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 - crandles

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 22, 2017, 02:18:25 PM »
'Cyborg' bacteria deliver green fuel source from sunlight
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40975719

"It's all very simple, mix-in-a-pot-chemistry."

These newly boosted bacteria produce acetic acid, essentially vinegar, from CO2, water and light. They have an efficiency of around 80%, which is four times the level of commercial solar panels, and more than six times the level of chlorophyll.

"We prize these cyborg bacteria and their ability to make acetate because they produce a substrate that we can already use to produce more valuable and more interesting products," said Dr Sakimoto.

"We have collaborators who have a number of strands of E. coli that are genetically engineered to take acetic acid as their food source and they can upgrade it into butanol and a polymer called polyhydroxybutyrate."


probably some way off if ever:

"We are now looking for more benign light absorbers than cadmium sulphide to provide bacteria with energy from light."

The researchers believe that while their approach has taken an important new step, it might not ultimately be the technology that prevails.

2
why would not one expect that the general trend would be downward, during  hundreds of years of GW? One knows that in the 350-450 yrs preceding that, the general trend was going the other way.

So why are you not expecting the trend to be downward ie thinner glacier and thinner glacier meaning less friction resistance so that the glacier can advance further until a point when it gets too thin and then starts an unstable retreat?

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: August 20, 2017, 12:29:06 PM »
Wip's answer leads to this (presumably an email) on the blog

Al Rodger wrote
And with all that, NSIDC inform me:-
“We have received similar questions in the recent past about our December numbers, and the science leads have decided to switch the way in which the averaging is completed. The current method is really just a legacy way of doing things as the dataset's original intended purpose was to simply produce coarse resolution figures (c.a. 2007) on a monthly interval for our site. The dataset is now clearly the most popular product we have due to our blog-style publication and thus changes will be made after considering any impact to the community.“

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: August 20, 2017, 03:08:32 AM »
Not sure if it might have been
Sea Ice Index V1 applied this 15% ice concentration threshold twice when computing the monthly average gridded fields. The threshold was applied first to the daily gridded concentration; any grid cell with a concentration less than 15% was set to zero. After the monthly average of those daily grids was determined, the 15% threshold was applied again to define the outer limit of that month's ice. Area and extent data values were calculated from this monthly field. Applying the threshold twice made these values smaller than they would have been with the threshold only applied once. This was updated in V2 so that the threshold is only applied to the monthly data after the gridded average has been computed from the daily data.

from
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02135_seaice_index/#jul-2016

Found above when looking for something different:

The monthly data was using 15% for the whole month so that with more mobile ice there was more cases of some ice being in one location for several days then another location for several days such that both locations passed the 15% threshold.
I thought this was mentioned in an sea ice news and analysis, with suggestion they were considering making a change but I can't find that now.

5
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 17, 2017, 06:48:16 PM »
When will advertisements for cars with tailpipes be banned as health hazards? Poll results
Just 30 years ago, people could smoke anywhere, including offices, malls, and restaurants.

The 1987 opening of a New York City restaurant called "Nosmo King" (read it again) was considered a bizarre, if amusing, idea that restauranteurs said would bankrupt the place because no one would give up cigarettes to eat there.

Now, throughout much of the Western world, smoking in public is banned as a health hazard to everyone else who's exposed to secondhand smoke—including the wait staff in those restaurants.

Environmentalists have begun to raise the same issue on a global scale for the carbon dioxide emissions emitted by road vehicles with internal combustion engines. ...
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1112133_when-will-ads-for-cars-with-tailpipes-be-banned-as-health-hazards-poll-results


When will we see 'tailpipes' on cars as morally wrong?
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101015_when-will-we-start-to-see-tailpipes-on-cars-as-morally-wrong



After 30 years I can still drive 25 miles and find restaurants that welcome the smoking public, and I'm quite sure that we don't have the luxury of a 30 year adjustment period.


