Jump to content

Climate: Il fait VRAIMENT CHAUD (fka un petit)


Week
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sabine is awesome, good to see another fan, brilliant dry wit. She is a bit more pro-nuclear than that video suggests, since at ~17 minute mark of her later renewable energy storage video she says the energy storage problem makes nuclear look like an increasingly good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

An article that encapsulates much of the problem when it comes to climate change:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/11/11/cop27-egypt-carbon-budget-gas-projects/

Two aspects here:

- Decision-makers are absolutely desperate to indulge in greenwashing. They're aware that their peoples need reassurance, and will stick the "green label" on anything if they can.

- The focus on climate change and its numbers obfuscates the fact what we are truly dealing with is an environmental crisis due to human activities. Saying "we have nine years left" or other nonsense is counter-productive: the world will not end in 9 years, and we will be able to change course until the very end. But this focus on -relatively arbitrary numbers- prevents us from realizing the actual problem is -and has always been- our way of life, and its socio-economic basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

NASA satellite study says ocean levels could rise as much as 12 inches (30 centimeters) by 2050, which would be an absolute disaster for low lying US cities (and similar cities elsewhere). To me, the key word here is 'could,' when I've attempted to run the numbers (which is not easy) my results are a few inches under that - maybe eight inches (20 centimeters). I freely admit that my calculation could be in error.

 

Rising sea levels could swamp the US coastline by 2050, NASA predicts | Live Science

[quote]

According to the study, which analyzed three decades of satellite observations, by 2050, sea levels along the coastlines of the contiguous U.S. could rise as much as 12 inches (30 centimeters) above current waterlines, the research team said in a statement(opens in new tab). The Gulf Coast and Southeast are expected to be most severely impacted, and will likely experience increased storm and tidal flooding in the near future, according to the study, published Oct. 6 in the journal Communications Earth & Environment(opens in new tab). [/quote]

 

This new report compliments the '2022 Technical Sea Level Rise Report,' released in February.

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report (noaa.gov)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/3/2022 at 11:17 PM, LongRider said:

When I lived in Tahoe in the late ‘70’s/early’80’s I would BS with coworkers about the lake being such a huge source of fresh water.
 

Only the Great Lakes are bigger and Crater Lake deeper. (Wikipedia). One coworker once declared that if the Russian’s ever nuked us, Tahoe was on the list because of the water. 

I’m just reading everything in this thread because I missed stuff by skipping pages. Someone else may have asked the question already. On what basis is Lake Tahoe the biggest lake after the Great Lakes? Even the Great Lakes aren’t the 5 biggest, Great Bear Lake and Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories are bigger than Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Lake Winnipeg is bigger than Lake Ontario.

Oh wait, let me guess, you forgot to say “in the United States”, which is also weird because the only Great Lake in the US is Lake Michigan, the other four are partly in Canada. And a quick check of lists of the biggest lakes in the US all mention the Great Lakes, though some mention Michigan is the only one that doesn’t share a border. But the other four are all still “in the United States”, which doesn’t bode well for the future, I guess. I do believe there have been cases of US cities on the Great Lakes being fined and ordered to put water back into the lakes because they drew too much out, amounts that can be drawn being covered by treaty. It’s like the Colorado River, where states are always drawing out more water than they are allowed by inter-state agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I do believe there have been cases of US cities on the Great Lakes being fined and ordered to put water back into the lakes because they drew too much out, amounts that can be drawn being covered by treaty. It’s like the Colorado River, where states are always drawing out more water than they are allowed by inter-state agreement.

Same thing has happened on the Canadian side in the past. The two countries' governments often have to work out these kinds of disputes. 

The Great Lakes are a part of the US and thus it's correct to call them the biggest chain of lakes here. Canadians can make the exact same claim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Maybe too little too late, but I wish to feel hopeful. The U.S. Department of Energy is set to make a full announcement about this tomorrow.

 

Whatever it is or means, it is a scientific breakthrough, not anything that will change power supply anywhere in decades, if we last decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Maybe too little too late, but I wish to feel hopeful. The U.S. Department of Energy is set to make a full announcement about this tomorrow.

 

They still haven't achieved net energy out. What they have achieved is more energy out than what the laser part of the system puts in. So a step forward, but still some way from the finish line. This needs to NOT start distracting people and funding from implementing energy options that actually work today.

