Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[HSakols]

Yes the sky is falling because our law makers are idiots. RUINOUS LANDSCAPE! 

Here is more scary news about how our lawmakers think - shoot me now!

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/republican-lawmaker-rocks-tumbling-ocean-causing-sea-level-rise

[RSL]

In the interest of science, one has to consider also larger volume of water displaced by males under influence of Viagra.

Probably the real reason for climate change, Les.

[Alan Klein]

Yes the sky is falling because our law makers are idiots. RUINOUS LANDSCAPE! 

Here is more scary news about how our lawmakers think - shoot me now!

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/republican-lawmaker-rocks-tumbling-ocean-causing-sea-level-rise

The article writer is twisting his words.  His main point was: ""Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said.  That's a truthful scientific observation that cannot be refuted. Making fun of the question by calling it Dover rocks shows the bias in the article writer.

Things that could contribute to "...sea levels rising and the bottom moving up..."are erosion of soil that rivers wash into the seas and the sinking of land which would raise the levels also.    There's something included in that he didn't mention but that I have raised as a question.  How much do volcanic activity and the movement of tectonic plates rising under the seas contribute to the seas rising.  I don't know the answer.  But it's a legitimate question.  Brushing off that question and calling the questioner ignorant is not a scientific answer but a political one.  One of the problems with those who support global warming is that their minds are made up.  They refuse to even listen to real scientific questions and brush them off as coming from ignorant people.  You're not going to get people to join your side if you keep making fun of them.  You ought to be polite and answer the questions. 

[Rob C]

In the interest of science, one has to consider also larger volume of water displaced by males under influence of Viagra.

Yes, and in the fight against the problem, the infamous 18-30s holiday company is disbanding. I understand it was causing huge surges in an otherwise tide-free sea. Also, in answer to Alan, the blue is result of contamination from the blue pills (I take their colour on trust: by the time I may have required them I was already victim to beta blockers. Our medical photographer friends will understand and perhaps extend their sympathy for the side-effects of saving life.

Now, 'tis academic.

:-(

[Ray]

Things that could contribute to "...sea levels rising and the bottom moving up..."are erosion of soil that rivers wash into the seas and the sinking of land which would raise the levels also.    There's something included in that he didn't mention but that I have raised as a question.  How much do volcanic activity and the movement of tectonic plates rising under the seas contribute to the seas rising.  I don't know the answer.  But it's a legitimate question.  Brushing off that question and calling the questioner ignorant is not a scientific answer but a political one.  One of the problems with those who support global warming is that their minds are made up.  They refuse to even listen to real scientific questions and brush them off as coming from ignorant people.  You're not going to get people to join your side if you keep making fun of them.  You ought to be polite and answer the questions.

I agree completely, Alan. In the true scientific process, any anomalies or evidence which doesn't concord with the prevailing, current consensus, should be fully investigated, rather than dismissed or swept under the carpet. Such conflicting evidence can be the secret to a better understanding of the processes under investigation.

I recall from the previous thread on Climate Change that BartvanderWolf described scientists who disagree with the imaginary 97% consensus, as crackpots. This sort of attitude is totally unscientific.

In this context, I'm reminded of a recent major scientific achievement; the cracking of the human genome a few decades ago. The genes that were decoded represented less than 5% of the human genome. The other 95% were described as 'junk' DNA, left-over remnants from our past evolution.

I'm proud it was an Australian scientist who was the first to debunk this idea of 'junk DNA'.  His name was Dr Malcolm Simons. Here's the story.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm

"From July 6 - 11 the world’s leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognise the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA.

It is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph of a man flying in the face of conventional scientific thought, facing ridicule for his ideas and living to see those ideas vindicated. The tragedy of seeing his dreams come to fruition as he faces death. For he himself has cancer, Multiple Myeloma. A fatal and incurable cancer, formed in the very Junk DNA he spent 16 years exploring."

[Robert Roaldi]

The falling rocks problem is because of perverse incentives, which distort the free market. If we imposed a tax on gravity, the problem would go away.

Not sure what to do about those overweight people who insist on going swimming. When they go home for supper, does sea level drop?

[Alan Klein]

I agree completely, Alan. In the true scientific process, any anomalies or evidence which doesn't concord with the prevailing, current consensus, should be fully investigated, rather than dismissed or swept under the carpet. Such conflicting evidence can be the secret to a better understanding of the processes under investigation.

