Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
George H.
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 11:09:34 AM UTC+11, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
Lomborg is famously crooked. That doesn't mean that the approach couldn't work, but if he likes it you need to look for lots of reliable supporting evidence, and look at all of it very carefully, because his mode of operation is to produce claims that look plausible until you look at them very carefully.
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
George H.
On 10/9/19 10:29 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 11:09:34 AM UTC+11, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
Lomborg is famously crooked. That doesn't mean that the approach couldn't work, but if he likes it you need to look for lots of reliable supporting evidence, and look at all of it very carefully, because his mode of operation is to produce claims that look plausible until you look at them very carefully.
Of all the things you could do to help mitigate global warming letting
engineers loose on the problem to try and come up with some fucking
clever way to have-cake-and-eat-it-too is probably the worst one.
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
On 10/10/19 11:09 am, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
I linked this article to Blair Trewin, a friend of mine through
orienteering. Blair is Australia's leading climatologist (was head of
the World Meteorological Survey for a couple of years recently). His
first comment was as follows:
"The principles appear sound (although the uncertainties on the
modelling outcomes would be large - clouds are hard to model), but the
practicalities are formidable - you'd have to be continuously seeding
all relevant clouds (probably an area of millions, if not tens of
millions, of square kilometres). I couldn't find any background on the
costings but suspect that $10 billion might be out by at least an order
of magnitude, perhaps much more."
CH
Thanks,On 10/10/2019 01:09, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
George H.
The Royal Society paper the article is based on is here:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2012.0086
(free access)
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
On 10/9/19 10:29 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 11:09:34 AM UTC+11, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
Lomborg is famously crooked. That doesn't mean that the approach couldn't work, but if he likes it you need to look for lots of reliable supporting evidence, and look at all of it very carefully, because his mode of operation is to produce claims that look plausible until you look at them very carefully.
Of all the things you could do to help mitigate global warming letting
engineers loose on the problem to try and come up with some fucking
clever way to have-cake-and-eat-it-too is probably the worst one.
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 11:09:34 AM UTC+11, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
Lomborg is famously crooked. That doesn't mean that the approach couldn't work, but if he likes it you need to look for lots of reliable supporting evidence, and look at all of it very carefully, because his mode of operation is to produce claims that look plausible until you look at them very carefully.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 10/10/19 11:09 am, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
I linked this article to Blair Trewin, a friend of mine through
orienteering. Blair is Australia's leading climatologist (was head of
the World Meteorological Survey for a couple of years recently). His
first comment was as follows:
"The principles appear sound (although the uncertainties on the
modelling outcomes would be large - clouds are hard to model), but the
practicalities are formidable - you'd have to be continuously seeding
all relevant clouds (probably an area of millions, if not tens of
millions, of square kilometres). I couldn't find any background on the
costings but suspect that $10 billion might be out by at least an order
of magnitude, perhaps much more."
CH
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 2:26:57 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 10/9/19 10:29 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 11:09:34 AM UTC+11, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
Lomborg is famously crooked. That doesn't mean that the approach couldn't work, but if he likes it you need to look for lots of reliable supporting evidence, and look at all of it very carefully, because his mode of operation is to produce claims that look plausible until you look at them very carefully.
Of all the things you could do to help mitigate global warming letting
engineers loose on the problem to try and come up with some fucking
clever way to have-cake-and-eat-it-too is probably the worst one.
Yeah (sarcastically) best to let the politicians handle it.
George H.
On 10/9/19 10:29 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 11:09:34 AM UTC+11, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
Read the first comment too.
Lomborg is famously crooked. That doesn't mean that the approach
couldn't work, but if he likes it you need to look for lots of
reliable supporting evidence, and look at all of it very carefully,
because his mode of operation is to produce claims that look plausible
until you look at them very carefully.
Of all the things you could do to help mitigate global warming letting
engineers loose on the problem to try and come up with some fucking
clever way to have-cake-and-eat-it-too is probably the worst one.
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:> On 10/10/19 11:09 am, George Herold wrote:> > This is interesting,> > https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with> > I linked this article to Blair Trewin, a friend of mine through > orienteering. Blair is Australia's leading climatologist (was head of > the World Meteorological Survey for a couple of years recently). His > first comment was as follows:> > "The principles appear sound (although the uncertainties on the > modelling outcomes would be large - clouds are hard to model), but the > practicalities are formidable - you'd have to be continuously seeding > all relevant clouds (probably an area of millions, if not tens of > millions, of square kilometres). I couldn't find any background on the > costings but suspect that $10 billion might be out by at least an order > of magnitude, perhaps much more."> > CHRight, I don't know either. I just thought it was interesting. There are a lot uncertainties... but some sort of study would seem like money well spent. There was data on airplane contrails generated when all the planes were banne
d from the skies for three days afterthe 9/11 attacks. GH
Hmm OK, this says there were larger daily extremes with noGeorge Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> Wrote in message:
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:> On 10/10/19 11:09 am, George Herold wrote:> > This is interesting,> > https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with> > I linked this article to Blair Trewin, a friend of mine through > orienteering. Blair is Australia's leading climatologist (was head of > the World Meteorological Survey for a couple of years recently). His > first comment was as follows:> > "The principles appear sound (although the uncertainties on the > modelling outcomes would be large - clouds are hard to model), but the > practicalities are formidable - you'd have to be continuously seeding > all relevant clouds (probably an area of millions, if not tens of > millions, of square kilometres). I couldn't find any background on the > costings but suspect that $10 billion might be out by at least an order > of magnitude, perhaps much more."> > CHRight, I don't know either. I just thought it was interesting. There are a lot uncertainties... but some sort of study would seem like money well spent. There was data on airplane contrails generated when all the planes were banned from the skies for three days afterthe 9/11 attacks. GH
That data did not suggest anything, not even cooling fyi.
Cheered
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 10/10/19 11:09 am, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
I linked this article to Blair Trewin, a friend of mine through
orienteering. Blair is Australia's leading climatologist (was head of
the World Meteorological Survey for a couple of years recently). His
first comment was as follows:
"The principles appear sound (although the uncertainties on the
modelling outcomes would be large - clouds are hard to model), but the
practicalities are formidable - you'd have to be continuously seeding
all relevant clouds (probably an area of millions, if not tens of
millions, of square kilometres). I couldn't find any background on the
costings but suspect that $10 billion might be out by at least an order
of magnitude, perhaps much more."
It's good to hear frank acknowledgement that we still don't have
a good handle on clouds. If clouds behave just slightly differently,
the energy balance predictions are utterly undone.
I've been a huge solar fan since I checked a book out of the
Santa Monica public library at age seven. I wanted to build
the solar-powered model airplane, the solar cooker, and some
other projects too. But it's not a solution without storage.
I saw a great graphic of California's sources of electricity. They've
gotten up to solar meeting about 50% of demand during the daytime.
But just seeing the limited time-availability in the graphic hits
you in the gut -- we all know it, but seeing it drives the point
home.
So I expanded the solar production to assume 100% of peak demand,
to explore what that would look like, and the ASCII-ized result
looks about like this:
(view in Courier font)
If California's Solar Generation Doubled
|----. . . . . . . . . . . . .----| <~demand
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
|solar \ / solar |
| \ / |
| \ / |
'----|--------|--------|--------|----'
18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00
Even with an installed base equaling 100% of peak demand,
solar only supplies about 1/4 to 1/3rd of need. Big
conventional plants will still do most of the heavy-lifting.
(original graph is here:
see https://www.americanexperiment.org/2019/10/california-forced-to-subsidize-natural-gas-plants-to-prevent-widespread-blackouts/ )
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 10/10/19 11:09 am, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
I linked this article to Blair Trewin, a friend of mine through
orienteering. Blair is Australia's leading climatologist (was head of
the World Meteorological Survey for a couple of years recently). His
first comment was as follows:
"The principles appear sound (although the uncertainties on the
modelling outcomes would be large - clouds are hard to model), but the
practicalities are formidable - you'd have to be continuously seeding
all relevant clouds (probably an area of millions, if not tens of
millions, of square kilometres). I couldn't find any background on the
costings but suspect that $10 billion might be out by at least an order
of magnitude, perhaps much more."
CH
Right, I don't know either. I just thought it was interesting.
There are a lot uncertainties... but some sort of study would seem
like money well spent. There was data on airplane contrails generated
when all the planes were banned from the skies for three days after
the 9/11 attacks.
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 10/10/19 11:09 am, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
I linked this article to Blair Trewin, a friend of mine through
orienteering. Blair is Australia's leading climatologist (was head of
the World Meteorological Survey for a couple of years recently). His
first comment was as follows:
"The principles appear sound (although the uncertainties on the
modelling outcomes would be large - clouds are hard to model), but the
practicalities are formidable - you'd have to be continuously seeding
all relevant clouds (probably an area of millions, if not tens of
millions, of square kilometres). I couldn't find any background on the
costings but suspect that $10 billion might be out by at least an order
of magnitude, perhaps much more."