If we had acted on Hanson's warnings from 30+ years ago we might have found a way out. When Reagan laughed at Jimmy's sweaters and tossed out the White House solar system, the die was cast. Trump or Pence will see to it that all our bridges have been burned, and with them any hope of societal survival.


I prefer being slowly broiled to nuclear winter, but it's unclear that the generations that follow will appreciate my efforts on their behalf.


Terry


So it yet banned even in restaurants where you are. I feel sorry for you.

Anyway this means it isn't yet banned for you. The timeframe you are using is from first occurrence of voluntary attempt to time of bann in most of western world. Why assume it would be the same time period for cars? It simply need not be 25 years before sales of cars with tailpipes are banned.

One difference between smoking and ICE cars is that it is cheaper and not essential to smoke, however electric cars are more expensive and some travel is essential. Consequently I can see reasons for such a movement not gaining much ground for the next couple of years. Fortunately it may not be much longer before electric cars are cheaper and then there is no reason for sales not to be banned in fairly short order along the same lines. Indeed Norway is already talking about banning ICE cars by 2025. If all countries did so, we might have difficulty in making enough electric cars by 2025. The more this is talked about, the more car companies will realise it is coming and prepare and the sooner it will happen.

6
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: August 12, 2017, 08:43:32 PM »
He plans to use a machine like this to test improvements in tunneling technology. He thinks that with more power, better materials, and a design that allows it to continue digging while installing the tunnel walls—a feat that’s impossible today—the Boring Company will be able to drastically reduce the price of digging. “To make it a little better should be easy,” he says. “To make it five times better is not crazy hard. To make it 10 times better is hard, but nobody will need to win a Nobel Prize. We don’t have to change the standard model of physics.”

As we walk through the machine, Musk and Davis pepper the tunnel’s project manager, Shane Yanagisawa, with questions. They ask about grouting materials and staffing, but mostly about speed. Yanagisawa says the limiting factor is muck. Nannie’s conveyor belts can carry only so much dirt at a time. The fastest he thinks the machine can possibly run is 75 millimeters per minute. In a typical week, it moves through 300 feet of clay.

Musk nods. “We’re trying to dramatically increase the tunneling speed,” he says. “We want to know what it would take to get to a mile a week? Could it be possible?”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-16/elon-musk-is-really-boring

that dates to 16th Feb 2017

"A snail is effectively 14 times faster than a soft-soil TBM. Our goal is to defeat the snail in a race."
seems to be said around 17th May 2017

Isn't toning it down over those 3 months. Will be interesting to see if this mile a week continues to be the target and whether he gets anywhere close.

.

"cube root of 3" interesting is that forward speed increase? Why cube root? (I could understand square root as being 2 dimensions of tunnel being dug compared to direction of travel of the machine or some relationship between area of tunnel to area of earth being moved away.)

7
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: August 12, 2017, 04:03:54 PM »
No mention of locos for transporting concrete wall sections, but seems conveyors were running. They seem quite up front about crane and compressor being noisier.

Not sure deceptive is the right word if they are saying about what happened and everything that was going on. But perhaps still slightly misleading if there is no mention of locos that are likely to be noisiest activity hearable/feelable above the drilling?

Maybe not so misleading:
https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/
Go electric. Current tunnel operations often include diesel locomotives. These can be replaced by electric vehicles

re: Increase TBM power. The machine’s power output can be tripled (while coupled with the appropriate upgrades in cooling systems).

What effect does tripling power have on speed?


8
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:17:42 PM »
Boring is boring much smaller diameter tunnels so feet per day averages from other tunnels won't apply.

If you look at the size of the Boring machine it wouldn't take months to dig an entry hole.  I'd say a short number of days.

From Wiki
As of February 2017, the company has begun digging a 30-foot-wide (9 m), 50-foot-long (15 m), and 15-foot-deep (4.6 m) testing trench

At the end of April 2017, a TBM was seen at SpaceX with the company's name on the side.