I will look forward to Sabine Hossenfelder's next video on what this development means, then I will have a better idea about how excited I should be. Meanwhile here's her last video on the topic of fusion (excluding cold fusion).

Never take mainstream media hype about fusion at face value, is the continuing advice I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:
On 8/3/2022 at 8:17 PM, LongRider said:

When I lived in Tahoe in the late ‘70’s/early’80’s I would BS with coworkers about the lake being such a huge source of fresh water.
 

Only the Great Lakes are bigger and Crater Lake deeper. (Wikipedia). One coworker once declared that if the Russian’s ever nuked us, Tahoe was on the list because of the water. 

I’m just reading everything in this thread because I missed stuff by skipping pages. Someone else may have asked the question already. On what basis is Lake Tahoe the biggest lake after the Great Lakes? Even the Great Lakes aren’t the 5 biggest, Great Bear Lake and Great Slave Lake in the Northwest Territories are bigger than Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Lake Winnipeg is bigger than Lake Ontario.

Easy there Birdy.  I got my info from Wikipedia (which was stated)

****Lake Tahoe (/ˈtɑːhoʊ/; Washo: Dáʔaw, meaning "the lake"[4]) is a freshwater lake in the Sierra Nevada of the United States. Lying at 6,225 ft (1,897 m), it straddles the state line between California and Nevada, west of Carson City. Lake Tahoe is the largest alpine lake in North America,[5] and at 122,160,280 acre⋅ft (150.7 km3) it trails only the five Great Lakes as the largest by volume in the United States. Its depth is 1,645 ft (501 m), making it the second deepest in the United States after Crater Lake in Oregon (1,949 ft or 594 m).[1]***

I said "Only the Great Lakes are bigger and Crater Lake deeper. (Wikipedia).   Take it up with Wikipedia, in fact, you could go that page and correct it if you're so inclined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Same thing has happened on the Canadian side in the past. The two countries' governments often have to work out these kinds of disputes. 

The Great Lakes are a part of the US and thus it's correct to call them the biggest chain of lakes here. Canadians can make the exact same claim. 

The main city I’ve ever read about taking too much water has been Chicago, which diverts water to the Mississippi River. They have been ordered to put water back in in the past. That’s allowed because Ontario diverts more water than Chicago takes, away from Hudson Bay and into Lake Superior. The problem is the Great Lakes are not a renewable resource, they’re more like inland seas, only 1% is added by rain and other natural sources.

I don’t think any Ontario city has ever been accused of taking too much water. At one point an idiot Ontario government granted a permit to export water to China, but public outrage quashed that pretty damn fast. A quick Google search shows Wisconsin has been asking for more water, due to radium-poisoning and that huge Chinese plant built by Foxboro needing water, but the stories I saw were old and if irc they ended up building a much smaller plant than expected, I don’t know what happened in the end.

My complaint is about calling the Great Lakes US lakes. They aren’t. They are international lakes shared by Canada and the US. A search of Canada’s ten largest lakes will include the Great Lakes as well, but they never include Lake Michigan even though it’s part of the Great Lakes and all of the lakes are considered a shared resource.  And the stories always point out that the total volume of the lakes is considered, even the part in the US. It really amuses me to see how many of those US lists talk about the lakes that “share a border”. Nevada and California share a border. New York and Pennsylvania share a border. North Dakota and South Dakota share a border. The Great Lakes don’t “share a border”, they are located in two different countries. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LongRider said:

Easy there Birdy.  I got my info from Wikipedia (which was stated)

****Lake Tahoe (/ˈtɑːhoʊ/; Washo: Dáʔaw, meaning "the lake"[4]) is a freshwater lake in the Sierra Nevada of the United States. Lying at 6,225 ft (1,897 m), it straddles the state line between California and Nevada, west of Carson City. Lake Tahoe is the largest alpine lake in North America,[5] and at 122,160,280 acre⋅ft (150.7 km3) it trails only the five Great Lakes as the largest by volume in the United States. Its depth is 1,645 ft (501 m), making it the second deepest in the United States after Crater Lake in Oregon (1,949 ft or 594 m).[1]***

I said "Only the Great Lakes are bigger and Crater Lake deeper. (Wikipedia).   Take it up with Wikipedia, in fact, you could go that page and correct it if you're so inclined.

