skierinvermont

On 8/7/2022 at 7:07 PM, GaWx said:

 At one time, I felt there was a possibility for at least a pause in GW due to the last two very weak sunspot cycles. I was being open-minded. I even allowed enough time for an assumed lag based on the ideas that afternoon highs occur several hours after the daily solar high point and summer's hottest normals occur a month after the summer solstice. However, I pretty much gave up on this idea a few years ago when I saw GW still didn't appear to be slowing to any great degree other than temporary halts due to La Niña. Has there been any significant slowing?
 

 We're now nearly 14 years past the late 2008 very weak minimum and nearly 3 years past the 2019 very weak minimum. Even taking into account lag, I now find it hard to believe that there will be a GW pause of a significant length of time due solely to the sun. The sun doesn't seem to be as significant of a factor as I at one time thought was possible.

Having undergone a similar change in thinking, I appreciate the honesty and humility. While I never denied that co2 was a significant ghg, from 2007-2010 I entertained the idea that 21st century warming could be around 0.5C due to false ideas about sun cycles, ocean cycles, and negative feedbacks. That experience taught me to have greater deference to the professional experts in a field, especially when my own understanding is incomplete. 

Depth on grass was this morning 8" so guessing received about 9-10"

14 hours ago, mayjawintastawm said:

Elevation list of frequent posters in this subforum (feel free to insert yours) from highest to lowest: guessing on order for many based on city. I don't think we have any in the "real" mountains over 9000 feet.

ValpoVike: 7310'

Smokeybandit: 6300'

Mayjawintastawm: 5650'

N1vek:

Co Scifan:

Chinook:

Raindancewx (Albuquerque):

5700

On 4/6/2022 at 9:19 AM, csnavywx said:

We're not going to make 2C without it -- though I have my doubts we can even hit that target if EEI merely stays where it's at and aerosols are reduced. Decarbonization isn't fast enough and hasn't been for a while. Energy efficiency doesn't work very well due to demand equilibrium changes. If we need to subsidize and standardize the reactor design, then so be it. It's still way cheaper than CCS/BECCS and seasonal storage -- both of which are necessary en masse to hit 2 or 1.5C. The damage function is non-linear and gets pretty scary after we hit those limits. So will the costs, and those costs are likely to make this little cost-benefit analysis look quaint in comparison.

A good article and published paper linked in that thread as well.

 

Long story short -- rate of decarbonization is all that matters and that rate must exceed growth. We will either do this voluntarily or it will happen via painful forced deleveraging and a decline in growth rates as the cost of damage piles up and more energy is thus used for maintenance of the existing capital stock. That's to say absolutely nothing of the geopolitical ramifications of all of this. And that geopol risk is probably not going to be constructive for decarbonization efforts, if recent history is any guide.

The argument against energy efficiency makes sense. But solar and wind allow for stable or increasing energy production without the CO2, just like nuclear, but at 1/3 of the cost. Nuclear might be more effective at reducing emissions simply because it is more expensive and the high costs, if passed on to the consumer, would reduce energy consumption overall. But that's like saying going back to coal energy or whales oil would solve climate change. They are not politically feasible or economically optimal. Solar and wind, up to 60 or 70% of energy production, would dramatically reduce emissions without lowering living standards the way that whales oil or nuclear would. After 60 or 70% you do have to consider costlier options like storage and carbon capture.

Thr fact that decarbonization has not exceeded growth is just as much a condemnation of nuclear as it is solar and wind. Actually moreso given nuclear has existed for decades and reached its height in the 90s which was also when co2 emissions were accelerating rapidly. At least solar and wind have plateaud or in some cases reduced emissions in some developed nations. It just needs to be accelerated. We do need to pay more for energy, but via penalties on co2 emissions and subsidies of sources without emissions. So far we've been unwilling to pay more.

2 minutes ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

Yes, they’re stop gaps. Do I need to cite every ongoing fusion project or is that also nonsense?

If your stance on the future was so cut and dry the correct solution we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I have solar, a Tesla, and geothermal hvac. It has its place. But going 70% solar and wind isn’t the solution to climate change IMO.  