Given that they have already drilled to the edge of their property (350 feet), several months does seem a little excessive, I doubt they have proceeded as fast as they could if they were already fully knowledgeable about what they are doing and besides they have also done car elevator and doubtless other work.

9
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: August 11, 2017, 08:54:24 PM »
It's somewhat deceptive to claim there is no vibration felt from a TBM unless you do the measurements when the conveyor belts bringing the dirt from the tunnel to the tail end of the TBM and the locos are running.

It was kind of funny, a few days ago one of
your Public Works inspectors was actually
on-site at the tunneling to test noise, to
understand do you feel vibrations, do you
hear this machine when it's activate, we
stood at the back of the launch shaft and
waited until we saw the dirt coming out and
then we walked to the parking lot to where
we were standing over roughly where the
machine was going. You didn't hear it you
could put your hand on the parking lot, you
didn't feel the vibration and it was a 14 foot
(2.4m) machine spinning and chewing dirt
any other information we can provide, we'd
be very happy to provide. We still hope that
you'll come out as see it we'll do that same
test, you'll be standing above it running, the
dirt moving equipment that's on the lot and
the crane and the compressor that provides
air to the shaft, actually makes more noise
than the tunnel boring machine in it.

No mention of locos for transporting concrete wall sections, but seems conveyors were running. They seem quite up front about crane and compressor being noisier.

Not sure deceptive is the right word if they are saying about what happened and everything that was going on. But perhaps still slightly misleading if there is no mention of locos that are likely to be noisiest activity hearable/feelable above the drilling?

10
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: August 11, 2017, 08:21:26 PM »
You seem to have very high expectations of a city council's power of foresight and insight. They mostly spend their time approving developer's projects. For them the most important words were "this won't cost you anything and might lead to great things in the future" "trust me"

Make that less of the "trust me", and more of the
The other thing we want to clear up is we are not
asking the city of Hawthorne to assume any
risk the Boring company is assuming that
risk if we break something, we will fix it.

11
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: August 11, 2017, 03:34:25 PM »
I thought it was surprising that there was very little discussion of:

a) how the machine was going to be altered if at all. If the boring front end was staying the same and they intend to add wall building automation behind it, perhaps that doesn't need going into such detail and possible proprietary information planning. However if they were going to do anything to improve the boring front end, I would have expected questions about this or assurances that they wouldn't make any such changes.

b) What happens afterwards. There seemed little to no discussion of how long development activities might continue in the tunnel or of whether there might ever be a requirement to refill the tunnel, or more likely maintain a register of the existence of the tunnel so that any utility that might want to plan some work would be able to find out details of exactly where the tunnel is. Perhaps there is already some system(s) that deals with that sort of thing, already accepted, such that no questions needed to be asked.

12
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: August 11, 2017, 02:50:53 PM »
Boring has approached the Hawthorne city council to get permission to dig a two mile tunnel under a city street.  This would be the next step in testing out their boring machine.  And (while they didn't say anything) should provide a test tunnel for their car sleds or Hyperloop.  Cost and time to dig were not made public.

https://www.teslarati.com/boring-company-city-council-construction/

One end of the tunnel is very close to the Hawthorne airport and Tesla, SpaceX, and Boring headquarters.  If you extend the tunnel west you end up close to LA International.

And the beach.

IIRC, they said something about 8 months.  Their philosophy is to "fail fast, fix fast" -- and they will assume all risks for any damage that might occur.

