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

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by jacksmith4tx

0
0

Thank you David, I have read it. He is relying heavily on a States Rights defense and that’s a good tactic with the Robert’s court. The supreme court has been pretty good to business in the past and if this case fails I would say the economic argument won the day.
X-Factor. Fate may have an ace up her sleeve since 6 of the Judges are Catholic and the pope maybe the most popular human alive at the moment so check with your bookie first


Comment on Science, uncertainty and advocacy by Mike Flynn

0
0

Vaughan Pratt,

You might be sprouting nonsense, or you might not.

I am happy to let everybody to decide for themselves, so I will make some observations.

1. You talk about an energy imbalance over the Earth’s surface, and state that the Earth receives more energy from the Sun than it emits. This is patent nonsense. Over the life of the Earth, the crust has demonstrably cooled. This shows that in the longest term, the energy balance has been negative. The total energy received from the Sun has been unable to prevent the Earth cooling. No positive energy balance there.

2. On a shorter basis, say 24 hours, the portion of the surface exposed to the Sun will heat for around 6 hours, and then cool for around 18. When the surface is heating, it is receiving more energy than it emits. When cooling, after solar noon, and through the night, it emits more energy than it receives. No energy balance at any time,the surface is either cooling or heating, due to the rotating Earth.

3. Clouds, aerosols, suspended particulate matter of all sorts interfere with energy transmission in both directions. This may reduce the rate of heating during the day, and the rate of cooling during the night. No energy balance at any time.

4. There is no known method of measuring total energy absorbed by the Earth – TOA, surface or anything else. In the absence of a material that absorbs all EMR, at every wavelength, and sufficiently precise measuring equipment to calculate the energy absorbed, one has to resort to models, approximations, and “near enough is good enough” assumptions.
5. Instantaneous energy emissions from the surface of the Earth are likewise a hopeful guess at best.

6. You say that heat diffuses downward into the ocean. Unfortunately, water is a liquid. Water when heated, becomes less dense. It “floats” to the top, so to speak. It is replaced by denser water, which, if of the same composition, is colder. But quite apart from that, at night, the surface cools. Because it is comprised of warmer water overlaying cooler, denser, water, the radiation it emits goes to the cold sink of outer space, and the now colder water sinks, displacing warmer water to the surface. This is how one produces ice in the Libyan desert, or the deserts of Northern India, at night, under suitable conditions.

7. Heat does not “leak” down into the thermocline, any more than it “creeps” into the Earths core from the surface, creating Al Gore’s “millions of degrees”. The laws of thermodynamics still operate, regardless of Warmist wishes.

8. You also refer to the stillness of the ocean below 50 m., on average. Oceanographers will no doubt be surprised that you have singlehandedly banished the complicated multi layered ocean currents with a few taps of your keyboard!

You might call me a fool. I don’t mind. Mosher thinks I’m too dumb to understand Warmist physics. If I have erred in fact, please correct me. Assertions or appeals to authority won’t do. Facts will.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Jim D

Comment on Week in review – science edition by bobdroege

0
0

Yeah Tim,
that happened twice, 100 some guys died each time, counting US only.

You know they pumped that oil through a pipeline and measured the pipe and found it was 95% gone in only a few months.
You have probably heard of a few oil trains exploding, no?
You can try showing me you have more to offer than just trying to mimic Don, this blog doesn’t need a copycat Don.
You are smarter than the average noseconer, or not?

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Jim D

0
0

Zero was a straw man added by someone above.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Jim D

0
0

It is obviously very variable globally. Coal-powered states are the ones most affected according to the Harvard study.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by jacksmith4tx

0
0

PS: You have to hand it to Tribes with his claim about “confiscate business investments”. The resource extraction business is flying with out a net. They are loosing self bonding status because they don’t have the money to reclaim or rehabilitate the land they have already mined. I think this time we should just leave them as ATV parks and sell tickets to the rubes.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Mike Flynn

0
0

Jim D,

A potential problem might be the definition of a toxin.