I recall from the previous thread on Climate Change that BartvanderWolf described scientists who disagree with the imaginary 97% consensus, as crackpots. This sort of attitude is totally unscientific.

In this context, I'm reminded of a recent major scientific achievement; the cracking of the human genome a few decades ago. The genes that were decoded represented less than 5% of the human genome. The other 95% were described as 'junk' DNA, left-over remnants from our past evolution.

I'm proud it was an Australian scientist who was the first to debunk this idea of 'junk DNA'.  His name was Dr Malcolm Simons. Here's the story.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s898887.htm

"From July 6 - 11 the world’s leading geneticists gather in Melbourne for the 50th anniversary of Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. Right in the midst of this event, Genetic Congress 2003, Catalyst reveals the extraordinary mistake made by the vast majority of the genetics community - the failure to recognise the vital importance of so-called Junk DNA.

It is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph of a man flying in the face of conventional scientific thought, facing ridicule for his ideas and living to see those ideas vindicated. The tragedy of seeing his dreams come to fruition as he faces death. For he himself has cancer, Multiple Myeloma. A fatal and incurable cancer, formed in the very Junk DNA he spent 16 years exploring."

Ray, it was also two Australians that went against all scientific belief at the time, that stated stomach ulcers were caused by stress.  Doctors were using methods to cure it based on that assumption, including removal of parts of their stomach.  My mother had this issue.  These doctors thought it was a bacteria but were laughed at for years and years.  Today, it's now accepted because of their work  and the disease is treated with antibiotics.  The doctors wound up receiving the Nobel. The point being that we should all remain open to opposing viewpoints.  We may learn something.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1283743/

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Not sure what to do about those overweight people who insist on going swimming. When they go home for supper, does sea level drop?

Well, duh!

Never heard of high tide and low tide, huh?

[LesPalenik]

First opened last September, the 76-turbine Pen y Cymoedd wind farm is capable of meeting the electricity needs of more than 15 per cent of households in Wales each year, helping to displace more than 300,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually.

Vattenfall’s battery@pyc, the largest co-located battery installation in the United Kingdom, is now operational and stores renewable wind power from Vattenfall’s Welsh onshore wind farm Pen y Cymoedd. The 22 MW facility, which shares electrical infrastructure with the Pen y Cymoedd wind farm, will help UK National Grid maintain frequency levels and reliability of electricity supply, by storing electricity produced by the wind farm

Gunnar Groebler, Senior Vice President Business Area Wind, said: “Vattenfall is on the road to a smart, digitalised future, free from fossil fuels. I can think of few other energy installations that better demonstrate what that future looks like than this battery installation.”

http://www.sunwindenergy.com/wind-energy/largest-co-located-battery-installed-uk

[Alan Klein]

First opened last September, the 76-turbine Pen y Cymoedd wind farm is capable of meeting the electricity needs of more than 15 per cent of households in Wales each year, helping to displace more than 300,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually.



http://www.sunwindenergy.com/wind-energy/largest-co-located-battery-installed-uk

Les what was the cost of the battery bank?   How much per household? How many households is it storing electricity for?  (NOte that article is confiusing.  The wind farms produce electricity for 13% of Wales.  There is no statistic for the batteries.  However, if you allow 1000kwh per household, 22mw that's storage for 22,000 homes for one hour. Maybe my statistics are wrong and someone can correct them.  But the point is the batteries store relatively little power.) 

What was the cost of the wind farm?  Per household? What was the cost of previously carbon supplied electricity?  You have to compare the two processes to determine the advantages of each.

Also, what happens when the wind stops blowing?  You still need standby carbon supplied generators to operate during lulls.  So the cost to maintain these is still required. 

I'm not against alternatives to carbon produced electricity.  But when we look at the alternatives, you have to consider cost.  Capital is finite.  If you spend it on batteries, you can't spend it on cancer research. 

[LesPalenik]

I don't have answers for any of your questions, Alan
The only thing I could think of was that you could make millions of iPhone batteries from all that lithium.

