported. During his run for the White House, President Donald Trump promised to target federal funding for agencies, like ARPA-E, that promote clean energy technologies.
...
https://thinkprogress.org/arpa-e-funding-not-going-through-5da18dccd935

Effing morons....

24
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 30, 2017, 04:08:32 AM »
We need to change the system, not just get rid of Trump.

As long as we don't lose sight of Trump and we get blown up..

25
Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: April 29, 2017, 08:38:39 PM »
 Lets see how long before they scrub this too...


26
Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: April 29, 2017, 07:26:56 AM »
Well there it goes....  :'(  Climate Change page gone....




28
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: April 28, 2017, 12:11:21 PM »
capturing carbon needs to go into a non-volatile storage medium.
pumping CO2 underground just invites an accidental release where thousands will die.
The same way that natural gas accidentally releases right ??

29
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: April 28, 2017, 12:15:58 AM »
amine scrubbing and it can be retrofitted... from the ground up is much cheaper.

If I read that correctly we could capture CO2 from existing coal/gas plants using amine scrubbing.  But it would cost more than building a new CCS coal plant?

No, it would not cost more. However from efficiency perspeftive that solution is not attractive. Right now, without a CO2 tax, the cheapest way of producing electricity is in general natural gas turbines and wind and solar in specific locations with or without incentives.

The best way of CO2 emissions reduction is to close coal plants and convert to natural gas without much infrastructure change needs ( grid wise ). With CO2 tax you have the scrubbing retrofits, natural gas with ccs and grass roots coal with ccs built in a way to increase efficiency of capture and power generation ( ultra supercritical ). There is the carbonate fuel cell add on and other technologies that can help minimize efficiency losses and capture costs. Legacy coal plants with retrofits will produce electricity generally with higher cost compared to grass root or natural gas and ccs.

Solar and wind will fight their own fight of costs and grid infrastructure investment needs (storage etc.) until they are cheaper on a national or global scale.  However in particular locations and incentive enviornment they are getting there now.

30
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: April 27, 2017, 09:52:08 PM »
Did we really just hit 412 ppm as a daily average? In April?


Yes!!!!   :o :o :o 412.63

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

31
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: April 27, 2017, 09:48:37 PM »
Reusing CO2 is not bad.  As long as part of the process does not involve extracting more fossil fuels and turning them into the CO2 that is being reused.

If it was easy/affordable to sequester CO2 from existing coal and gas burners and give it a second life by turning it into a 'drop in' fuel we could cut overall CO2 emissions.  We'd be getting more useful energy per ton/barrel of fossil fuel extracted.  That would help lower our CO2 emissions while we implement carbon free technology.

But, as far as I know, we lack the technology to easily/affordably capture the CO2.

Below a few percent in concentration is difficult... above is easy from concentrated single sources. Distributed sources are difficult. Cost is not a huge percentage on electricity ... capital needed is large.

Capturing from a concentrated source isn't cheap.  At least in terms of capturing most of the CO2 from a coal plant.  It basically involves rebuilding the plant from the ground up.  There's no filter we can attach to the exhaust system.


yes there is... amine scrubbing and it can be retrofitted... from the ground up is much cheaper....that is why if we have to capture CO2, old coal plants will close.  Technically is commercially ready technology.

32
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: April 27, 2017, 06:31:59 PM »
Reusing CO2 is not bad.  As long as part of the process does not involve extracting more fossil fuels and turning them into the CO2 that is being reused.

If it was easy/affordable to sequester CO2 from existing coal and gas burners and give it a second life by turning it into a 'drop in' fuel we could cut overall CO2 emissions.  We'd be getting more useful energy per ton/barrel of fossil fuel extracted.  That would help lower our CO2 emissions while we implement carbon free technology.

But, as far as I know, we lack the technology to easily/affordably capture the CO2.

Below a few percent in concentration is difficult... above is easy from concentrated single sources. Distributed sources are difficult. Cost is not a huge percentage on electricity ... capital needed is large.

33
From something I heard...

     In essence the message given is that DOE has been directed to focus on energy security, job creation and use of domestic energy resources but with preservation of these resources for the future as well.  The prior focus on lowering hydrogen cost for fuel cell vehicles remains, but not the focus on reducing CO2 emissions or the cost of doing so.

34
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: April 26, 2017, 08:23:36 PM »


Why wouldn't we end up with CO2 as a byproduct and the carbon back in the atmosphere?


If CO2 could somehow be "recharged" then we could keep reusing the molecules reducing emissions, but that is a very long way off.

After reading some more on this technology it seems like the principal flaw is that the photosynthethic molecules will need to be replenished, probably quite often.

A CO2 molecule reuse usually requires the energy equivalent of a CO2 molecule released from combustion.

35
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: April 26, 2017, 12:12:27 PM »
Due to inefficiencies you would of course need more energy to generate the same energy equivalent.  Solar -> electricity vs Solar -> to fuel -> electricity or thermal energy.  The question is where you do the solar capture and where is the final energy release and what form of energy do you need.  E.g. large scale industrial steam generation ( do you use solar or Nuclear  to generate H2 to burn in a turbine ?)   

36
(Note that tiny [by comparison] Tesla will be making 500,000 pure EVs a year by 2018.)

Tiny Tesla's net worth is now greater than GM's.  That means that investors expect Tesla to eat GM's lunch.

