3 feet in 50 years?!?

On 12/15/2016 5:29 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 2:13:41 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
What's so ironic about global warming is that if it continues long enough and if enough ice/snow melts at the two poles that melt water which is fresh water will mosdt likely change the directions of many ocean currents including the Gulf Stream and that in turn can lead to rapid cooling and a new ice age in the northern areas no longer warmed by that Gulf Stream.

At least this will generate electricity
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archi...aven&topic_set

That was more that 10 years ago. OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) doesn't even sound good.

Here's the problem - they use the difference in temperature of deep ocean water and the warmer surface temperature. This difference in temperature not only is slight to begin with (and effective generation of power benefits from the widest possible differential temperatures - that is what makes the internal combustion engine practical.) but there are two major problems - in the first place you have to expend a great deal of power to pump cold sea water from the depths in sufficient quantity to cool a VERY large plant (because the temperature differential is so small it HAS to be large for a small power output) but it would also be an environmental disaster since the deep sea water would have to be gotten rid of in some manner - if it were on the surface you would be expelling cold de-oxygenated water into the wrong environment. If it were back to it's original place you would both have to pump it there again and it would then be WARMER than the ecology could handle.

There a millions of patents in the world and an extraordinary few are ever profitable no matter how bright the idea behind it.

Wind and solar power are capable of grossly more power output per land area and yet they are totally ineffective. California's Pacific Gas and Electric has an installed base capable of developing 19% of their peak needs and they have at the very best year (a drought year) developed 3% of their average needs. The normal is 2%.

Wishing for a new Thomas Edison or a new Nickolai Tesla isn't a very intelligent thing to do. (most people don't even pronounce it right - it's pronounced "Teshla". The voice recognician instruments can't even understand my name when it's spelled.)

The way energy works is known. There are NO secrets. And the FIRST rule is to have a large temperature differential.


Variegated temperature seawater systems would be possible
if, like solar panels, enough taxpayer revenues are applied
as an energy source. If you were pumping that water yourself
with a bicycle trainer setup you would find it senseless.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/15/2016 6:14 PM, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
DUH

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.80f06a0370eb


"We have to hide the decline"
This is a crazy religion, not at all science.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:50:29 -0800, cyclintom wrote:

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 11:15:11 AM UTC-8, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Andre Jute:
We think this is looney tunes. We think, as an economist who knows for a fact that two degrees increase in global temperature will be very good for trade and harvests and hungry people and trees and new species, that if these clowns could actually bring back global warming, they would be heroes.

The governments of China and India might differ with that. AFIK, both
countries are heavily dependent on irrigation water coming from melting
snowpack in the Himalayas - which snowpack is diminishing as the globe
warms.

Likewise people in Persian Gulf states where an MIT study predicts major
cities will become uninhabitable due to heat by 2100.
--
Pete Cresswell

Pete - where do you come from? China and India's farming and most of their water needs are supplied like most other places on this Earth - from RAIN building a water table and not from run-off from a snowpack.

Pete is quite right. But it's not just Asia - large areas of the western US
are highly dependent on melting snow. Rain is important too - I'm not claiming
that snow supplies all water - but without the snow serious problems develop.

This affects water supplies directly - and also fish runs (wildlife) and
hydro-power and recreation.

Reservoirs are nowhere near big enough to replace the water storage in snow
packs. For example, there have been some recent slightly-warmer-than-normal
winters in my state (Washington), where there's been plenty of winter-time
precipitation, but there's insufficient storage from the flooding rivers.
By mid summer -- farmers, cities, electric power companies, fishers -- everyone
fights over the dwindling supply. Geography and ecosystems being what they
are, increasing reservoir volume can't replace the enormous storage
historically provided by snowpacks. And it doesn't help that the population
in drier areas has been growing.

This doesn't begin to touch on the increased evaporation rates from higher
temperatures. Nor political struggles fighting over shared water resources.

