You’re not suggesting that energy isn’t conserved nor that heat is transferred from cold to hot?
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Brian G Valentine
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by PA
Well, the article wasn’t about a vehicle…
But if we can agree on a vehicle, say a Tesla S with the 84KWH powerpack, I can do some sort of estimate.
California has a tiered power system and there are claims of $29 / charge which is about $1.62 for 30 miles. Any particular state or city?
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Brian G Valentine
Hey, Sheeple! You’re getting shafted by people who paste the word “Expert” on the foreheads!
As if you didn’t already know,
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by sciguy54
Re the Tesla Battery wall, here is how it looks to me as a time-shift technology, based on very incomplete info. (not sure this will drop into the intended spot)
Assume the battery is $3,500 and the inverter and install are $1,500 for a total of $5,000. Assume the 10 KWH battery can be discharged 50% and recharged every day for 10 years before it dies: 3,600 cycles at 360/year, and assume the inverter will last forever.
Each year you can time shift 1,800 KWH (360 x 5). If your $5,000 investment cost you 4% interest, then you are out $200 plus $350 battery depreciation each year, for a total of $550. If you save 10 cents per KWH shifted, then you only saved $180 against the annual $550. Your break even point is about 30 cents per each KWH shifted, but I pay less than 15 cents for a prime-time KWH. Not promising for me as a time-shift device.
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Rich Van Slooten
Judith, you may not be making many friends in the community of scientists but you are making an impact with the community of applied scientists, i.e., professional engineers such as myself. I have nothing but respect and encouragement for what you are doing & have done so far. Wishing you all the best. Richvs. MS/BSEE – & active climate researcher for 40 yrs.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Brian G Valentine
Yes. Having done the right thing to earn censure from the watermelon patch.
For that and allowing my ranting, salutations.
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by mosomoso
Of course, in the case of old Sydney town there’s usually another ingredient in the decision making process. Let’s call it the “private-public-private-private arrangement”.
On another matter altogether, it was interesting how the very green premier of NSW became so enthusiastic for desal only a short time after referring to it contemptuously as “bottled electricity”. This turnabout left many bewildered, and the very green premier resigned some weeks after giving the go-ahead to Sydney desal (leaving his very green legacy of clapped-out, feral-ridden forestry zones as National Parks). We may never know all his thought processes, but he is still as green as you please. Aren’t they all these days?
Since I mentioned this yesterday, NSW has shelled out another half-million dollars for its stand-by desal. Tomorrow, another half-million.
Sydney gets over 1200 millimetres of rain a year on average, and its catchment region does okay for precip. Its dams are not far off brimming as I speak – but more water storage and some sane recycling of waste water would have made things even better and warmed my conservationist heart. Won’t happen. We’re now far too green for all that conservation nonsense.
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Barnes
Frankly. I am thankful that we finally have some adults in the room who are not simple minded fools doing a lot of hysterical arm waving about impending doom because we are using a resource that has elevated our standard of living, our health, and longevity to levels never achieved in the history of homo sapien. Maybe, yommy, you should actually read the original article and cone up with some factual refutation, unlink puffho illusory nonsensense.
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by George Klein
Several weeks ago in the discussion of the APS climate statement, I posted something about resigning from the Geological Society of America for similar reasons. Peter Lang posted a response that I stay in and fight.I did so.
At Peter’s suggestion, I am posting my email to him today about an issue that arose concerning their 2018 annual meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana. Below email text I am posting a copy of the text of my post in the ‘Open Forum’ of the Geological Society of America’s ‘Connected Community.’ I do this also at Peter’s suggestion:
Dear Peter,
I want to thank you for your response several weeks to a comment I made either on ‘Climate, Etc’ ” about the American Physical Society. My comment concerned the possibility of my resigning my membership in the Geological Society of America (GSA) over something similar. You advised me not to do it and stay in and fight back. SO I did. Let me share an outcome as result of your advice.
This past week, GSA send out an inappropriate email to its members about the 2018 annual meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, a place where the state legislature passed a “freedom of religion” bill that allows businesses not to serve those who subscribe to certain issues (eg abortion, gay rights, etc). The legislation was amended to allow local communities to follow their own laws first.