If the EV-olution happens and happens rapidly I wonder how quickly the legacy car manufacturers can turn things around?  Right now they aren't building up their battery supply line.  And they've done almost nothing to solve their rapid charging problem.

Tesla will eat GM's lunch?...

37

Aaah, that's what I wanted to say:

Civilizations fail when incompetence is no longer noteworthy.


Thank you... incompetence and stupidity...

I see polarization of politics is universal...common sense less so.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Which side of the political spectrum sees the most fragmentation In small powerless parties in Europe?? And in the US ?

38
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 06:04:04 PM »
Nobody can stop anybody spouting any sort of deranged ideas. My point is nothing of what he did after he left had any positive impact to ExxonMobil. Also the application to get an excemption from the sanctions was filed during the Obama's tenure. All businesses have the same recourse in applying for excemptions for various sanctions around the world. As you said we'll see.

It's a fact that Tillerson is the ex-CEO of the world's largest fossil fuel corporation.

It's a fact that as CEO of Exxon, Tillerson signed a deal with Russia's state oil company that would have benefited his ex-employer greatly had Obama not put the brakes on it via sanctions.

It's a fact that Tillerson, as CEO of Exxon, applied for those sanctions to be lifted in order to allow that billion-dollar deal to go through.

It's a fact that Tillerson was chosen as Secretary of State by a Putin-obsessed, Russian-aided POTUS despite having earned not such much as one second of diplomatic experience.

That's not loosely-connected innuendo; that's not "deranged" struggling to connect imaginary dots; that's not baseless conspiracy theory. Those are just the facts as we know them.

Raymond retired, parachuting gracefully away. Tillerson moved into a position of enormous power and influence. Will he help Exxon by lifting those sanctions? We don't know. But given the corporatist agenda of the administration so far, no one will be surprised if he does. And given the open corruption and utter lack of transparency in the Trump regime, we'll never truly know who would profit...

I was not clear. The deranged ideas referred to Lee....

39
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 02:09:09 PM »
You're alright with naiveté, though??

Touché....call it a character flaw

40
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 01:19:10 PM »
I just hate easy, conspiracy theorist like,  slogans.. whichever side they come from..

41
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 01:17:50 PM »
Nobody can stop anybody spouting any sort of deranged ideas. My point is nothing of what he did after he left had any positive impact to ExxonMobil. Also the application to get an excemption from the sanctions was filed during the Obama's tenure. All businesses have the same recourse in applying for excemptions for various sanctions around the world. As you said we'll see.

42
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 12:57:34 PM »
That's BS and you know it

NO.

Rex will help ExxonMobil ( that's the name ) as much as his predecessor Lee Raymond ( the arch bastard ) helped them after he left. Which is a big fat zero....

44
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: April 20, 2017, 12:00:33 PM »
Miami Florida:

H/Tip Andy_in_SD@Scribbler

The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners

Demand and financing could collapse before the sea consumes a single house.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 20, 2017, 11:18:12 AM »
Granted this is valid for 5 days most, but I wonder if this is the recurrent configuration Ding was referring to: highs persistent over Greenland Canada and Arctic with lows pulling warmth from the continents (in summer). Just a comment, not sure it is even close :-)
Wayne Davidson's new cold North pole....

46
Quick off the cuff thought - I'm piqued by the idea the 30s/early 40s temperature bump could be a result of decreased aerosols (SO2 in particular) tied to the reduction in industrial zctivity and fossil fuel consumption during the depression.

Too small of contribution. If climate is that sensitive we are 100% irrevocably screwed....

47
Make no mistake, after months of research, I left Bernie and joined Hillary. I still like her positions. I make excuses for things she's done I don't like (I've made lists in earlier comments). I dislike Bernie's polarizations and simplifications, and the attack language adopted by his supporters. It has caused a deep rupture in my friendships, but I can do no other. I don't like bullying.

Let's avoid taking sides on this. Sidd makes many valid points, and the subject of this forum is "corporate Democrats". I am eager for people to avoid circular firing squads, and participate in absolute opposition to the existing power structure on the Republican side.

I find it inexcusable to excuse Ryan and Gorsuch, I will say that. Otherwise, if my efforts encourage people to take "sides" I apologize.

Please look up Shaughnessy Naughton, a person I've supported (with the science march coming up Saturday, which just happens to be earth day and my birthday as well) like Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey. The latter is a near-perfect example of an unsung hero of true public service.

As a woman, I would love to absolutely reject "hair and makeup". But as a realist, I know despite Indira Gandhi, Goldar Meir, and Angela Merkel, in this country we're stuck. Men can be ugly (Trump!); women can't.

+inf and happy birthday...

48
In the simulation they run 100 nuclear detonations and obtain the first image attached. If 100 nuclear weapons can lower the global temperature 1.2C for almost a decade then a naive calculation results that 1 nuclear weapon would lower the temps for .012 for probably much less time.

There where 520 atmospheric nuclear weapons test in the time period in question. Lets say that only 10% of those were in simulated cities, forests or other environments were enough particulates were present. Then that's 52 tests at .012 degrees each that's .624 degrees. Of course they didn't happen at the same time but that very back of the envelope calculation gives a good idea of the total forcing.

Getting to be OT.  However their sims assumed lots of fires due to nuclear weapons. No significan fires from testing.

49
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: April 19, 2017, 08:39:36 PM »
Thought this might be a sign of fresh water break-out at Z/79N



Neat picture...

50
Might be getting OT :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16