Pretty good recall  ;)

Once we cross our property line and
go into the public right of way, we think it's
going to take us eight months to finish the
tunnel. We don't have a set tim will want to
test as quickly and as reliably as possible so
success will come quickly. We don't move
slowly, that's why we're here, and we will
continuously iterate. We like to failfast and
continuously improve. Success will come
very quickly. I think it will be, won't put an
exact timeline on it other than to say: it's
going to be very fast

>"And (while they didn't say anything) should provide a test tunnel for their car sleds or Hyperloop."

the way the concrete
segments are designed to basically make
them waterproof it's very easy to make them
a vacuum we could at some point in the
future, create a hyperloop out of this, but
that's not what we're testing in this tunnel is
it a potential idea sometime in the future,
sure But is that what we're doing now? no


Brett success at first will actually getting the
tunnel done, showing people that we can do
this. Success for the test portion of the
tunnel will be understanding the true
performance specifications and what the
machine can do. Understanding where we
can improve that for future tunnel boring
machines and future tunnelling projects, and
also laying the groundwork to prove the
technology that we're developing for the
skates Because we know it's going to
operate a little bit differently in a tunnel
verses on the street, so taking what we're
designing, some of which is proprietary; we
won't give away the secret sauce, then
proving that in the tunnel and showing that
we do it safely, reliably and for a significant
cost saving to traditional projects

and also test and
prove out the transportation system, so to
speak very quickly about how the
transportation system works and how we're
going to be testing in this tunnel is it's based
on Tesla technology. We all know about
autonomous driving and the capabilities
we've seen demonstrated in various videos.
We're going to be using that technology, but
instead of an enclosed Tesla, it's going to
be an electric skate, so imagine the
drivetrain of a Models with a flat platform on
top of it, where cars can drive on, turn off
and drive through the system. In this tunnel,
we won't be putting any cars. One of the
critical things to understand today is that
we'll be testing the skate, and we'll be
testing the technology. This is not meant to
be a tunnel that's inhabited by people, and
it's actually not meant to transport cars or
people through the tunnel. It is just a test
tunnel

13
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 10, 2017, 09:55:50 PM »
Please explain the upside of running even a two truck "platoon".

If they put a maximum of say 6 trucks, and this was well known people could and mainly would adjust their driving to cope.

6 trucks, 1 driver would represent a significant cost saving, but if fully autonomous so no drivers whether 6 individual or 6 platooned this isn't relevant.

A small fuel saving from wind resistance effects, but the main one may well be increasing road capacity. if not platooned, a 2 second gap between each vehicle on the road. If platooned maybe 0.1 second between them which represents more vehicles passing a point in a given time so road can be used by more vehicles before starting to cause congestion.

If this congestion benefit is well communicated and accepted perhaps other drivers will generally not be too antisocial about it.

14
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: August 10, 2017, 10:03:32 AM »
Morlocks well before 802701 AD ?

15
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: August 09, 2017, 07:51:24 PM »
also on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40877099
'Unusual' Greenland wildfires linked to peat

Peat fires worry researchers because the material stores large amounts of CO2 that is released through burning. They are also worried that the "black carbon" soot arising from the fires could land on the ice sheet and cause further melting.

Some rain is expected tomorrow which researchers hope will put the fire out.

16
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: August 08, 2017, 09:35:28 PM »
My estimate for July is 407.0 up 2.61 on July 2016's 404.39

Actually 407.07 up 2.68

17
Policy and solutions / Re: The Hyperloop
« on: August 05, 2017, 12:38:28 PM »
I wonder if the Borning Company will build one, or a few, rapid tunnels for deeper pocket people to dodge traffic congestion and use the tunneling technology that develops to create very rapid public transportation. 

I wonder if SpaceX is taking somewhat the same path.  Do government work hauling supplies to the space station and when they've been able to bring the price down start doing a lot of budget commercial lifts.

Agree with etienne re "one, or a few, rapid tunnels for deeper pocket people", you use the tunnel/tube for both 1st class pods and second class pods.

I wondered if boring co is more like when there is a goldrush, you don't make money looking for gold, you make money by selling shovels (or doing transport).


SpaceX is certainly aiming to bring down price to gain volume which brings down price.....

18
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: August 04, 2017, 03:09:13 PM »
My estimate for July is 407.0 up 2.61 on July 2016's 404.39

19
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: August 04, 2017, 03:08:01 PM »

Plants will not heal the higher CO2 level. Never. But there will be life that loves the state we will get in.