A vocal minority asked GSA to cancel its 2018 meeting in Indianapolis and pick another venue. The email explained that after waiting to see how the legislation was to be amended they then chose not to do so. GSA then emailed the members.
I found the whole episode offensive because (1) GSA is a scientific society, not a political advocacy society (although there are days I wonder), and (2) GSA has no jurisdiction in the state of Indiana. GSA has an open forum where I posted my views. The outcome – seven people posted supporting statements, another person opened a separate forum where another five supported my position, and three people emailed me separately agreeing with me. No one has yet disagreed. In one of the emails, the writer added that when his wife read the email from GSA, her reaction was “good grief.”
Your are right. Best to stay and fight the rot that is beginning to pervade the global scientific establishment.
Where in Australia are you? I lived in Australia during World War II and attended Scotch College in Melbourne In those days, it was big in football, cricket and athletics. Now it has become a rowing school. Times change.
Best regards,
George
—
ORIGINAL POST ON “CONNECTED COMMUNITY” Open Forum of Geological Society of America GSA)
This post is in response to GSA’s mass email of April 27, 2015, about the 2018 Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, IN, and is a revised version of an email I sent to Hap McSweeney, GSA president, copied to Vicki McConnell, GSA Executive Director.
Quite frankly, I found this issue about the 2018 Indianapolis,IN, meeting to be unproductive use of time by of GSA Council, Headquarters Staff, and members/fellows. Here is why.
First, how many people wrote or called GSA to complain about the Indianapolis meeting. The email says “more than a few” but this could be five, ten 20, or 50 out of 28,300 members. I recommend GSA disclose in this discussion group how many people complained about the Indianapolis location. Even if it were as many as 500 it would be less than 2% of the membership
Second why does GSA believe it must get involved in every social issue of our times? This appears contrary to GSA’s goal of “science, stewardship and service” and its function as a scientific/scholarly society addressing the origin and evolution of the Earth. Moreover, GSA is located in Colorado and lacks a corporate presence in Indiana. It is the elected representatives of the people of Indiana who decide statewide issues there, not a small group of agenda-driven GSA members. I doubt those who complained offered to underwrite the cost of cancellation fees.
Frankly, if some GSA members don’t like a meeting site for ANY reason, they do not have to attend it. During my career, I attended both GSA and AAPG meetings in cities that I may not find appealing but I went to hear new science and network with colleagues and people I never met before, and to exchange scientific ideas. That’s what GSA meetings are for.
As I write this, news reports are streaming in about fires, riots and civil unrest in Baltimore, MD, the site of the 2015 GSA Annual Meeting. Should GSA cancel on behalf of some members who may not wish to attend out of security concerns, their heritage, safety, and possible questionable police actions? Just stay home if this concerns you.
Perhaps the solution is to hold annual GSA meetings on cruise ships and sail into International waters where these types of agendas and problems become moot. I recommend it be considered although it raises problems about where to run field trips.
GSA’s April 27 email also discussed “Diversity. Let me share three thoughts:
1). As an “old white guy” I live with diversity all the time because my wife is a Korean American lady.
2). Hiring a diverse staff is limited by its geographic locale and available applicants representing a locally-defined diversity pool of people. The GSA Executive Director is qualified to manage this and it doesn’t require GSA council or member input.
3). GSA has a track record of diversity. According to a source on the GSA Foundation Board of Directors, the first lady executive director (who preceded Jxxxx Hxxx) was very involved with a specialized type of diversity that resulted in a sizable staff turnover. She apparently also had financial issues with her prior employer and as result is now in jail.
GSA is beginning to appear as a scientific society that seems confused about its mission and gets involved with unproductive side issues far too much. If it truly wishes to remain a scientific/scholarly society, keep the name. If it wishes to also assume a role of advocacy on social issues, perhaps it should change it’s name to the PC-Geological Society of America (PCGSA).
It’s time for members to review this and perhaps even take GSA back to its roots.
——–
The following was perhaps the best comment that was posted in reply:
“Somehow the normal questions of ‘is it significant’ and ‘is it appropriate’ get lost in today’s assumption that everything is worth an immediate emotional response.”
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Peter Davies
Peter Lang would be pleased that you followed his advice and at the outcome I will bet! Thanks for sharing George and yes, its better to keep chipping away at something that seems to be wrong and not to be afraid of what others may think. Well done!