CH
It's good to hear frank acknowledgement that we still don't have
a good handle on clouds. If clouds behave just slightly differently,
the energy balance predictions are utterly undone.
I've been a huge solar fan since I checked a book out of the
Santa Monica public library at age seven. I wanted to build
the solar-powered model airplane, the solar cooker, and some
other projects too. But it's not a solution without storage.
I saw a great graphic of California's sources of electricity. They've
gotten up to solar meeting about 50% of demand during the daytime.
But just seeing the limited time-availability in the graphic hits
you in the gut -- we all know it, but seeing it drives the point
home.
So I expanded the solar production to assume 100% of peak demand,
to explore what that would look like, and the ASCII-ized result
looks about like this:
(view in Courier font)
If California's Solar Generation Doubled
|----. . . . . . . . . . . . .----| <~demand
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
|solar \ / solar |
| \ / |
| \ / |
'----|--------|--------|--------|----'
18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00
Even with an installed base equaling 100% of peak demand,
solar only supplies about 1/4 to 1/3rd of need. Big
conventional plants will still do most of the heavy-lifting.
(original graph is here:
see https://www.americanexperiment.org/2019/10/california-forced-to-subsidize-natural-gas-plants-to-prevent-widespread-blackouts/ )
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:50:11 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 at 6:21:39 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 10/10/19 11:09 am, George Herold wrote:
This is interesting,
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XRTiojqqJ3wrFFZAf/can-we-really-prevent-all-warming-for-less-than-10busd-with
I linked this article to Blair Trewin, a friend of mine through
orienteering. Blair is Australia's leading climatologist (was head of
the World Meteorological Survey for a couple of years recently). His
first comment was as follows:
"The principles appear sound (although the uncertainties on the
modelling outcomes would be large - clouds are hard to model), but the
practicalities are formidable - you'd have to be continuously seeding
all relevant clouds (probably an area of millions, if not tens of
millions, of square kilometres). I couldn't find any background on the
costings but suspect that $10 billion might be out by at least an order
of magnitude, perhaps much more."
CH
It's good to hear frank acknowledgement that we still don't have
a good handle on clouds. If clouds behave just slightly differently,
the energy balance predictions are utterly undone.
I've been a huge solar fan since I checked a book out of the
Santa Monica public library at age seven. I wanted to build
the solar-powered model airplane, the solar cooker, and some
other projects too. But it's not a solution without storage.
I saw a great graphic of California's sources of electricity. They've
gotten up to solar meeting about 50% of demand during the daytime.
But just seeing the limited time-availability in the graphic hits
you in the gut -- we all know it, but seeing it drives the point
home.
So I expanded the solar production to assume 100% of peak demand,
to explore what that would look like, and the ASCII-ized result
looks about like this:
(view in Courier font)
If California's Solar Generation Doubled
|----. . . . . . . . . . . . .----| <~demand
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
| \ / |
|solar \ / solar |
| \ / |
| \ / |
'----|--------|--------|--------|----'
18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00
Your drawing is incorrect, the consumption doesn't remain constant
during the night.
Even with an installed base equaling 100% of peak demand,
solar only supplies about 1/4 to 1/3rd of need. Big
conventional plants will still do most of the heavy-lifting.
(original graph is here:
see https://www.americanexperiment.org/2019/10/california-forced-to-subsidize-natural-gas-plants-to-prevent-widespread-blackouts/ )
That graph doesn't show the daily consumption variation. However,
assuming that the graph shows all electricity sources and since
production must match consumption, one could draw a graph on top of
the brown area. This curve would show a peak in the late evening and a
minimum early in the morning.
Now, just redraw the picture with orange solar power on top (and now
the total consumption curve just above it) and the mismatch does not
look that bad. The worst mismatch is that the solar production drops
before the evening demand peak.
Apparently most solar plants are aimed towards the South, thus
production drops quickly in the afternoon. With more panels aimed
towards SE and SW, the power output time would be extended, with a
reduction in noon production.
The problem with concentrated solar plant (CSP) is that those do not
work well at the extremes (early morning and late evening) simply due
to geometry.
CSP also needs some time to build up the steam pressure in the morning
and hence needs natural gas in the morning. Using PV panels aimed SE
would allow power production earlier in the morning.