Never is a long time. Certainly not for 100,000 years, but I wouldn't want to say it is impossible for plants and rock weathering to do it within a couple of million years. But perhaps you have better information to allow you to assert 'never'?

20
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: August 01, 2017, 12:40:01 AM »
Anthony Scaramucci sacked as Trump media chief
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40782299

Perhaps it is the first sign of order being established, even if the brevity of Mr Scaramucci's tenure - he wasn't officially set to begin until 15 August - will be a short-term embarrassment for the president.
Then again, it could be that the pace of change is quickening as the Trump administration approaches the centre of the vortex. Only time will tell.



21
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 26, 2017, 11:18:50 AM »

One year they will be right, much like a stopped clock. When that year comes, don't delude yourself that you deserve credit for your foresight.


I find myself driven to ask, which is worse; speculating that this might be the year, on the grounds that things look different from anything that we have ever had to cope with, or insisting that the old measures must be the best because they have always worked in the past?

We all know it's coming. No-one knows when. But when it does, it will be because the old metrics are no longer relevant. So IMO yes, they deserve credit for understanding that, when others don't.

Who has the best forecasting ability? This depends on
1)how long it takes before a BOE happens. Guessing zero for many years in a row before being correct is not a good record. Guessing zero for just one year without it happening leaves a lot of skill needed the next year to catch up in forecast skill.

2) Whether the old metrics predict it when it does happen. While it might happen suddenly without other metrics predicting it, this is by no means assured. So there is no guarantee of much of a catch up in skill when it does happen.

Insisting the old measures are perfect would be wrong, but suggesting that the old measures have better skill (could be more wrong in one particular year but generally taken over several years a little better skill) seems quite easily defensible to me.

22
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: July 24, 2017, 11:20:47 PM »

Good short BBC article on BBC News channel today about visiting Greenland and monitoring the darkening ice.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40686984


Also mentions this:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/6/e1700584
Satellite observations show that, from 1995 to 2009, summer cloud cover decreased by 0.9 ± 0.3% per year.


So about 12.5% less clouds over 14 years.
We are familiar with stronger greenland high pressure since 2007, but interesting to see cloud cover decrease numbers.

23
The rest / Re: Favorite songs about Nature
« on: July 23, 2017, 08:44:55 PM »
Both: January brings the snow,
Makes your feet and fingers glow.

February's ice and sleet,
Freeze the toes right off your feet.
Welcome, March, with wint'ry wind,
Would thou weren't not so unkind.

April brings the sweet spring showers,
On and on for hours and hours.

Farmers fear unkindly May,
Frost by night and hail by day.

June just rains and never stops,
Thirty days and spoils the crops.

 
In July the sun is hot,
Flanders: Is it shining?
Swann: No it's not!

Both: August, cold and dank and wet,
Brings more rain than any yet.

Bleak September's mist and mud,
Is enough to chill the blood.
Then October adds a gale,
Wind and slush and rain and hail.

Dark November brings the fog,
Should not do it to a dog.

Freezing wet December, then...
Both: b***** January again!

Both: (January brings the snow),
(Makes your feet and fingers glow!)

 ;) ;D

https://www.flashlyrics.com/lyrics/flanders-and-swann/a-song-of-the-weather-76

24
Policy and solutions / Re: The Hyperloop
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:50:12 PM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40677604
Elon Musk and the hyperbolic hyperloop 'announcement'

a spokesman for The Boring Company did say that it intends to break ground on the project this year.
...
We've been trying to track down whom exactly Mr Musk might have been talking to about this. I won’t keep you in suspense: we failed.
...
Suffice it to say, Mr Musk’s promise of “rapid” formal approval seems way, way off the mark. It takes a committee to move a lamppost in America, let alone a multi-tunnel transport ecosystem that would be the most ambitious infrastructure the US will have seen since it began building freeways way back in the 1930s.