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Peter Davies
Me too Mark. At 75 I would like to be kept in the loop as well. Mosomoso articulates so well that I am pleased to stay in the background and just give out +1’s. One good thing about aging IMO is that its much better than the alternative! Keep active and be passionate about what is going on around you is my recipe for a long and enjoyable life.
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by John Costigane
Judith,
You should have no qualms about the weighting of the House session since this was an expression of the popular will, giving Republicans control of both Houses.
The administration’s attempt to express disapproval, initially, was just another example of the ‘close the debate’ mentality which has scarred the scientific advancement of climatology to a hard science, where it belongs.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by Peter Lang
Rud Istvan,
+1
I agree. ~70% of global GHG emissions are from energy. If people want GHG emissions mitigation policies, then GHG emissions policy, climate policy, UNFCCC negotiations for international agreements and targets needs to focus on energy policy.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by Peter Lang
This 6 minute video compares an electric Ford Focus and 1909 electric car in New York. The 1909 car was really good.
JAY LENO COMPARES NEW AND 100-YEAR OLD ELECTRIC CARS
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
I’ve consistently said that April 2015 looked like it was going to cool.
I do not pay any much attention to UAH as, unlike RSS, none of their scientists have come out and honestly admitted they do not do a very good job of measuring the temperature 2 meters above the surface of the land.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by Turbulent Eddie
Storage would seem to be a great tool for making not only alternatives but all electricity more efficiently distributed.
And like most consumers, all I want from the electricity is availability, reliability, and low cost – if that’s solar – great!
But, I can almost hear the shift from those assailing big oil and energy companies to complaints about big battery.
And I can’t help but ask again ( I may have missed some more definitive discussions ) Does Solar Energy Cause Global Warming?
This Gizmodo story and albedo forcing seen in this image seem to say yes:
↧
Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Michael
” mosomoso | May 1, 2015 at 2:42 pm |
Got it in black and white and he had to re-edit and distort…..”
Just added in a sentance from his comment, just before the partial quote you provided.
But, yes, it did distort to omit that opening to the quote didn’t it??
My rule of thumb is to always check quotes from the ‘skeptics’, as this exampe is pretty typical.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by Peter Lang
Here’s a reality check for inventors, investors, enthusiasts and advocates as to how long it takes for technology inventions and ‘breakthroughs’ to reach maturity and become economically viable.
– Solar thermal engine 100 years to get to 0% of total world electricity generation
– PV: 60 years to get to 0% of total world electricity generation
– nuclear: 60 years to get to 18% and now down to 12%
– hydro 130 years to get to 16%
– gas turbines: 220 years
– steam turbines: >120 years
– diesel engines: >120 years
– batteries: 200 years
This is how long it’s taken to develop these technologies to the state of maturity they have reached now.
It takes much longer for large, high cost, long life technologies, such as the major components of the electricity system, to reach maturity than it does for small, cheap, short life technologies like computers, phones, cars etc. The reason is that the units last longer so replacement takes longer so learning by doing is much slower. New models of iPhones are released yearly or more frequently. It’s decades between new generations of nuclear power plants. We are up to Generation III of nuclear power plants after 60 years. We are still using light water reactors which use only 1% of the available energy in the fuel. We hardly started using breeder reactors commercially – they provide the world’s energy needs virtually indefinitely. Then there’s fusion.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
JCH,
Nothing can be relied upon to measure the temperature of the air 2 meters above the ground. Thermometer height within an enclosure used to be allowed between approx. 1.25 m and 2 m, or thereabouts.
I’ve never been able to figure out the reason for the infatuation with air temperature, rather than surface temperature. People have been measuring ground temperatures for hundreds of years. I assume satellites measure temperature of the surface, or what solid objects are in their line of sight.
Images by police using FLIR don’t show the air. They show the temperature differences between objects, hopefully showing the perp standing out from the cooler shrubbery in which he is hiding.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by Peter Lang
Does Solar Energy Cause Global Warming?
Well, it requires we burn fossil fuels to make them, so, if you believe burning fossil fuels causes global warming then, yes, solar energy causes global warming.
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/morganesfig1.jpg?w=440&h=342
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/morganesfig2.jpg?w=440&h=306
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