For some people, one virus particle can cause death. For others, exposure to billions may have no effect.

In small doses, strychnine is an appetite stimulant. Fatal in large doses.

With regard to elements, no one knows precisely how much zinc, iron, phosphorus, selenium or even lead, cadmium or mercury, may be necessary for an individual human to maintain health from time to time.

I have several mercury amalgam fillings, but I don’t worry about the toxic effects. I don’t worry about the amount of asbestos particles released into the air from friction linings of many sorts being worn away doing their job. And no, even the EPA has not banned the use of asbestos in many areas.

It’s an individual decision, I figure. Anaphylactic shock can kill without warning, even due to something you have had no problem with in the past, so you can’t cover every possibility.

I agree about cleaning up power station emissions, but it seems logical to ask consumers if they are prepared to pay any additional costs involved. The nanny state works on the principle that the population is so stupid that the government has to make the decisions for them. I know I’m dumb, but I’d rather be asked than told, at least initially.


Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Steven Mosher

0
0

For EC the percentages were reversed at 17% and 83%.

The fraction of pm2.5 that comes from the burning of fossil fuels
is.

1. Spatially dependent
2. Seasonally dependent.

Rotterdam is not the world
4 weeks is not a lifetime.

We have ( are creating) a pretty good database on concentrations in well instrumented parts of the world.
The missing link ( work continues) on sources.

Once those two come together in estimating the amount that comes from FF will be easier and we wont have to rely on short time span studies over limited geography

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Mike Flynn

0
0

Steven Mosher,

“well instrumented parts of the world.” Is not the world. Like Amsterdam is not the world.

Just thought I’d let you know, in case you missed it.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Steven Mosher

0
0

“How much leather will we need? What’s that? You need more information?”

1. You always need MORE information.
2. Planning means you make the most of the limited information you
have
3. Given an average shoe size of 42cm. ( or 11) each will consume
three square feet of leather. If your last year global leather shoe
sales where 1 million, go do the math. If you plan on growing market
share, then adjust accordingly. If last years average shoe size was smaller, adjust accordingly.

The trick is making the most of the limited information you have.

more flynn:

“I note your example link contains a claim of 85% accuracy. It may be coincidence, but the rate of success of a naive forecast (as performed by an unskilled 12 year old with 5 minutes instruction), is given as between 70% and 90%, depending on circumstances.”

Wrong: it’s more like 10%

The proof of course is in the facts

“Our clients love us. Over the past 13 years we have provided accurate and actionable weather intelligence on 1000’s of seasonal categories, equities and commodities, yielding over $1 billion in ROI for our clients.”

Now, if flynn things that he can beat 85%… he could make billions.

For example; a 1F change in temperature increases beer sales by 1.2%
mouse traps 6%

The system basically works like this

For every category of product in retail you have a seasonally adjusted demand.

This is HISTORY: for example in the 26th working week you will sell
10,015 units.

That sales history is used to create a naive forecast which drives purchasing and inventory.

But a naive forecast can be wildly wrong if the product sales are weather driven. I see weekly errors of over 100%. That means stock outs and lost sales. So rather than flying blind, we try to know the future.
Any improvement over naive is useful.

big dollars.

like I said the market knows the future. flynnn not so much

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

0
0

Willard:
Thank you for adding my name. I reread the elements of the matrix. Found them amusing but mostly apt. I’ll do my best to provide more chaos based WAG theories for your consideration. Nice comment by Robert Bryce. As we do like to refer to Dyson.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by brentns1

0
0

Stephen:
Your article says:
“In the 1990’s, the U.S. EPA began requiring that lead be phased out of gasoline. Initially, this was achieved by using the high octane and oxygenate additive MTBE (derived from fossil fuels)”

which is misleading.Actually TEL began to be phased out with introduction of unleaded fuel in 1974.