25
Policy and solutions / Re: The Hyperloop
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:47:45 PM »
"Imagine a straight route from SF to NYC that doesn't bother to go around the mountains or slow down to weave through them but just goes under at full speed."

I believe Musk has said the Hyperloop is most efficient up to about 900 miles.  More than that, flying is more efficient.

I fail to see why this would be true.  The 'loop would be faster than a commercial jet.  It would use far less energy per mile.  And there would be no weather disruptions.

eta:  Ah, supersonic airplanes.  Lots of energy required.  Might be like the Concorde, only for the champaign class.
Perhaps by flying Musk means suborbital rocket? Fly up 50km then there is no air resistance to speak of until you want it to slow down.

26
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: July 20, 2017, 12:20:12 AM »
How about we define some terms?

I take Green BAU to be transition to renewables from FF but no attempt at reducing demand for services. (i.e. reducing demand for electric by more efficient devices would be in green BAU scenario but reducing demand for such devices would not be included.)

I think greenwashing is certainly a negative term implying pretence at being green.

I agree Green BAU may well often be used in negative way often implying lack of appreciation of scale of problem. But should such negativity be more reserved for greenwashing and we should accept that green BAU may not be all we want it to be but at least it is a lot better than black/grey/brown or whatever BAU.

Not sure if green BAU could perhaps be contrasted with some other term, who think significant demand reduction is necessary? 'Full on Green'?

Perhaps also want a definition for
Treehugging Green
Maybe: not give an inch perhaps particularly on local issues. Believe environment should always be protected against any business imperitive.

27
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: July 19, 2017, 05:47:17 PM »
GISS anomaly for June: 69 only 4th warmest after

2016 79
2015 78
1998 78

and only just ahead of a slew of other years:
2005 68
2014 66
2009 66
2013 65
2010 64
2006 64

28
Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 12, 2017, 01:35:01 PM »
There was some keen interest a while back when the crack, which spread across the shelf from a pinning point known as the Gipps Ice Rise, looked as though it might sweep around behind another such anchor called the Bawden Ice Rise. Had that happened, it could have prompted a significant speed-up in the shelf's seaward movement once the berg came off.

As it is, scientists are not now expecting a big change in the speed of the ice.

Hadn't appreciated that where it broke off mattered so much.

29
Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 05, 2017, 12:28:15 PM »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40492957
Giant 'white wanderer' poised to break free

Just 5km left:

A rift has grown across the edge of the Larsen C Ice Shelf. A thin, 5km-long section of the floating shelf is now all that prevents a 6,600-sq-km berg from drifting away into the Weddell Sea.

30
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: July 02, 2017, 03:35:36 PM »
July 01:     407.24 ppm
June 30:     406.78 ppm
June 29:     406.20 ppm
June 28:     408.24 ppm
June 27:     408.09 ppm

June est is 408.59
wonder if it will be .01 different again.

June 2016 was 406.81 so this June looks to be up 1.78 on a year earlier.
April has been marginally adjusted down to 1.58 up on a year earlier so that remains lowest monthly increase.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 01, 2017, 09:45:44 PM »
Great Arctic Cyclone

32
Science / Re: World Weather Attribution group
« on: June 30, 2017, 01:54:49 PM »
'Very strong' climate change signal in record June heat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40449234

Now, researchers with World Weather Attribution have carried out a multi-method analysis to assess the role of warming connected to human activities in these record temperatures.
"We simulate what is the possible weather under the current climate and then we simulate what is the possible weather without anthropogenic climate change, and then we compare these two likelihoods which gives us the risk ratio," Dr Friederike Otto from the University of Oxford, one of the study's authors, told BBC News.
"We found a very strong signal."
That signal, according to the authors, made heat waves at least 10 times more likely in Spain and Portugal.

33
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: June 30, 2017, 01:19:50 PM »
I had thought that the principle cost in subways was the stations, not the tunnels. Is The Boring Company doing anything about that? It seems that their principle cost savings is from making smaller tunnels, and efficiencies from scale of digging a lot of tunnels.