OK fine. All energy sources since the woodburning stove are stop gaps until fusion. 

Regardless, your claims about the cost of solar and wind vs nuclear are false and unsupported. As well as your claims regarding ohc.

9 minutes ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

I have.

I really don't get why you're being so aggressive.

Are you really that anti nuclear and pro renewable?

You realize both are a stop gap solution anyway, right?

I'm not being aggressive. I'm asking you to support your unsubstantiated claims with sources, since your claims are widely contracted by various research organizations such as the EIA and IPCC. 

You responded to mainstream well sourced cost studies on nuclear vs wind solar and gas with a snarky "sorry this is anti-nuclear bs" and no sources to back up your radical claims. 

Wind and solar are not stop gaps. More unsourced nonsense. Maybe you should take some of your unsourced hunches to the execs at power companies who are building solar and wind hand over fist based on the industry cost studies I cited.

23 minutes ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

Should we not question the data? Is that a real position?

The whole point of a forum is to discuss opposing viewpoints.

Here's the link to that graph. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise

I simply have a different view on how we should approach the problem than you and knew right away that the effect of expansion of water couldn't be the primary cause of ocean level rise. It will take a lot longer to heat the oceans than the air, and the air has risen by 1°C globally in 100 years. Water has 4.2 times more capacity(will take much longer to warm) for heat than air and as I mentioned before there are thermocline barriers that largely prevent deep mixing.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures?src=eoa-features

You have to provide evidence for opposing viewpoints. You've provided none other than your personal hunches. You don't think the hundreds of scientists that have done hundreds of thousands of hours of research and reviewing of ohc data have considered the amateur objections you have raised? Thermocline barriers and heat content of water are taught in 8th grade science.

45 minutes ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

No its not. Maybe a 1/3, and I question that. In order to know that number with any precision requires incredible amounts of data points that we certainly didn't have pre 1970.

Your own graphic shows that from 1971-2010 the majority of sea level rise was thermal expansion. My statement was a slight exaggeration I will give you that.

It's good to know you question the data. I'm sure the scientists and peer reviewed journals would welcome your amateur questions. But thank you for openly admitting that your opinions are based on personal hunches and not the work and research of professionals. We will know whose opinions to disregard going forward. You haven't actually cited any sources to support any of your various opinions which are mostly contradicted by professional research organizations.

18 minutes ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

Water is most dense at 40° making it nearly impossible to warm the entire mass of water to cause expansion of any significance.

Also with warmer air temperatures there will be significantly more water in the atmosphere.

This is false. The large majority of sea level rise in the past 100 years was due to thermal expansion. The oceans have gained 337 zettajoules of thermal energy since 1955. That works out to 7 Hiroshimas every second for the last 2 trillion seconds (67 years).

4 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

There are massive holes in the renewables argument as well @skierinvermont. Long-term I don't think it's workable we would need to reduce demand by as much as we increase growth due to supply shortages and what not. Our first priority should energy storage and recycling as you have beautifully laid out for us.

The fact that we can't, yet, get to exactly 100% renewable energy is sort of irrelevant when we have the technology to get to 70% and are currently at 12% wind and solar. Get the 58% done and we can worry about the remaining 30% then. Possibilities exist such as storage and hooking up EVs to the grid.

9 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

Sorry but this article is largely an anti nuclear bs hit piece. Just look at what’s going on in Europe right now with electric prices. And the biggest thing that article misses on is scale and the shear volume of petroleum needed to produce the wind and solar power alternative it’s advocating for. 

Sorry the article is based on research by Stanford and is a respected German research group. The idea that wind or solar take more than trivial amounts of gas or oil to produce is simply oil industry propaganda. Nuclear plants take far more oil and gas to build and operate, which is still low compared to the amount of energy produced. The IPCC also states that nuclear is too expensive and has too many other problems to be a serious part of the climate solution. You've provided no evidence and are contradicted by highly reputable sources. It doesn't really matter what you think because the free market is building solar and wind hand over fist with minimal government support. We should be accelerating the process.