The reduction in lead in gasoline in the United States came in response to two main factors: (1) the mandatory use of unleaded gasoline to protect catalytic converters in all cars starting with the 1975 model year; and (2) increased awareness of the negative human health effects of lead, leading to the phasedown of lead in leaded gasoline in the 1980s.
Unleaded Mandate for All Cars Starting with 1975 Model Year
As is summarized in Table 1, the phasedown of lead in gasoline began in 1974 when, under the authority of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced rules requiring the use of unleaded gasoline in new cars equipped with catalytic converters. The introduction of catalytic converters for control of HC, NOx and CO emissions required that motorists use unleaded gasoline, because lead destroys the emissions control capacity of catalytic converters.

A large proportion of the eventual phasedown of lead in gasoline is in fact attributable to the decreasing share of leaded gasoline that resulted from the transition to a new car fleet. This transition is shown in Figure 1.
snip
.
Figure 1. Share of Unleaded Gasoline in Total U.S. Production (Page26 )
Figure 2. Lead Content in Leaded Gasoline (U.S. average)
http://web.mit.edu/ckolstad/www/Newell.pdf

Note that TEL was already at minimal levels by 1988.

Refineries increased pool octane capability with a number of process changes, such as
1) increased naphtha reformer severity
http://www.uop.com/processing-solutions/refining/gasoline/#naphtha-reforming
2) Light naphtha (C5C6) isomerization
http://www.uop.com/processing-solutions/refining/gasoline/#naphtha-isomerization
3) Enhanced conversion of light ends to high octane mogas components for example
http://www.uop.com/processing-solutions/refining/gasoline/#alkylation

In addition to which Fluid Cat Cracker Octanes have increased over time with higher temp pure riser cracking (vs older bed cracking)

“The octane of FCC gasoline can be increased by raising riser top temperature. The rule of thumb is 1 research octane number increase per 10 C. increase in temperature.23″
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-88/issue-2/in-this-issue/general-interest/innovative-improvements-highlight-fcc39s-past-and-future.htm

all the best
brent

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Willard

0
0

> “well instrumented parts of the world.” Is not the world. Like Amsterdam is not the world.

Rotterdam has larger ambitions. First, Amsterdam. Then the world. Then anywhere:

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by RiHo08

0
0

Capt’nDallas

Thanks. I read the paper and I agree:

http://www.transphorm.eu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=KVUMysROlbg%3D&tabid=3646&mid=16134&language=en-GB

As the rural migration to urban centers increases, particularly in the developing world, think China, India, Brazil and regions of Africa, PM 2.5 pollution will impact a greater number of people and the ability to regulate its production will remain limited as the spectrum of vehicles in these countries with respect to age, maintenance, and the stop and go traffic congestion will only get worse. Rural electrification and infrastructure investment including roads, bridges and traffic lights would be the next step in addressing PM 2.5 production.

Coal is the most likely means to power these nations into a health enhancing environment. Monsoon rains cleans the air and washes the soot into the rivers providing a fresh palate to paint a better life year after year.


Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by brentns1

0
0

Between 1992 and 2005, MTBE had been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. (A few cities, such as Denver, used oxygenates (MTBE) at higher concentrations during the wintertime in the late 1980’s.)
http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/gas.htm

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by justinwonder

0
0

Counterexample: the United States Navy. Nothing new under the sun, or sea.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Steven Mosher

0
0

““well instrumented parts of the world.” Is not the world. Like Amsterdam is not the world.

Just thought I’d let you know, in case you missed it.

##############################
flynn:

“of”

did one of those letters confuse you.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Steven Mosher

0
0

“Rural electrification and infrastructure investment including roads, bridges and traffic lights would be the next step in addressing PM 2.5 production.”

First we kill coal. no regrets.

Comment on Week in review – Energy edition by Mike Flynn

0
0

Steven Mosher,

I presume Rotterdam is one of those well instrumented parts of the world, as you describe it.

I’m not quite sure why you are creating another database to estimate how much of something comes from something else, when both are changing constantly. I guess you can spend a lot of time pointlessly going back and creating missing values if the estmates don’t come out the way you want them.

I suppose we all need something to keep us occupied.

By the way, sorry about writing Amsterdam when I meant Rotterdam. Both were beautiful.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images