The concept video, included in this article:
https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/28/elon-musk-wants-to-build-a-traffic-skipping-tunnel-utopia/
shows cars entering and exiting the tunnels using only a few parking spaces at street level.  No "stations" needed.  :)

All those lifts sound/look expensive to me. Either that or traffic jams trying to get to too small a number of entry points. But I know nothing compared to Musk.

34
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 30, 2017, 12:31:10 PM »
Those animals laying down out there - are they the ones that ran themselves to death trying to stay in the blade shade?
 :P
These ones, I guess, made calculations using the sun angle and wind direction before choosing their blade shadow.

PV might offer even more shade at such a location.

Looks like they did make the calculation and decided to locate close to base to have to move less. However sometime soon that calculation may reverse and the greater food availability further away may become an attraction that is worth having to move a little bit more for.

35
Science / Re: Exiting The Anthropocene
« on: June 23, 2017, 02:47:34 PM »

This concept gets across the fundamentally tenuous position that we are putting ourselves in, and removes the hubris embedded in the current general conceptualization of the Anthropocene. Perhaps we should start thinking about the post-Anthropocene period (the Khaosocene? - the abyss).

Will Anthropocene last long enough not to be considered part of Khaosocene?

There seems to be careful consideration of whether conditions are different enough to be detected to say a new epoch has started. But is it hubris to call it the anthropocene?

36
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: June 19, 2017, 01:05:34 PM »
Two shots at the first tropical storm of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season:


Arlene was pre-season April 20/21 but is it conventional to (unofficially?) extend the season back so that Arlene is the first tropical storm of the 2017 season?

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2017/ARLENE.shtml?
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2017/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Tropical_Storm_Arlene
is within
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season

38
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 15, 2017, 01:35:43 PM »
Future Energy: Will buses be run on coffee?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38854886

39

Specifically, albedo feedback of ice loss itself does NOT affect volume melt over a season. Only albedo feedback of (land based) snow cover does.

All the other you say make sense and are logical, but this doesn't.
 Since ice loss in area, means there would be extra ice-free areas on the sea(because of this ice loss), where the temperature will start climbing and we know that this can happen MUCH MUCH more efficiently than sun melting the ice. So this rise of temperature in sea water, would have an effect in further ice melting.
No?

I agree with Crocodile23. I thought it was well accepted that albedo feedback was the dominant effect in melting season.

Consequently I expected the dominant view would be that the gap would grow late in the melt season. Perhaps this is being reduced by views of expecting such extreme low volume in July that the gap can only shrink.

Consider circle of ice 1m across and 50cm think versus 100m across and 50cm thick. 1m across has plenty of water around it such that edge effects melt it all but this may not be case for 100m across. That is before considering albedo effects such as albedo of 20cm thick ice is lower than of 40cm thick ice.

Less volume means more volume can melt is clear from the data. What is less clear is what happens when the ice is only over deep water and other areas where it is hard to melt it all out eg where movement moves ice into area so open water fraction does not tend to rise or at least not as rapidly as in areas where ice moves out of the area.

40
bump not long left to vote

41
Consequences / Re: 2017 ENSO
« on: June 08, 2017, 03:56:54 PM »
8 June 2017
ENSO Alert System Status: Not Active
Synopsis: ENSO-neutral is favored (50 to ~55% chance) through the Northern Hemisphere fall
2017.


http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 06, 2017, 12:44:12 AM »
Any chance we see an eye of open water form at the poll in a week or so?

those in favour say eye  ;)

43
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: June 05, 2017, 10:04:30 PM »

409.64 is my May 17 estimate. May 16 was 407.70 so up 1.94 give or take a little.

Well up from April's up 1.59 on a year earlier which remains lowest yearly increase in monthly record this year.

Never get it spot on. Now reported as 409.65

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June)
« on: June 04, 2017, 03:30:56 PM »
They are still of course in error, as it is 19.8 km3 and obviously not 19,800 km3...

