Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part XI 10

[dik]

For earlier threads, see:
thread1618-496010
thread1618-496614
thread1618-497017
thread1618-497239
thread1618-497988
thread1618-498967
thread1618-501135
thread1618-504850
thread1618-506948
thread1618-507973


-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[GregLocock]

Here's an interesting observation, last year there was an enormous underwater volcano which blasted an enormous amount of the most important greenhouse gas and some other aerosols into the stratosphere.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00652-x

"the available data provide enough evidence to rank this eruption among the most remarkable climatic events in the modern observational era and strongest in the last three decades."

This is a possible part explanation for the current perceived 'exceptional' heatwaves.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[SwinnyGG]

Even very close too the surface of a sphere, energy emitted laterally isn't going to impact the sphere

More attempts at obfuscation.

The farthest a CO[sub]2[/sub] molecule can be from the surface and still be captured as part of the atmosphere is about 60 miles.

The earth is 8,000 miles in diameter. For the sake of modeling this effect, the earth isn't a sphere.

 

[waross]

SwinnyGG, you keep walking around the question. If water has the same absorption spectrum as CO2, what IR energy is being reflected by water for the CO2 to absorb and re-emit?

Sunlight heats ocean water directly and more efficiently than higher temperature ambient air.
Clear skies cause hotter oceans.
But,
Wind storms with the attending waves and spray tend to cool the oceans by evaporation.
The warmer the water, the more efficient the evaporation.
And apart from that, is the green house effect.


--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

 

[dik]

Surf's up...

"The study, published Tuesday in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, looked at nearly a century's worth of data and found that the average height of winter waves has grown by about a foot since 1969. The number of storm events that produced waves greater than 13 feet in height has also increased, the study found."

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/01/1191...crease-on-californias-coasts-as-climate-warms

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

As the subsidies slowly fade, suddenly driving an electric car is more expensive than a combustion car.

https://jalopnik.com/driving-100-miles-in-an-ev-is-now-more-expensive-than-i-1850031874

 

[waross]

Respectfully, Tug; I have a couple of issues with that article.
1. "Anderson Economic Group is one of the most recognized boutique consulting firms"
A "boutique consulting firm" Someone that may be hired to push an adgenda.
2. Data, the Anderson Economic Group does not show the actual gas and electric prices that they base their conclusions on.
3. The cost shown to gas up a small car is about 20% of my cost.

The cost shown to gas up a truck is about 10% of my cost.​

I have no idea what agenda "Anderson Economic Group' is pushing, but they are pushing it hard.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

 

[TugboatEng]

What was really strange about it is that I heard the story on CBS radio today. When I Googled it to share here I saw that the story, word for word, was published as early as January. I thought the delay was odd.

 

[SwinnyGG]

Full report below:

https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.c...10/EVtransition_FuelingCostStudy_10-21-21.pdf

Their conclusions are based on a lot of very goofy assumptions.

Such as - they calculate a value for time lost to refuel. No issue with that.. except the calculation for EVs includes a cost for 'time lost to refuel' at home. Everyone I know who has an EV, which is a fair number at this point, charges their car when they get home after work. They're home already. How is that a time cost?

They also assume that everyone with an EV makes an average of 6 trips to commercial chargers per month, and fully charges the car each time. Also completely ridiculous. I know of no one who does that. Maybe people do, but in order to require paying for a full charge every 5 days, you'd have to be driving a lot of miles and you'd have to be away from home for a loooong time.

They also assume that each of those 6 trips involves 10 'deadhead miles' - miles not taking the driver where they want to go, but instead spent looking for a charger. 10 miles per charging trip is a lot, especially when their average number of commercial charging trips makes no sense at all.

I know of one friend who I know, just from talking to them, that regularly charges their EV at the grocery store. They drive to a different grocery store, which is a mile or so further away, and while they are there they plug in since it's free. So yeah, they actually pay for it because the groceries at that store are a hair more expensive, but their total actual added cost is a couple of bucks once a month and one extra minute each way.

Their estimate of EV use with 'mostly home charging' is a 60/40 split between home charging (at .17$/kWh) and 'commercial' charging (at .43$/kWh). Meaning the best case scenario they present is 40% paid charging. Ludicrous. Not even close to the average behavior of an EV owner. If you re-calculate everything, not even correcting for their weird evaluation of time cost for charging at home, to 95% home charging and 5% commercial, the numbers completely fall apart and the EV is significantly cheaper. I'd argue that 90-95% home charging at off-peak power rates is much closer to the average behavior of an EV owner in 2023.

I'm definitely not in the 'EVs are a panacea' camp, but this report is BS.

 

[TugboatEng]

I mostly shared it not because of quality but because it was reported on a very "mainstream" news service. It's a rare example of the mainstream going against themselves. Real analysis is important as we move forward with many states banning the sale of combustion powered cars, trains z tugboats, rough service light bulbs, etc...

I'm especially mad about the push for heat pump water heaters and the simultaneous cut in refrigerant production by 40%

Swinny, I have to question every aspect of climate change because it's being used to justify rules that are catastrophic to every aspect of our lives. I can't wait for ammonia to become the refrigerant of choice in household appliances.

