Climate Change(d)?

[steve_bank]

Tell me Steve, do you cry out your own name when you click “post”? I bet you do.

No I don't. Why do you ask?

 

[steve_bank]

I just exchanged email with a climate scientist at the University Of Washington. I was curious as to how much global energy production impacts global temperature rise. All energy eventually shows up as heat.

He said relative to greenhouse gases total energy production accounts for about 2%.

 

[steve_bank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content

​

In oceanography and climatology, ocean heat content (OHC) is a term for the energy absorbed by the ocean, where it is stored for indefinite time periods as internal energy or enthalpy. The rise in OHC accounts for over 90% of Earth’s excess thermal energy from global heating between 1971 and 2018.[1][2] It is extremely likely that anthropogenic forcing via rising greenhouse gas emissions was the main driver of this OHC increase.[3] About one third of the added energy has propagated to depths below 700 meters as of 2020.[4][5]

Ocean waters are efficient absorbents of solar energy and have far greater heat capacity than atmospheric gases.[4] The top few meters of the ocean consequently contain more thermal energy than Earth's entire atmosphere.[6] Research vessels and stations have sampled sea temperatures at depth and around the globe since before 1960. Additionally after year 2000, an expanding network of nearly 4000 Argo robotic floats has measured the temperature anomaly, or equivalently the change in OHC. Since at least 1990, OHC has increased at a steady or accelerating rate.[1][7]

Changes in ocean heat content have far-reaching consequences for the planet's marine and terrestrial ecosystems; including multiple impacts to coastal ecosystems and communities. Effects include variations in sea level and polar ice sheets, climate change and shifts in extreme weather phenomena, and the migration and extinction of biological species.[8][9]…..

Oceans are Earth's largest thermal reservoir that function to regulate the planet's climate; acting as both a sink and a source of energy.[13] Releases of OHC to the atmosphere occur primarily via evaporation and enable the planetary water cycle.[14] Concentrated releases in association with high sea-surface temperatures help drive tropical cyclones, atmospheric rivers, atmospheric heat waves and other extreme weather events that can penetrate far inland.[15][16]​

 

[bilby]

I just exchanged email with a climate scientist at the University Of Washington. I was curious as to how much global energy production impacts global temperature rise. All energy eventually shows up as heat.

He said relative to greenhouse gases total energy production accounts for about 2%.

Yeah, waste heat is utterly trivial. The big issue is the equilibrium between insolation, and radiation of that energy back into space; and the main driver of that equilibrium is CO₂ and CH₄ in the atmosphere.

 

[Shadowy Man]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content

​

In oceanography and climatology, ocean heat content (OHC) is a term for the energy absorbed by the ocean, where it is stored for indefinite time periods as internal energy or enthalpy. The rise in OHC accounts for over 90% of Earth’s excess thermal energy from global heating between 1971 and 2018.[1][2] It is extremely likely that anthropogenic forcing via rising greenhouse gas emissions was the main driver of this OHC increase.[3] About one third of the added energy has propagated to depths below 700 meters as of 2020.[4][5]

Ocean waters are efficient absorbents of solar energy and have far greater heat capacity than atmospheric gases.[4] The top few meters of the ocean consequently contain more thermal energy than Earth's entire atmosphere.[6] Research vessels and stations have sampled sea temperatures at depth and around the globe since before 1960. Additionally after year 2000, an expanding network of nearly 4000 Argo robotic floats has measured the temperature anomaly, or equivalently the change in OHC. Since at least 1990, OHC has increased at a steady or accelerating rate.[1][7]

Changes in ocean heat content have far-reaching consequences for the planet's marine and terrestrial ecosystems; including multiple impacts to coastal ecosystems and communities. Effects include variations in sea level and polar ice sheets, climate change and shifts in extreme weather phenomena, and the migration and extinction of biological species.[8][9]…..

Oceans are Earth's largest thermal reservoir that function to regulate the planet's climate; acting as both a sink and a source of energy.[13] Releases of OHC to the atmosphere occur primarily via evaporation and enable the planetary water cycle.[14] Concentrated releases in association with high sea-surface temperatures help drive tropical cyclones, atmospheric rivers, atmospheric heat waves and other extreme weather events that can penetrate far inland.[15][16]​

Makes sense, considering that water is almost 1000 times more dense than air.

 

[TSwizzle]

Fifth largest economy in the world can't provide electricity to charge its electric vehicles. Less than 5%~ of cars in (Southern) California are electric;

Californians are being advised not to charge their electric cars during certain hours as a 90-degree heatwave rolls in. The move comes just weeks after the California Air Resources Board voted to ban gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Starting on Wednesday and running until Tuesday, residents are being asked to not charge their electric vehicles between those hours, set their thermostats at 78 degrees or higher, avoid using large appliances, and turn off unnecessary lights.

Daily Mail

Newsom wants to run the country. Let that sink in.

 

[steve_bank]

Fifth largest economy in the world can't provide electricity to charge its electric vehicles. Less than 5%~ of cars in (Southern) California are electric;

Californians are being advised not to charge their electric cars during certain hours as a 90-degree heatwave rolls in. The move comes just weeks after the California Air Resources Board voted to ban gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Starting on Wednesday and running until Tuesday, residents are being asked to not charge their electric vehicles between those hours, set their thermostats at 78 degrees or higher, avoid using large appliances, and turn off unnecessary lights.

Daily Mail

Newsom wants to run the country. Let that sink in.

When we consume electricity and do not wprry about it as long as the lights come on we get what we get

Here in Seattle he power utility said conservation policy inclusion getting rid of incandescent bulbs has created and excess in caacity sufficient to cover EVs.

Oil for gas cars is finite. My energy text xrxa 1980s predicted peak oil around the end of the last century. New exploration and drilling techniques have put it off but we may be at it today.


Saudi Arabia is thought to over estimate its reserves. When oil supply can't meet demand prices will skyrocket, and you will be begging for EVs.

In the 80s oil comanies knew peak oil was coming.

The exporting nations of OPEC put the peak in 2040 while acknowledging that its new forecast might still prove too optimistic for oil. Notable exceptions include the International Energy Agency, which sees demand “plateauing” but not quite peaking, and the U.S. Energy Information Agency.Nov 30, 2020

Peak oil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Peak oil is the moment at which extraction of petroleum reaches a rate greater than that at any time in the past and starts to permanently decrease.[2][3][4] It is related to the distinct concept of oil depletion; while global petroleum reserves are finite, the limiting factor is not whether the oil exists but whether it can be extracted economically at a given price.[5][6] A secular decline in oil extraction could be caused both by depletion of accessible reserves and by reductions in demand that reduce the price relative to the cost of extraction, as might be induced to reduce carbon emissions.[5][7]

Numerous predictions of the timing of peak oil have been made over the past century before being falsified by subsequent growth in the rate of petroleum extraction.[8][9][10][11][12][13] M. King Hubbert is often credited with introducing the notion in a 1956 paper which presented a formal theory and predicted U.S. extraction to peak between 1965 and 1971.[14][15] Hubbert's original predictions for world peak oil production proved premature[15] and, as of 2021, forecasts of the year of peak oil range from 2019 to 2040.[16][17] These predictions are dependent on future economic trends, technological developments, and efforts by societies and governments to moderate climate change.[7][16][18]

Predictions of future oil production made in 2007 and 2009 stated either that the peak had already occurred,[19][20][21][22] that oil production was on the cusp of the peak, or that it would occur soon.[23][24] A decade later world oil production rose to hit a new high in 2018, as developments in extraction technology enabled an expansion of U.S. tight oil production.[25][16][26] Following a collapse in oil demand at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic and a price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia, a number of organizations have put forward predictions of a peak in the next 10 to 15 years.[27]

 

[fromderinside]

As it is, California's electric grid is being managed largely by PG&E who recently filed for bankruptcy and has been held legally responsible for many of the wildfires and subsequent lives lost. And yet, we will be putting considerably more demand on these incompetent ninnies going forward.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Small Potatoes.

Southern California Edison - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now we're talking Spuds.

 

[thebeave]

As it is, California's electric grid is being managed largely by PG&E who recently filed for bankruptcy and has been held legally responsible for many of the wildfires and subsequent lives lost. And yet, we will be putting considerably more demand on these incompetent ninnies going forward.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Small Potatoes.

Southern California Edison - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now we're talking Spuds.

I stand corrected, though at one time, PG&E was the biggest electric utility in the whole country. Not sure when that changed. You should also know by now that Northern Californians don't recognize Southern Californians as "True Californians" (and vice versa).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I just exchanged email with a climate scientist at the University Of Washington. I was curious as to how much global energy production impacts global temperature rise. All energy eventually shows up as heat.

He said relative to greenhouse gases total energy production accounts for about 2%.

Yeah, waste heat is utterly trivial. The big issue is the equilibrium between insolation, and radiation of that energy back into space; and the main driver of that equilibrium is CO₂ and CH₄ in the atmosphere.

Can't we just lower our CO₂ and CH₄ emissions to deal with this problem. *shifty eyes*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fifth largest economy in the world can't provide electricity to charge its electric vehicles. Less than 5%~ of cars in (Southern) California are electric;

It is incredible how Newsom is responsible for the private electrical power industry. And yeah, imagine that... near all-time ever recorded temperatures straining the electrical grid... because the electrical grid wasn't designed to deal with these enduring heat waves temperatures. Record days in a year of 100 degrees plus in Sacramento is 41 in 1988. They are currently at 35, with this heat wave likely to put them over the top.

 

[TSwizzle]

Hilarious;

California’s state legislature voted in the early hours of the morning on the last day of the legislative session to give the state the option to keep Diablo Canyon, its last remaining operating nuclear power plant, open for another five years. The state Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, SB-846. The legislation makes it possible for the utility operating the nuclear plant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to apply for access to federal funding to keep the nuclear power plant running. The vote is a reversal of previous plans to shut the nuclear power plant down. The nuclear power plant was slated to shut down largely due to anti-nuclear sentiment in the state and a preference for building out renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

NBC

"renewables" just can't cut it but that won't stop nitwit Newsom.

 

[Politesse]

Why is that hilarious?

And in what way has anyone stopped "nitwit Newsom"? He was the one who proposed this extension, he didn't want it to be stopped.

It's weird how so many things that Republicans say they want - killing the high speed train, reversing progress on environmental issues, increasing police budgets - have been priorities for Newsom's office also, but conservatives still pretend he's a cardboard cutout of the Maoist Muslim Atheist Leftist Terrorist they imagine every Democrat governor to be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hilarious;

California’s state legislature voted in the early hours of the morning on the last day of the legislative session to give the state the option to keep Diablo Canyon, its last remaining operating nuclear power plant, open for another five years. The state Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, SB-846. The legislation makes it possible for the utility operating the nuclear plant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to apply for access to federal funding to keep the nuclear power plant running. The vote is a reversal of previous plans to shut the nuclear power plant down. The nuclear power plant was slated to shut down largely due to anti-nuclear sentiment in the state and a preference for building out renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

NBC

"renewables" just can't cut it but that won't stop nitwit Newsom.

Did he veto it? Because he could veto it. Also, wouldn't this be an indication of the Democrats turning on the subject in the right direction?

And yes, America needs to deal with the left-wing's hatred and fear of nuclear and the right-wing's refusal to have it near them.

 

[Swammerdami]

I just exchanged email with a climate scientist at the University Of Washington. I was curious as to how much global energy production impacts global temperature rise. All energy eventually shows up as heat.

He said relative to greenhouse gases total energy production accounts for about 2%.

I wasn't sure of this and felt like trying to check it on the back of an envelope.

I don't think it's true that ALL energy becomes heat, at least in the near-term. What about energy used to create high-enthalpy substances? What percent of man-produced energy does end up as heat? Call it 60% for now.

Earlier in the thread I noted that the oceans warm by about 10 Zettajoules per year; a large majority of global warming's heat ends up in the oceans. Elsewhere I read that humans consume about 90 million barrels of petroleum per day; round that off to 0.2 Zettajoules per year. Petroleum supplies about one-third of man-used energy (most of the remaining two-thirds is also carbon-based); call it 0.6 Zettajoules total, or about 5% of global warming. If only 60% ends up as heat, that would be 3% — much closer to the professor's number than I'd hoped for, given my back-of-the-envelope and with only one-sig-fig numbers.

What percent of man-made energy DOES finish as heat in the near-term, ignoring plastics etc. that won't degrade for many centuries? Is it indeed close to 100%?

 

[Swammerdami]

Hilarious;

California’s state legislature voted in the early hours of the morning on the last day of the legislative session to give the state the option to keep Diablo Canyon, its last remaining operating nuclear power plant, open for another five years. The state Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, SB-846. The legislation makes it possible for the utility operating the nuclear plant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to apply for access to federal funding to keep the nuclear power plant running. The vote is a reversal of previous plans to shut the nuclear power plant down. The nuclear power plant was slated to shut down largely due to anti-nuclear sentiment in the state and a preference for building out renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

NBC

"renewables" just can't cut it but that won't stop nitwit Newsom.

Did he veto it? Because he could veto it. Also, wouldn't this be an indication of the Democrats turning on the subject in the right direction?