I think Tesla's new battery in Australia is even bigger. Here is a recent article, describing how well this battery performed during recent power failures:

Less than a month after Tesla unveiled a new backup power system in South Australia, the world’s largest lithium-ion battery is already being put to the test. And it appears to be far exceeding expectations: In the past three weeks alone, the Hornsdale Power Reserve has smoothed out at least two major energy outages, responding even more quickly than the coal-fired backups that were supposed to provide emergency power.

Tesla’s battery last week kicked in just 0.14 seconds after one of Australia’s biggest plants, the Loy Yang facility in the neighbouring state of Victoria, suffered a sudden, unexplained drop in output, according to the International Business Times. And the week before that, another failure at Loy Yang prompted the Hornsdale battery to respond in as little as four seconds — or less, according to some estimates — beating other plants to the punch. State officials have called the response time “a record,” according to local media.

The effectiveness of Tesla’s battery is being closely watched in a region that is in the grips of an energy crisis. The price of electricity is soaring in Australia, particularly in the state of South Australia, where a 2016 outage led 1.7 million residents to lose power in a blackout. Storms and heat waves have caused additional outages, and many Australians are bracing for more with the onset of summer in the Southern Hemisphere.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I agree completely, Alan. In the true scientific process, any anomalies or evidence which doesn't concord with the prevailing, current consensus, should be fully investigated, rather than dismissed or swept under the carpet.

That is an attempt at making a mockery of the Scientific process. New evidence does not have to concord with current consensus, it is used to support existing observations/evidence or not. A consensus is something that emerges from the body of observations.

It's also not helpful to deny simple chemical properties of elements or plain physics and waste huge amounts of time and tax payer's money on "fully investigating" largely irrelevant alternatives.

Like this waste of valuable time by several committee members, trying to deny science:
Clean air, water on voters’ agenda, but not Congress’
Despite voters, Congress has yet another debate on whether climate change is real.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/clean-air-water-on-voters-agenda-but-not-congress/

So Who are these representatives representing if not their constituency????
Are they debating in order to get sponsored by industry for re-election, or are they trying to improve the lives/health of their constituency and the long-term economic outlook?

Here's the recording of the 'hearing' (so one can make up their own mind):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj2YNlm6y_0

It's equally amazing that after 13 months, the head of the EPA has not found the time to appear before the committee (or has not been invited?).

I recall from the previous thread on Climate Change that BartvanderWolf described scientists who disagree with the imaginary 97% consensus, as crackpots. This sort of attitude is totally unscientific.

Your recollection is biased/inaccurate/selective, as usual, and it is wrong.

Maybe you do have a refreshing opinion about this, and how that will help to reduce CO2 emissions:
http://www.minerals.org.au/resources/coal/exports
https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/australian-coal-exports-set-new-record-in-2017/
http://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/

Cheers,
Bart

[Ray]

First opened last September, the 76-turbine Pen y Cymoedd wind farm is capable of meeting the electricity needs of more than 15 per cent of households in Wales each year, helping to displace more than 300,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually.



http://www.sunwindenergy.com/wind-energy/largest-co-located-battery-installed-uk

Looks awful! And there are 76 of them? I see only 7 in the photo. 

I prefer to see trees and a natural landscape. The advantage of solar power is that the panels can be placed over surfaces which already exist for another purpose, such as house, garage and shed roofs. As battery storage and solar panels become less expensive, we might eventually reach the stage where the average householder is not only able to fully produce their own electricity requirements at a reasonable cost, but also sell significant amounts of surplus electricity, especially if they have designed their house and roof so that the whole roof is angled towards the sun and the entire roof is suitable for covering with solar panels.

The main concern is, do we have the resources of rare earth metals and Lithium in order to make this paradigm shift whereby most people will be driving electric cars which they can recharge at home from their own solar produced electricity?

[Ray]

That is an attempt at making a mockery of the Scientific process. New evidence does not have to concord with current consensus, it is used to support existing observations/evidence or not. A consensus is something that emerges from the body of observations.

Making a mockery of the scientific process? Not at all. You seem to have missed the point again. Once a consensus has developed there is usually a strong resistance to that consensus being broken. That is simply human nature. People have careers and reputations to protect, and need employment in their chosen career to support themselves and their families.

The complexity and chaotic nature of weather and climate changes, and the long timescales involved before a consistent trend can be observed, make it impossible to apply the rigorous procedures of the scientific methodology of verification and falsification.

Just as it's impossible to verify that small increases in a particular trace gas, such as CO2, will have long-term, harmful effects, it's also impossible to falsify that hypothesis. Therefore scientific certainty on the issue is not possible.

The people who are truly making a real mockery of the scientific process, are those who are expressing certainty on the issue, not only that increases in CO2 levels are the main cause of the current, slight warming period, but also that such warming will be bad for humanity in general. Got it? 

It's also not helpful to deny simple chemical properties of elements or plain physics and waste huge amounts of time and tax payer's money on "fully investigating" largely irrelevant alternatives.

Who has been denying basic chemical properties of elements, or basic physics? Have I ever denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I'm quite capable of understanding that CO2, Nitrous Oxides, Methane, Water Vapour, and so on, are better able to absorb the lower frequencies of the Electromagnet Spectrum, known as infrared waves which are associated with heat. Greenhouse gases are essential for life on our planet.

CO2 in particular is a potential asset which we would exploit if we were smart enough.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I'm not against alternatives to carbon produced electricity.  But when we look at the alternatives, you have to consider cost...

Or the fact that Tesla lost $20 billions in 15 years.

[LesPalenik]

Looks awful! And there are 76 of them? I see only 7 in the photo. 

I prefer to see trees and a natural landscape. The advantage of solar power is that the panels can be placed over surfaces which already exist for another purpose, such as house, garage and shed roofs. As battery storage and solar panels become less expensive, we might eventually reach the stage where the average householder is not only able to fully produce their own electricity requirements at a reasonable cost, but also sell significant amounts of surplus electricity, especially if they have designed their house and roof so that the whole roof is angled towards the sun and the entire roof is suitable for covering with solar panels.

The main concern is, do we have the resources of rare earth metals and Lithium in order to make this paradigm shift whereby most people will be driving electric cars which they can recharge at home from their own solar produced electricity?

The article mentions that the Vattenfall battery is made up of six shipping container sized units, five of which house 500 i3 BMW manufactured lithium-ion battery packs.
I was wondering about all the other containers, too. That picture looks indeed awful. The most disturbing is the crooked horizon on that photo. How can you trust engineers who can't keep their lines straight?

Collecting solar energy through panels is one thing, storing it on a large scale is much more demanding.  Using the large batteries to help out with electricity interruptions and peaks is a very sound and practical idea, taking advantage of technology which didn't exist before. BTW, energy can be stored also in other ways, not only in electrical form.

[LesPalenik]

Or the fact that Tesla lost $20 billions in 15 years.

That's a known fact, every day I came across some news announcing impending demise of Tesla. They are investing heavily into new manufacturing plants and new technologies which cost time and money. They are indeed in a precarious situation, and Elon Musk is dealing with multiple companies and projects, maybe their gamble will pan out, maybe not.

Amazon was also losing money for many years, but now it is firing on all cylinders. 5 years ago, $300 price per AMZN share seemed exceedingly lofty but comparing it with the latest price of over $1,500, it was a bargain.
 

[Alan Klein]

I still wouldn't buy Tesla or Amazon.  But I wish them well.  They are US corporations, and their success only makes America richer, stronger and more successful.   Maybe they will start paying taxes  too.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's a known fact, every day I came across some news announcing impending demise of Tesla. They are investing heavily into new manufacturing plants and new technologies which cost time and money. They are indeed in a precarious situation, and Elon Musk is dealing with multiple companies and projects, maybe their gamble will pan out, maybe not.

Amazon was also losing money for many years, but now it is firing on all cylinders. 5 years ago, $300 price per AMZN share seemed exceedingly lofty but comparing it with the latest price of over $1,500, it was a bargain.

Except Tesla is not an internet startup... it is a car manufacturer.

[LesPalenik]

I agree, that if it was only cars, Tesla wouldn't stand much chance (compared with other established car manufacturers). Personally, I think their battery division has a much brighter future. Their Solar division has been also losing money, but with the new solar roof tiles they can tap into home construction in a big way. And put a Tesla car and one or two of their battery packs into each garage. The potential is there, and they are uniquely positioned to reap the benefits of all those synergies (as long as they won't run before out of money). Apple was once also in a very similar situation and until recently most analysts wrote off Tim Cook as an incompetent CEO.