 

[SwinnyGG]

I have to question every aspect of climate change because it's being used to justify rules that are catastrophic to every aspect of our lives

That's the thing. No you don't.

You can make whatever argument you want about the political reaction to the reality of climate change. I won't argue with that very much, if at all. I generally don't buy in on the climate change doomsday sensationalism. Humans are very good at adaptation, and that isn't going to change.

The political reaction and the physical reality have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Nothing. Zero.

And there is very little about the political reaction, even at the most extreme end, that is 'catastrophic to every aspect of our lives'. That's the exact same bullshit doomsday sensationalism, just at the other end of the spectrum. Climate change has been a political concern in some form for more than 30 years, and the true impact to your daily life up to this point has been basically zero. The only reason you, or any other American, would walk around every day wracked with worry about climate change would be if you choose to. The rest of us just keep going to work. Life goes on.

 

[TugboatEng]

Don't forget, I'm on the "sea levels have risen 400 feet in 14k years team". I only question how much CO2 levels have contributed to that.

And yes, we do have to worry about taking catastrophically stupid actions to stop the inevitable.

https://www.space.com/sun-umbrella-attached-to-asteroid-fight-global-warming

 

[SwinnyGG]

So you ACTUALLY think that parking a solar sail on an asteroid is a concept with any chance of being brought into reality?

You truly believe that?

 

[TugboatEng]

No, there will be a ban on rocket fuel before it can happen.

 

[SwinnyGG]

Do you not understand that you freaking out over people saying wildly unrealistic shit on the internet about how to fight climate change is EXACTLY the same as Dik freaking out over people saying wildly unrealistic shit on the internet about worst-case consequences of climate change?

A viable shade would thus need to be massive — weighing millions of tons — and made of a material sturdy enough to stay in place and stay intact

Millions of tons. There is no reality in which we construct a structure weighing billions of pounds, launch it into orbit, and mount it to an asteroid which itself likely weighs billions of tons, which we captured from light minutes away and towed to an L1 point in earth orbit.

Do you have no concept of how absurdly unrealistic that is? Seriously?

The ridiculous concepts which are being made up by dudes in think tanks mean absolutely nothing. Less than nothing. That concept will never, ever happen.

The fact that you think something like that is somehow 'catastrophic to every aspect' of your life is even wilder than any of the other stuff you've said in these threads.

 

[TugboatEng]

I have to take it somewhat seriously. Here is a university level study of the same:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230208155658.htm

Who pays for this nonsense?

 

[SwinnyGG]

I have to take it somewhat seriously

No dude, you don't. That's a choice you make. You are choosing to have an irrational point of view based on unreasonable overreactive fear of the implementation of think tank ideas that will absolutely never, ever come to fruition.

And as part of the position you've chosen to take, you belittle Dik for choosing to have an irrational point of view based on unreasonable overreactive fear of consequences of global warming which according to even the most pessimistic models are still likely to ever come to fruition.

How do you not see the fallacy here? Seriously?

 

[dik]

Carbon negative concrete... (Not verified)

"But this 5,000-square-foot repurposed pole barn hides a distinction that could be a milestone in the Architecture 2030 Challenge: the facility’s concrete floor. Or, more accurately, the carbon-negative concrete floor. This otherwise unremarkable concrete slab holds the sequestered equivalent of 10,230 pounds (more than five tons) of atmospheric CO2. The floor is believed to be the first carbon-negative concrete placement in North America.

It’s a sustainability breakthrough of incalculable importance. As the world’s most popular building material, concrete accounts for about 7% of the world’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. Any process that reduces this figure could be transformative to the built environment.

“If we are going to pull back from the brink of climate change, then we have start actively sequestering carbon. It can’t be minor offsets. We need high impact applications. Concrete is high impact,” says Remy Drabkin, owner and operator of Remy Wines, near Dayton, Ore. Her vision and insistence on a carbon-trapping concrete solution was the catalyst for a concrete formulation that now bears her name: the Drabkin-Mead Formula. Mead is John Mead, the owner of Solid Carbon in nearby McMinnville. An ardent environmentalist, he has a sophisticated understanding of ready-mix concrete science. “We broke hundreds of test cylinders before arriving at a formulation that exceeded our expectations,” Mead explains."

https://www.architectmagazine.com/d...ng-a-breakthrough-in-carbon-negative-concrete

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

My concerns are real and not irrational. I don't know where this is taking us, but I'm pretty sure it can get real ugly (I don't know for sure and I don't know if it will happen). The recent global 'heat dome' may just be a pre-cursor of what can happen, and it can get a lot worse. We just have to wait and see.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

Your level of fear is completely irrational.

Pretty much every single one of your posts contains:

"I'm pretty sure"
"Can"
"May"
"Might"
"Don't Know"

Etc etc etc.

You're chicken little. You don't know, by your own admission, and you're apparently terrified anyway. That's not rational. Not even close.

 

[dik]

I guess it depends on how ugly it can get. I don't worry about the outcome...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik