Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Stephen Segrest

0
0

PA — Why do you (and Others) keep on quoting the 40% number on corn and ethanol? Why doesn’t Distiller Grains matter to you? Why doesn’t the math of “gross” versus “net” matter to you? Please explain why DDGs are just not important.


Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Stephen Segrest

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Mike Flynn

0
0

Stephen Segrest,

I assume you are talking about a byproduct from the ethanol process.

DDGs are only important to buyers if they are cost effective. However, (from BEEF magazine), conditions are constantly changing –

“It’s been said that the more things change, the more they stay the same. While that may be true in many cases, the opposite happens when the item that’s changing is a byproduct such as distiller’s grains. Indeed, for cattlemen who use distiller’s grains as a protein and energy supplement for wintering cows or stockers, or in feedyard rations, changes in the nutrient profile of the byproduct could well be a game changer.”

The distillers try to extract more value in the first instance. The byproduct therefore retains less value. When the cost of transportation and distribution costs exceeds the value of the byproduct, the DDGs become waste, and effectively valueless. Giant piles may wind up littering the landscape, as the distillers will pay the lowest disposal costs possible.

Maybe the EPA has taken this possibility into account. I don’t know. I do know that sometimes things turn out to have unexpected outcomes or consequences.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

0
0

curryja | June 27, 2015 at 7:26 pm |
About 5 years ago, I predicted AMO would shift to neg phase 2020-2025.

I was not expecting a “gold standard” response.

I am not well informed about the AMO and appreciate the insight.

Thank you.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Stephen Segrest

0
0

I continue to try and be polite on discussing ethanol here at CE — but you can not have a discussion on ethanol without addressing octane requirements.

OK, Let’s eliminate ethanol. What do we replace it with for minimum octane requirements? Lead? MTBE? Benzine? What?

Anybody can give an opinion. But what are the detailed studies that fully vet issues of “costs” and “environmental concerns” with the ethanol alternatives for octane? Why isn’t there a detail vetted study on this by Congress? (like the Congressional Budget Office).

http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2015/02/is-ethanol-being-forced-down-our-throats.html

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by PA

0
0

Stephen Segrest | June 27, 2015 at 10:45 pm |
PA — Please explain the economics of the below story to me: http://www.agweb.com/article/biggest-us-corn-stockpile-since-1988-seen-pushing-prices-lower-blmg/

Oh, thats easy.

I was originally a farm boy.

Farmers break even 1/3 of the time, have a boom year 1/3 of the time, and have a bust 1/3 of the time.

They don’t happen in sequential rotation.

The question is what is happening to the the multiple year average. If you pull enough grain out of the system, the average price goes up.

Ethanol was 1% of us fuel in 2000, 3% in 2006 and 10% in 2011 (and is still increasing), what happened to corn prices?

The argument has been made that ethanol has more than doubled the average corn price.

http://www.rense.com/general78/yrs.htm

An interesting perspective that raises a number of points (I don’t agree with all the points but that’s life). The big issue is there is a lot of ground water irrigation that is going to become increasingly hard to maintain.

Without more atmospheric CO2 to reduce plant water consumption food supply could become somewhat problematic.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Mike Flynn — I could provide a gazillion links as to the importance of Distiller Grains and their established markets — but it just would not matter to many here at CE. I could never provide the “perfect” argument.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by PA

0
0

Willard | June 27, 2015 at 9:21 pm |
Next time, scratch your own itch, PA:

Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy

Ah, 400,000 from extreme weather.

Well, we know from actual measurement (not global warmer guessing) that GHG is only responsible for about 1.05 W/m2 of forcing since 1900.

That means that the 1 W/m2 of CGAGW and 2 W/m2 of natural forcing is being claimed as a CO2 effect for damage purposes.

Further, even though the extreme weather meme gets endlessly refuted it keeps being used to create “CO2 damage” estimates. That’s dishonest.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/where-are-hurricanes-u-s-goes-9-years-without-category-n259166
http://www.weather.com/safety/tornado/news/tornado-count-hits-record-lows
It is 9 and 2/3 years since the last cat 3 hurricane hit the US – a record by a large margin. We have the lowest 3 year tornado period since the 1950s. You need to find sources that lie better.

More food – partly due to more CO2 – is saving far more people than the handful claimed harmed by your virtual weather problem.


Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Senator Grassley does a “Fact Check” — but here at CE, he of course has no credibility:

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by PA

0
0

Stephen Segrest | June 27, 2015 at 11:37 pm |
Mike Flynn — I could provide a gazillion links as to the importance of Distiller Grains and their established markets — but it just would not matter to many here at CE. I could never provide the “perfect” argument.

Well… the distiller grains argument is interesting, but from the numbers over 70% of the corn volume is lost to ethanol production. Also we seem to be exporting about 40% of the DGS.

http://beefmagazine.com/nutrition/nutritional-value-distiller-s-grains-changing

The other issue is they are stripping out the oil and using it to make biodiesel which makes the DGS less nutritious and reduces its volume.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Roger Sowell

0
0

Re floating nuclear power plants. What could possibly go wrong? The economics of construction – ocean-based oil and gas facilities are many times more expensive than land-based counterparts. So, how does a marine nuclear power plant have reduced costs – solely by eliminating concrete? Hmmm…. I think that one needs some explaining.

No danger of overheating, per the article. Seriously? Passive water flow through holes in the walls, it says. Maybe for the first month, but then who cleans off the marine bio-growth? Regularly, and never omitting that.

No danger of tsunamis, well that’s a relief. No mention of storms, hurricanes, or wild waves, though. Surely the lateral and vertical forces will be in the design, with no danger of excessive forces. (sarcasm here, for those who are unable to detect such)

I’m relieved (NOT) to see that everything important is below sea-level. Surely such a system will never, ever spring a leak, not in 40 or 60 years or whatever the NRC allows for an operating life. No core meltdowns, no terrorist attacks, no sabotage, no internal fires in electrical systems, nothing like the litany of screw-ups and disasters that send the NRC special investigation teams to a US nuclear plant, on average, every three weeks, over the past 5 years.

And the radiation leakage will require almost 100 percent indemnification, and government subsidy for costs, or can MIT prove that it will not?

I could go on, but why bother.

http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-30.html

Comment on Week in review – science edition by oldfossil

0
0

Dr Curry, I’m trying to work out why Jennifer Marohasy doesn’t make your blogroll, but Joe Duarte does. Jennifer is a genuine earth scientist. Duarte is a soft scientist, his thinking is post-normal i.e. politically correct and so much the worse for the facts, and he will go through any contortions to protect Mann et al. from accusations of malpractice. In addition he doesn’t seem to be terribly bright.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Willard

0
0

> Did you look at the “Bottom Line for Texas Droughts”?

Yes, I did. Did you read the update? It’s here:

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/27/climate-change-factor-floods-largely-ignored/

I forgot to add link citation and to connect to that 2013 talk with something like “extreme events can get extremely extreme.”

Another quote from the arch-king minion:

What do climate change models say about drought?

It depends on how you measure drought. The biggest factor driving drought in Texas and the Great Plains in general is rising temperatures. It’s not clear yet whether the rising temperatures are going to outpace the increase in rainfall that’s been observed to lead to more or less drought overall.

We certainly know climate change is going to make temperatures warmer, make evaporation more intense and increase water demand for plants and agriculture, so it will make that aspect of drought worse. But it remains to be seen whether droughts overall will become worse, because that depends on rainfall. Since models are generally projecting a rainfall decrease, model-based analyses show some pretty nasty increases in drought intensity in the area.

http://www.newsweek.com/are-texas-floods-evidence-climate-change-339046

***

> Granted, with a warmer land surface temperature drying potential increases and if there is a drought it would be “warmer”, but droughts and flash floods are not something new in Texas.

Wait, Cap’n. Does it mean you’d like something absolutely new before connecting dots, like rains of frogs and toads and Chuck Norrises?

The emphasis seems to meet PA’s challenge, while agreeing with NG’s take on this, so thanks for that.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Willard

0
0

> Given that 3°C is where CO2 forcing turns negative (according to your wiki link) there doesn’t seem to be a lot of fuel for concern and beneficial growth is the probable outcome.

That minimization sounds less suboptimal than what we started with, PA:

there is no real cost of carbon emissions.

It’s also more wordy, so you might even look like a reincarnation of King Solomon. Speaking of whom, why are you throwing all these numbers around, if at the end you can dismiss just about anything using your “there are good and bad reasons and I don’t know which are which”?

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

Willard, that is pretty much what I said. Generally warmer temperatures increase drying potential but “We certainly know climate change is going to make temperatures warmer, make evaporation more intense and increase water demand for plants and agriculture, so it will make that aspect of drought worse. But it remains to be seen whether droughts overall will become worse, because that depends on rainfall.”

Mega-droughts of 15 to 30 years are indicated in paleo, mini-droughts might be a nicer alternative. Jury’s still out though, ain’t it?


Comment on Week in review – science edition by verdeviewer

0
0

The referenced paper seems reasonable. Mooney’s embellished interpretation is nuts.

Glacial earthquakes have been a known phenomena since 2003. They are not limited to Greenland. They only occur in fast-moving, tidewater-terminating glaciers, typically during the melt season (dates of the 10 quakes in the study range from 25 July–14 August 2013). A magnitude around 5 is typical for these quakes.

I searched USGS to see if any 4.0–5.5 quakes occurred in Greenland last year during mid-July through mid-September. Nada.

I changed the year to 2013. Nada.

Then I found this paper that studies 121 glacial earthquakes occurring in Greenland from 2006–2010. The paper tells me that these earthquakes have magnitudes 4.6–5.2, but their durations are so long (30–60s) compared with tectonic earthquakes of similar size that they don’t appear in standard catalogs of global seismicity.

Apparently these “giant” quakes are “so big” they’re hard to spot in seismic records, and, outside of the papers that describe them, there is no publicly-available record of their occurrence.

Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@DS: <i>CERES and ARGO together show only 0.5W/m2 energy imbalance at top of atmosphere. Enough to heat the ocean by 0.2C per century. Big deal.</i> DS is quite right, this figure of 0.5 W/m2 for imbalance was arrived at by <a href="http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1375.html" rel="nofollow">Loeb et al, Nature 2012</a>. But it's worth checking DS's math here, since if he's slipped a decimal point somewhere we'd be looking at 2 °C, and two decimal points would be ten times as bad. That imbalance over the Earth's surface of 5.1E14 m2 comes to 2.55E14 watts (joules per second). A century is 86400*365.24*100 = 3.16E9 seconds, hence an accumulation of 8.05E23 joules, let's say 8E23 for simplicity. This thermal energy heats mainly the oceanic mixed layer, which is thermally insulated from the deep ocean by the main thermocline. The <a href="https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOA94/mix.html" rel="nofollow">monthly mean tables for mixed layer depth</a> (MLD) by Monterey and Levitus make it easy to estimate the volume of the mixed layer by summing, over each half-degree grid cell and each month, the product of the MLD and the cell area, and then taking 1/12 of that to average out months. This comes to roughly 2E16 m3. A cubic meter of water weighs a tonne or 1000 kg, so the mixed layer has a mass of about 2E19 kg. (As a sanity check, a short cut that avoids the tedium of the tables is simply to use 50m as the mean depth of the mixed layer and multiply it by the ocean's surface of 3.6E14 m2 to give 1.8E16 m3, close enough to 2E16 m3 for government work.) The heat capacity of 1 kg of water is roughly 4000 J/kg/K. Hence to heat the mixed layer 1 °C requires 2E19 * 4000 = 8E22 J. But since the century has accumulated 8E23 J, that will heat the mixed layer 10 °C, not 0.2 °C. To arrive at DS's figure of a heating of only 0.2 °C of the mixed layer over the century would require 98% of the mixed layer's heat to pass through the thermocline into the deep ocean. But that would only be possible if there were no thermocline to begin with. The thermocline exists because below 50m (on average) the ocean is so still that heat can only diffuse downwards, with no convection, or at best a small amount due to the slow Meridional Overturning Current.. What this shows is that the amount of heat that leaks down through the thermocline plays a huge role in governing surface temperature. Negligible leakage means a 10 °C rise, 50% leakage a 5 °C rise, 80% 2 °C, and 90% 1 °C. One should therefore hope very strongly that this leakage is at least 50%. (I don't know what it actually is, I'm still trying to learn this stuff. Does anyone?) Much less than 50% is a very scary prospect, at least for those who believe much more than 5 °C of global warming is detrimental to the biosphere. <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2011/trend" rel="nofollow">HadCRUT4 has been rising at 5.7 °C/century since 2011</a>, consistent with a leakage of 43%. The period 2011-2021 should give a more accurate estimate.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Jim D

Comment on Week in review – science edition by genghiscunn

0
0

You might say that forecasting is a bun dance, most entrants will crumble, fall over and become stale and useless.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Willard

0
0

Your laser-beam-like focus on droughts in a discussion about observed impacts was a thing of beauty, Cap’n.

Please, do continue.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images