Yes, I saw the entry. I was shit stirring there, I guess. The only Great Lake in the US is Lake Michigan, the other four are in two countries, so really, Lake Tahoe is the second largest lake in the US. Don’t be shy! But, both countries list the lakes in top ten lists, the difference is Canadian lists talk about the lakes being in two countries, the US lists talk about shared borders, which makes me laugh. Also, there are three Canadian lakes bigger than some Great Lakes, and if you want to talk about North America, Lake Nicaragua is in the top 10. Lake Tahoe doesn’t make it.

As I mentioned in my reply to Ty, the Great Lakes are not a renewable resource, rain only adds 1% a year. And that’s what people are finding out about Lake Tahoe, Lake Havasu, the Colorado River and other water resources, they are not renewable resources. They are not trees that will continue growing. If you suck them dry, they are going to be dry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The main city I’ve ever read about taking too much water has been Chicago, which diverts water to the Mississippi River. They have been ordered to put water back in in the past. That’s allowed because Ontario diverts more water than Chicago takes, away from Hudson Bay and into Lake Superior. The problem is the Great Lakes are not a renewable resource, they’re more like inland seas, only 1% is added by rain and other natural sources.

I don’t think any Ontario city has ever been accused of taking too much water. At one point an idiot Ontario government granted a permit to export water to China, but public outrage quashed that pretty damn fast. A quick Google search shows Wisconsin has been asking for more water, due to radium-poisoning and that huge Chinese plant built by Foxboro needing water, but the stories I saw were old and if irc they ended up building a much smaller plant than expected, I don’t know what happened in the end.
 

The Ontario incident was front of mind and yes it fell apart quickly. I'm no expert on the issue, but my general knowledge is that both sides like to ask for the water and also don't want to share it with the US being the more guilty party. 

Quote

My complaint is about calling the Great Lakes US lakes. They aren’t. They are international lakes shared by Canada and the US. A search of Canada’s ten largest lakes will include the Great Lakes as well, but they never include Lake Michigan even though it’s part of the Great Lakes and all of the lakes are considered a shared resource.  And the stories always point out that the total volume of the lakes is considered, even the part in the US. It really amuses me to see how many of those US lists talk about the lakes that “share a border”. Nevada and California share a border. New York and Pennsylvania share a border. North Dakota and South Dakota share a border. The Great Lakes don’t “share a border”, they are located in two different countries. 

They're both North American lakes and US and Canadian lakes. I grew up learning how to fish on Lake Superior and trust me, most Minnesotans don't want to even share it with Wisconsin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

They still haven't achieved net energy out. What they have achieved is more energy out than what the laser part of the system puts in. So a step forward, but still some way from the finish line. This needs to NOT start distracting people and funding from implementing energy options that actually work today.

So far everyone is saying that they did, but like you said that's the main stream media. I haven't found a reliable scientific source yet. We'll what the announcement says today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2022 at 4:43 PM, ThinkerX said:

NASA satellite study says ocean levels could rise as much as 12 inches (30 centimeters) by 2050, which would be an absolute disaster for low lying US cities (and similar cities elsewhere). To me, the key word here is 'could,' when I've attempted to run the numbers (which is not easy) my results are a few inches under that - maybe eight inches (20 centimeters). I freely admit that my calculation could be in error.

 

Rising sea levels could swamp the US coastline by 2050, NASA predicts | Live Science

[quote]

According to the study, which analyzed three decades of satellite observations, by 2050, sea levels along the coastlines of the contiguous U.S. could rise as much as 12 inches (30 centimeters) above current waterlines, the research team said in a statement(opens in new tab). The Gulf Coast and Southeast are expected to be most severely impacted, and will likely experience increased storm and tidal flooding in the near future, according to the study, published Oct. 6 in the journal Communications Earth & Environment(opens in new tab). [/quote]

 

This new report compliments the '2022 Technical Sea Level Rise Report,' released in February.