And yes, America needs to deal with the left-wing's hatred and fear of nuclear and the right-wing's refusal to have it near them.

I'm curious why TSwizzle found this hilarious. I'm not interested in whether he favors, opposes or doesn't know about nuclear power, but why is it hilarious that policy-makers can change their minds? Does he think all legislators should be like baby brats, or Trumpists, or Republicans or rabid dogs who, once they get their teeth embedded in something are unable to let go?

 

[Jarhyn]

Hilarious;

California’s state legislature voted in the early hours of the morning on the last day of the legislative session to give the state the option to keep Diablo Canyon, its last remaining operating nuclear power plant, open for another five years. The state Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, SB-846. The legislation makes it possible for the utility operating the nuclear plant, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to apply for access to federal funding to keep the nuclear power plant running. The vote is a reversal of previous plans to shut the nuclear power plant down. The nuclear power plant was slated to shut down largely due to anti-nuclear sentiment in the state and a preference for building out renewable power sources, like wind and solar.

NBC

"renewables" just can't cut it but that won't stop nitwit Newsom.

Did he veto it? Because he could veto it. Also, wouldn't this be an indication of the Democrats turning on the subject in the right direction?

And yes, America needs to deal with the left-wing's hatred and fear of nuclear and the right-wing's refusal to have it near them.

I'm curious why TSwizzle found this hilarious. I'm not interested in whether he favors, opposes or doesn't know about nuclear power, but why is it hilarious that policy-makers can change their minds? Does he think all legislators should be like baby brats, or Trumpists, or Republicans or rabid dogs who, once they get their teeth embedded in something are unable to let go?

The sunk cost fallacy is a big one that human minds just seem doomed to trip and fall into, as if the whole yard is made of that particular kind of rake.

Many people build their self-image around the idea that they are a protagonist and they fail to see the idea that the viewpoint character of a story can actually in fact be the villain.

As such, it never occurs to them to ask "am I the villain, here?"

Instead, they develop the personal myth that they are the indestructible, undefeatable Mary Sue who will always find themselves powerful and right at the end of the day.

Any threat to that would force them to start questioning themselves, and you see how badly they handle it when others question them. A question for themselves coming from inside, where they can't shut it out? I dare say we would need to start carrying umbrellas to keep from getting splattered whenever a random conservative's head explodes like a transmission thrown from drive to reverse.

 

[Swammerdami]

Any threat to that would force them to start questioning themselves, and you see how badly they handle it when others question them. A question for themselves coming from inside, where they can't shut it out? I dare say we would need to start carrying umbrellas to keep from getting splattered whenever a random conservative's head explodes like a transmission thrown from drive to reverse.

Cars seem so smart today, and I know there are wires connecting the gear shift to a computer. I've often wondered what would happen if I threw the Honda into Reverse when traveling at speed. Would some anti-idiot mechanism save me?

I'm too cowardly to try it. Will someone else volunteer to run the experiment?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I never liked sitting next to the emergency exit on an airplane. Even after the cabin attendant assured me I wouldn't be able to open that door even if I tried.

 

[Elixir]

I'm too cowardly to try it. Will someone else volunteer to run the experiment?

Tried it (inadvertently) in my 2016 Ford Escape. It (automatic 6 speed) doesn’t try to engage reverse at any forward speed above 3-4 mph.

 

[Jarhyn]

Any threat to that would force them to start questioning themselves, and you see how badly they handle it when others question them. A question for themselves coming from inside, where they can't shut it out? I dare say we would need to start carrying umbrellas to keep from getting splattered whenever a random conservative's head explodes like a transmission thrown from drive to reverse.

Cars seem so smart today, and I know there are wires connecting the gear shift to a computer. I've often wondered what would happen if I threw the Honda into Reverse when traveling at speed. Would some anti-idiot mechanism save me?

I'm too cowardly to try it. Will someone else volunteer to run the experiment?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I never liked sitting next to the emergency exit on an airplane. Even after the cabin attendant assured me I wouldn't be able to open that door even if I tried.

My imagery is garnered from recent experience, namely a 1300 dollar repair bill. It was not so violent as from a drive gear to reverse, merely a shift between 2 and 3, or perhaps 1 and 2.

Even so, the violence of the discordance in the mechanism caused several gears and the casing to be shat out upon the exit ramp off the highway.

Then again, it was on a stick with no idiot-proofing. As a result the repair was also about $2000 cheaper than it would have been otherwise.