From the EIA, nuclear costs nearly 3x as much as solar wind or gas. This is total levelized cost of energy over the life of the equipment. Please stop spreading misinformation.

7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Fracking and all that it entails are huge environmental issues and I don't want to give the fossil fuel cartels a leg to stand on.  This is more than just about climate, it's also about health issues and ethics.  If anything the fossil fuel cartels are worse than the tobacco cartels.

The IPCC scenarios for limiting warming to 1.5C show very little role for Nuclear. It's simply too expensive. Wasting money on nuclear could aggravate and delay efforts to build out wind, solar, and carbon capture by diverting resources and political capital.

50 minutes ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

Completely agree with this. Plus if we aggressively built out nuclear electricity could be much cheaper, allowing for tech like desalination to be affordable. 

Nuclear electricity costs more than twice as much as natural gas, solar and wind electricity (by some estimates 5 times as much). "Building out nuclear" will make electricity more expensive, not less.

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change#:~:text=Barriers to and risks associated,concerns%2C and adverse public opinion.

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

where does nuclear fit in here?  why not substitute nuclear for methane (what you call "natural" gas)-- I have major issues with methane and it's definitely not clean.  I'd far rather have more nuclear plants and ban all fossil fuels entirely

 

it doesn't, for two reasons. We've talked about this before. It's just not going to happen. One it costs twice as much as solar, wind, and natural gas. But second, and even more importantly, natural gas plants are very cheap to build but expensive to operate, which makes them ideal backup generators. They allow you to get the grid to 70 or 80% wind/solar without even needing storage capacity, which would be a monumental accomplishment. Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build and cannot be used as backup generators. The next step to get to 100% renewables, probably involves storage and smart grids. Not nuclear.

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change#:~:text=Barriers to and risks associated,concerns%2C and adverse public opinion.

2 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

This is where we disagree. I completely understand the severity of the situation, but I also understand what a small part what we do here in the US will contribute to your solution. You have to look at the problem globally. While it make not be cost prohibitive here to build solar or wind over coal/natural gas because of regulation and subsidy most of the world doesn't not have that luxury. 

I've been in manufacturing plants all over the world. In Pakistan for example the food plants have their own diesel generators. Even if there was solar or wind (EXTREMELY cost prohibitive) there's no infrastructure to get them the power. Where would the money come from to build out infrastructure globally to prevent global warming?

In general the western world is living in a bubble, naïve to the complexity and scale of the problem.

Sure if you tried to get the whole world to 90% renewable power in 20 years you would incur some extreme costs. But the vast majority of power consumption in the world is through power grids that can be hooked up to solar and wind with backup natural gas power. Natural gas plants are cheap to build but expensive to operate. They only run when the suns not shining and  winds not blowing. More developed countries can have more complex grids to distribute renewable power better. You don't need every country to be 100% renewables. You don't even need them to be 70%. You do need the U.S. Europe and China and some other developed nations to be 70%+ in the next 20 years. If the rest of the world is at 40 or 50% that's fine for 15-20 years from now. 

Getting to these levels would be quite cheap and the free market might even get us there alone, although at this rate it would take the free market more like 30 years to reach those kinds of targets. Once the developed world is at 60-70% renewable with the rest of the world averaging 40-50% renewable, maybe you start to run into some obstacles. But that's a long ways away. Right now the free market is building out renewables rapidly and it would take very little to significantly accelerate the process.

There are comprehensive cost analysis that go into the kind of detail we are talking about. We don't need to speculate. Getting the world to mostly renewable energy is absolutely possible with minimal costs. This isn't 1980.

Personally I'd argue the effects of climate change warrant a more accelerated timeline like 90% renewable in developed countries within 20 years and 70% elsewhere. And despite the long run cost savings and benefit to the planet I see very few countries stepping up and incurring those kinds of costs in the short run (unfortunately in my opinion). But the idea that we can't get to 60-70% in developed countries within 20 years and 40-50% elsewhere is kind of absurd. The free market alone will take us to those levels albeit a bit slower like 30 or 40 years.

