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

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

0
0

” I have no bloody idea what the motivation, desires, or limitations within which a designer of universes is constrained. Those are religious beliefs. Let’s stick to math and science.’

Describe in terms of math and science the critter that is responsible for the proposed intelligent design of the universe. Doesn’t it have to have a physical form? Where is it located? What kind of brain power does it need to design universes? Is it also the builder of universes? How big does it need to be? Where did it get all the stuff it needed to build a universe? You think you can just ignore all those issues?


Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by edbarbar

0
0

Regarding the “Corn is great” article:

“I’d argue that corn’s GM-ness isn’t relevant to its value as food, as genetically modified corn is all but identical to the non-GM version (i.e., perfectly safe to eat).”

However Starlink maize has not been demonstrated safe, and there are reasons for concerns.

“However, because the Cry9C protein lingers in the digestive system before breaking down, the EPA had concerns about its allergenicity, and PGS did not provide sufficient data to prove that Cry9C was not allergenic.”

Why the EPA is meddling in FDA affairs, who knows. However, there is a flip side to this person’s POV.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Don Monfort

0
0

I will help you, Springer. Watch some of those old cheesy Star Trek episodes from the original TV series and you will get some ideas.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@DS: I have proposed that if information is like energy then it cannot be created nor destroyed.

Oh no, Springer is back with yet another novel version of physics.

This sounds rather like your proposal that Venus’s geothermal energy is being conducted through its crust at a rate of 15 kW (15,000 joules per second), when Earth is only able to conduct 0.08 joules per second through its crust. Or your proposal that atmospheric CO2 has been increasing at an exponential rate with a constant CAGR since careful measurements began in 1958, when in fact the CAGR doubled over that period.

What you’re missing in your equation dS = dQ (bit rate dS/dt in bits per second is in proportion to energy rate dQ/dt in joules per second, aka watts) is the small matter of temperature T.

Temperature is the thermodynamic counterpart of noise. The higher the temperature, the fewer bits get through for a given energy of transmission in watts.

The formula you should be using is not dS = dQ but dS = dQ/T.

Yes energy is conserved. However information, aka negentropy, is not.

The entropy of the universe is increasing. This may be news to you, but in that case you should be studying thermodynamics instead of piping up here with your own theories of thermodynamics.

Here’s an easy way to think about this. If heat dQ flows from an object at temperature T1 to an object at a lower temperature T2, the entropy of the first object decreases by dQ/T1, while the entropy of the second object increases by dQ/T2. Since T2 is less than T1, the first object loses less entropy than is gained by the second object.

Capiche?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA

0
0

FWIW, here’s a GISS model for the same period:

TE. Let’s do a what if.

The CO2 level has changed 61 PPM since That is 0.57 W/m2. The models will use 3 times that or 1.71 W/m2.

So if you subtract 1.14 W/m2 or about 0.33°C from the GISS map they aren’t a lot different.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@DS: <i>I’m not sure you have the chops for this either but you’re maybe a couple small steps above Monfort.</i> A cat may look at a king.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Vaughan Pratt

0
0

@DS: You, me, all our thoughts, the entire library of congress, all there concentrated into a singularity 14 billions years ago just waiting to unfold like an origami. Where did all that information come from?

One of your better questions. The simple answer is that the entropy of the universe 15 billion years ago was considerably more than now. However entropy is not uniformly distributed: there are hotspots such as Earth, fueled by the energy from its nearest star. But those too will eventually die away, the Library of Congress included.

Ultimately thermodynamics erases everything, at least according to the conventional wisdom. Which you are just as welcome to rise above as a cat is welcome to look at a king. Good luck with that.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by Vaughan Pratt

0
0
@me: <i>entropy of the universe was considerably more than now</i> Sorry, got the sign wrong. Considerably less than now.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by ulriclyons

0
0

“New paper suggests Arctic sea ice may be more resilient to global warming than previously thought”

Increased forcing of the climate increases positive NAO/AO and cools the Arctic. The accelerated warming of the Arctic since 1995 is effectively an amplified negative feedback to declines in solar plasma forcing since then.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by aplanningengineer

0
0

Re: Want more wind and solar? We’ll need to get rid of outdated grid rules.

Interesting article and it gets a lot right. The title and some of the focus is misleading as the rules are not ” outdated” but rather largely are worthwhile and needed until the developments called for in the posting occur. Secondly some of the proposed “advancements” are debatable as to whether they will prove to be generally more beneficial than costly. (The debate is welcome and no problem here with him proposing such.).