When quoted as 19.8 the units are k Km3 ie thousand km3 So they are correct in saying 19,800 km3 (with , as separator not decimal point).

45
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 03, 2017, 03:03:03 PM »
The Chinese Government has announced that they've completed the construction of the world's largest floating solar farm, and it's now producing energy.

Sungrow Power Supply have created created a 40-megawatt solar power plant, which sits atop of a flooded former coal-mining town in China's eastern Anhui province.

https://www.indy100.com/article/china-powered-largest-solar-power-farm-earth-renewable-fossil-fuel-floating-7759346

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June)
« on: June 03, 2017, 11:50:32 AM »
Great to see you back A-Team.  :)

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June)
« on: June 03, 2017, 10:58:37 AM »
Sorry for the repetition of others posts

Latest value: 2017-5-31 18.11

2016 151  19.321
2011 151  19.483
2012 151  19.591

so at end of month we are 1.211 below previous lowest 2016 which explains 1200 km3 part of

Arctic sea ice volume through May 2017 continued substantially below prior years. May 2017 sea ice  volume was 18,800 km3 ,  1200 km3 below the previous record from  May in 2016.

from http://psc.apl.washington.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Month started at 20.64 and given the downward acceleration I would expect average to be more than (20.64+18.11)/2=19.375 and indeed I calculate May average (of daily values) to be 19.81. So 18,800km3 is neither end value nor average and remains a mystery to me.

48
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: June 02, 2017, 11:27:47 PM »

Peas in a pod.  Next generation of pods should have more storage and less NG.  Progress....

Of course things don't happen a generation at a time. There is a slow steady increasing proportion of solar and wind and slowly decreasing proportion of FF. If the FF is gas nothing much to stop those steady changes from speeding up if the investment is there.


Can it go to 100% renewables even if there are some places with occasional 6 week periods with lots of cloud and no winds to speak of? Sure it can. Batteries are managing daily cycle and that might get to weekly but seems unlikely to get to once a year storage. But there are other methods: If we have 20% nuclear 20% biomass 2% hydro, 29% wind 29% solar. Biomass want to burn when electric prices are high so that 20% is likely to increase assuming some stockpiling of food waste and non edible farm production is possible. Then import a little electric and solar still produces some when cloudy. The placement of renewables like offshore or mountain ridges for wind and desert for solar make them more reliable. The 6 week period may not be at a time of peak annual demand so that might also help.

Basically all these effects may well reduce 6 week period to a shortage of only 2 or 3% of annual demand. What covers those last 2 or 3 percent? We are a long way from 97% ff free yet so there is time to develop and decide between pump up storage or flow batteries or electrolysis/fuel cells or other dispatchable demand like air capture of carbon -> aviation fuel and/or building materials and probably several other choices. 2 or 3 percent should be doable one way or another.

49
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: June 02, 2017, 03:54:47 PM »
June 01:  409.20 ppm
May 31:     409.30 ppm
May 30:     409.25 ppm
May 29:     409.91 ppm
May 28:     409.77 ppm

409.64 is my May 17 estimate. May 16 was 407.70 so up 1.94 give or take a little.

Well up from April's up 1.59 on a year earlier which remains lowest yearly increase in monthly record this year.

50
If Trump decides to pull out of the Paris accord it won't make much difference.  The way the agreement is written it takes four years for a country to actually exit.  The odds of the next US president being a stupid as Trump approach zero.

On a practical level, there's not much the Trump administration can do to slow the US movement to renewable energy.  Economics have taken over.  And Congress is unlikely to take any anti-wind/solar legislation.  Too many jobs have been created by renewables.  Plus voter sentiment has swung in favor of renewable energy.


4 years to exit Paris agreement? Well perhaps depends on how he goes about it. There is option of leaving UNFCCC which only takes a year. Or maybe declare it is a treaty and so it needs senate approval
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40108659

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35