On 3/25/2022 at 7:05 AM, Buckeyes_Suck said:

On the first point I'm not arguing to not push to reduce emissions, or that a warming in climate isn't bad for a lot of species. The argument is whether its preventable considering that what we do here doesn't prevent China or India from more than offsetting. Furthermore what happens when other countries in Africa and S America start industrializing on large scales? Hopefully then we will have figured out fusion, or better embrace fission and help countries build out this way.

On the second point lets say you're right and money really is an illusion. That doesn't make the things you buy with money an illusion. For example, unless you plan to institute a global totalitarian economy you have no way to make enough people do the things you want them to do in order to either stop climate change or prepare for it. You need money to convince them. Furthermore scarcity is real, and were seeing signs of it all around us now. To simply say we can produce more of whatever it is we need to solve the problem isn't realistic, same goes for money.

The most likely outcome in my opinion as that people will slowly adapt to the change in climate, as will most species of animals. Its no different than the migration south that was seen with the invention of air conditioning. Florida used to be a sparsely populated swamp land. In all of this lies opportunity too. Cities around the great lakes like Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland are poised to become meccas in terms of resources and climate.

So to my original point, should we really be spending all of our resources trying to stop this freight train or put some real though into the future and what it will be like and stop building in places that will be highly susceptible to climate change?

 

I agree we build in the wrong places. That is definitely part of the solution and we need to stop subsidizing growth in the wrong places and even consider penalizing it. For example high elevation mountain towns use a ton of transport and hear energy which is currently subsidized but really should be penalized via a carbon tax.

But I think you do miss the severity of the threat. It can't be solved only by moving around. Mass extinction and environmental chaos and rising oceans can't be fixed just by moving. The economic cost of climate change is bad already and will be catastrophic. It is cheaper, more efficient, less disruptive, and better for the planet to prevent it. The solutions exist and are already cost competitive or cheaper than Fossil fuels. We just need to accelerate the adoption. Wind and solar are already the primary source of new power generation in this country. When a power company decides what to build they are typically choosing wind and solar already. It would not cost that much to significantly accelerate what the free market is already doing.

17 hours ago, Silver Meteor said:

"...restoring faith in government." LOL Did someone just fall off the turnip truck? When money was real (gold and silver) perhaps, but those days are long gone. The government and its propaganda arm, the media, are enemies of the people.

With a "Fourth Turning" now well underway, climate concerns will fade away as the pendulum swings from globalization to decentralization. Food and energy concerns will be tantamount, and this across all continents. The storm clouds have arrived, delivered by our government and those who pull its strings. The rest of us are mere peons.

Good to know thanks keep us updated

58 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Even if it does change so what? 

That's not the point. The fact is that the suns color has not changed. This is a science forum and requires proof (far) beyond anecdotal accounts from memory.

On 1/26/2022 at 3:21 PM, skierinvermont said:

The sun's color has not changed. We have instruments that measure this fact. If you Google it you will see this is a popular conspiracy theory without evidence.

Bump

Any totals from near Brunswick ME? Looks like they got some good banding. Relative measured 6" in Portland around 4pm

Is that terrain enhancement off LI? The radar on the south shore and offshore just keeps lighting up where nowhere else is

On what basis does one forecast widespread 24"+ amounts at this point? Yesterday's model runs? A belief that humans can simulate h5 outcomes or surface outcomes better than a computer model?

Just now, bristolri_wx said:

Models aren’t perfect as they are programmed by humans.

But they are the best we've got. At least until now cast radar time.

18 minutes ago, CT Valley Dryslot said:

Mets don't answer to the models. They answer to science. The science must lead them to believe something else.

The models are the science. Nobody looks at a satellite image and says it will snow two feet tomorrow at a precise location. The models tell us that the mid level features might get strung out and shunted east more than previously thought.

6 minutes ago, dryslot said:

I didn't think so when you toggle hr 12 and hr 18 on the 12z and 06z north of the border but it doesn't matter it ended up there.

Oh I was comparing to 00z, that's probably why. With 00z the big difference to me is the kicker and confluence rebuilding in Canada sooner. Early on in the run everything looks as good as 00z or better.