I resent the best near ranted and unfair implication that the rules are stacked against new technology for arbitrary reasons. Unfortunately “smear” tactics seem to go hand in hand with promoting “clean” alternatives.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by aplanningengineer

0
0

Bad spell checker. Start the last sentence. I resent the unwarranted and unfair implication…..

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by aplanningengineer

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by climatereason

0
0

mosomoso

We need energy horses for our own country’s courses. It is well known that the UK is ferociously hot and sunny so large solar farms are obviously the way to go over here.

Now that Amber Rudd is inexplicably reining in the subsidy for solar farms in mainland Britain, attention will turn to Northern Ireland where it is so sunny and bright that it is compulsory for the natives to wear sun hats and apply factor 50 sun cream every 20 minutes.

No wonder that solar farms will be publicly acclaimed over there as this new proposal will demonstrate;

“The (solar farm) proposal is for a 50MW development which will cover 250 acres of open countryside, measures approximately 1.2 miles from end to end and is the equivalent of twenty Junction One Shopping Centres. “

http://www.kellsvocal.com/

Here are the average sun hours (1285 hours per year) and cloudy days for Belfast

http://www.belfast.climatemps.com/sunlight.php

It seems apparent that opponents of renewables must be cooking the books and must have falsified the data in this link as no one would be crazy enough to subsidise such an apparently pointless industry as Northern Ireland solar energy. Would they?

The panels work off daylight rather than direct sun so the apparently very low light levels and lack of sun especially outside of peak summer months apparently doesn’t matter. No doubt the installation will work at 100% efficiency…. even at night.

tonyb

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

0
0

Renewable energy advocates often say that te subsidies for fossil fuels exceed subsidies for renewables. These statements are disingenuous. First, the subsidies should be compared on the basis of units of energy supplied. Second, the subsidies for fossil fuels are mostly for petroleum products, not for electricity generation. fossil fuel subsidies for electricity generation, per unit of electricity supplied, are negligible.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang

0
0

I agree the debate is welcome – but only if it is a rational and objective debate. The starting point should be to justify why we need wind power. What does it achieve. If it’s to reduce GHG emissions, then it is a very high cost way to do this, and much less effective that most people realise. Wind power in Ireland in 2011 supplied 17% of electricity and was 53% effective at reducing emissions per MWh of wind energy

Wind power in Australia in 2014 supplied 4.5% of electricity and was just 78% effective; and projected to be 60% effective when wind reaches 15% of electricity supplied (i.e. by about 2020 under current legislation).

When wind proportion of electricity increases further it will be even less effective. At 50% effective the abatement cost is twice the estimates.

Why would any rational person advocate for wind and and other intemittent, unreliable, high cost, renewables?

And most important of all renewables are not sustainable. They don, and cannot, produce sufficent energy to power modern society and reproduce themselves.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by beththeserf

0
0

Secret life of Jim Hansen?

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

0
0

Whooooooooooosh. Right over Vaughn Pratt’s head.

How was the information “distributed” in the singularity at the instant of the big bang, Vaughn? LOL

Given law of entropy is true then entropy was never lower than at the instant of the big bang. Then from whence came all the order in the universe?

You and Monfort, two intellectual peas in a pod, appear to believe it came from nowhere. It just appeared by wonderful happenstance.

In the end game, if you’ve got the chops to take it to the end, you must appeal to an infinity of universes each with a random allotment of order and then ride the anthropic principle to your great cosmic accidental conclusion. LOL

That’s up to you of course. And an infinite number of other dipshiits in other universes who are exactly like you with an infinite number of minor variations. Of course there must also be infinite number of Vaughn Pratt’s who believe in God and became the Pope. Silly atheists.

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

0
0

Again. Which part of “I don’t know” don’t you understand?

Comment on Eco – (post) modernism by David Springer

0
0

No more energy is emitted from Venus than is received from the sun. Not significantly more anyhow.

The earth’s crust a few miles deep is as hot as the surface of Venus. When you can explain how that is possible the same explanation applies to the surface of Venus. It’s really simple. The troposphere on Venus does the same thing that a few miles of rock does on earth insofar as containing internal heat of the planet.

Of course when it comes to being dense the troposphere of Venus doesn’t hold a candle to you.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso

0
0

It seems the sun shines down hard all over the British Isles – except for the small strip of ground where Mitchell Johnson is due to bowl.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images