2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report (noaa.gov)

 

I'm a bit late to respond to this post, but watching what NASA does with their Cape Canaveral facility is an important signal. The moment they shut it down is the moment to GTFO of Florida (and other low-lying places) and head to higher ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

So far everyone is saying that they did, but like you said that's the main stream media. I haven't found a reliable scientific source yet. We'll what the announcement says today.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63950962

Quote

And although the experiment got more energy out than the laser put in, this did not include the energy needed to make the lasers work - which was far greater that the amount of energy the hydrogen produced.

Quote

On the question of how long before we could see fusion being used in power stations, LLNL Director Dr. Kim Budil said there were still significant hurdles but that: "with concerted efforts and investment, a few decades of research on the underlying technologies could put us in a position to build a power plant".

This is progress from when scientists used to say 50 - 60 years in answer to that question.

Clearly progress but I don't think anyone is pretending that this solves our current problems.  Unless there is a case to be made that we should only be researching more timely solutions.

Edited by Padraig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

So far everyone is saying that they did, but like you said that's the main stream media. I haven't found a reliable scientific source yet. We'll what the announcement says today.

The Sabine Hossenfelder video in my post helps cut through the doublespeak a bit. In her video she's talking about a different approach to fusion but the principles I think are similar. There is Qplasma, which is the energy input to create and maintain the plasma, and then there is Qtotal which is all the energy inputs to run a fusion power plant. In this current case there would be Qlaser and Qtotal. What I got from reading an article is that the fusion energy output is >Qlaser, but still short of exceeding Qtotal. Qtotal is not going to be all that much more than Qplasma/laser since maybe 90% or more of the energy input into a fusion power plant with be to maintain the plasma or operate the lasers. But there is still that hurdle to cross before you get nett energy out. Crossing the Qplasma/laser threshold is obviously an extremely important and significant achievement. But people need to be clear in their understanding of what achieving that milestone really means. It means fusion power is closer, and continuing the work is important, but we still don't know how close.

Obviously there would be three streams of work in developing a productive fusion power plant: increasing the energy output (or rather energy capture) of the fusion reaction; decreasing Qplasma/laser, and closing the gap between Qtotal and Qplasma/laser. If the energy out is 101% of Qplasma/laser then if Qtotal can be 100.9999% of Qplasma/laser then you have complete proof of concept. But if Qtotal is 101.00001% of Qplasma/laser then we still don't have a working model for power generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Sign of how serious the coastal erosion issue is getting:

(It's also severe where I'm at; basically lost an entire street to bluff erosion ten or twelve years back)

 

France tears down beach apartment block as rising sea bites (msn.com)

Then there is this...

New study claims we can’t stop the rapid global sea level rise due to warming (msn.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, as pessimistic as I can be, I hadn't even seen that one coming...

This firm is working to control the climate. Should the world let it?

 

Quote

 

But it also speaks to the allure and the strangeness of some types of geoengineering: Almost anyone can do it. More than a decade ago, Russ George, an American entrepreneur, dumped 100 tons of iron sulfate off a rented fishing boat and into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Canada, trying to create an algal bloom that would absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

[...]

Iseman said in a video interview with The Washington Post that he was frustrated by delays to other projects, and wanted to know if the process was as simple as he imagined. “It was mainly to see that I could do it.”

“This field is not moving forward,” he added. “We’re the guys willing to go out on a limb.”

Some experts worry that the new company could set a dangerous precedent. Jesse Reynolds, an expert in solar geoengineering governance and law, pointed to the Oxford Principles for Geoengineering, a set of guidelines for research into the field that include public engagement, independent assessment of possible impacts and more.

“I looked at the five Oxford principles and they’re acting in a way that’s consistent with none of them,” Reynolds said. While it’s unlikely that the company is currently breaking any laws — due largely, he said, to the minuscule scale that it’s currently operating on — he worries that it could erode the careful norms around a new technology that have taken decades to establish.

[...]

Reynolds says it’s a question of which values should rule in an era of rising temperatures and frustration: the start-up mentality or that of researchers and nations.

“This is the ‘move fast and break things’ worldview,” he said.

 

As if things weren't bad enough, as things worsen, we'll no doubt have to contend with legions of well-meaning idiots who will take the initiative of dumping toxic materials in the stratosphere.

Bad enough that some states will do it (like China), but if individuals can do it as well... Seven hells, just one lone human with a stupid idea might accidentally find a way to fuck things up beyond repair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...