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 5:21:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/15/2016 5:29 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 2:13:41 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
What's so ironic about global warming is that if it continues long enough and if enough ice/snow melts at the two poles that melt water which is fresh water will mosdt likely change the directions of many ocean currents including the Gulf Stream and that in turn can lead to rapid cooling and a new ice age in the northern areas no longer warmed by that Gulf Stream.

At least this will generate electricity
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archi...aven&topic_set

That was more that 10 years ago. OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) doesn't even sound good.

Here's the problem - they use the difference in temperature of deep ocean water and the warmer surface temperature. This difference in temperature not only is slight to begin with (and effective generation of power benefits from the widest possible differential temperatures - that is what makes the internal combustion engine practical.) but there are two major problems - in the first place you have to expend a great deal of power to pump cold sea water from the depths in sufficient quantity to cool a VERY large plant (because the temperature differential is so small it HAS to be large for a small power output) but it would also be an environmental disaster since the deep sea water would have to be gotten rid of in some manner - if it were on the surface you would be expelling cold de-oxygenated water into the wrong environment. If it were back to it's original place you would both have to pump it there again and it would then be WARMER than the ecology could handle.

There a millions of patents in the world and an extraordinary few are ever profitable no matter how bright the idea behind it.

Wind and solar power are capable of grossly more power output per land area and yet they are totally ineffective. California's Pacific Gas and Electric has an installed base capable of developing 19% of their peak needs and they have at the very best year (a drought year) developed 3% of their average needs. The normal is 2%.

Wishing for a new Thomas Edison or a new Nickolai Tesla isn't a very intelligent thing to do. (most people don't even pronounce it right - it's pronounced "Teshla". The voice recognician instruments can't even understand my name when it's spelled.)

The way energy works is known. There are NO secrets. And the FIRST rule is to have a large temperature differential.


Variegated temperature seawater systems would be possible
if, like solar panels, enough taxpayer revenues are applied
as an energy source. If you were pumping that water yourself
with a bicycle trainer setup you would find it senseless.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andrew - before saying something like that don't you think that you should know something about it?

The average ocean temperature at 5,000 ft is 62 degrees. The surface temperature around northern California is 55 degrees. That both a difference of only 7 degrees and an INVERSION of what the OTEC plans which were originally meant for use on Saipan. But even there the water temperatures are not very large.

Show us the calculation of the energy present in two one cubic meter volumes of water with a 7 degree differential temperature.

C shold be cast out for overbearing. Show us ... disingenuous statements of false logic .... annoying BS.

I produce primary field data on clean energy at the cutting edge of technology.

Entertaining but needs restraint.

Andy, it's raining at Yuma ! The home screen opened with rain dripping on the other side on 12/15 with The Plumber running at 10:50 est.

Too much.

On 12-15-2016 19:30, Frank Miles wrote:
Pete is quite right. But it's not just Asia - large areas of the western US
are highly dependent on melting snow. Rain is important too - I'm not claiming
that snow supplies all water - but without the snow serious problems develop.

Melting snow is just delayed rain. :-)

--
Wes Groleau

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 8:06:41 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 5:21:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/15/2016 5:29 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 2:13:41 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
What's so ironic about global warming is that if it continues long enough and if enough ice/snow melts at the two poles that melt water which is fresh water will mosdt likely change the directions of many ocean currents including the Gulf Stream and that in turn can lead to rapid cooling and a new ice age in the northern areas no longer warmed by that Gulf Stream.

At least this will generate electricity
http://archive.wired.com/wired/archi...aven&topic_set

That was more that 10 years ago. OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) doesn't even sound good.

Here's the problem - they use the difference in temperature of deep ocean water and the warmer surface temperature. This difference in temperature not only is slight to begin with (and effective generation of power benefits from the widest possible differential temperatures - that is what makes the internal combustion engine practical.) but there are two major problems - in the first place you have to expend a great deal of power to pump cold sea water from the depths in sufficient quantity to cool a VERY large plant (because the temperature differential is so small it HAS to be large for a small power output) but it would also be an environmental disaster since the deep sea water would have to be gotten rid of in some manner - if it were on the surface you would be expelling cold de-oxygenated water into the wrong environment. If it were back to it's original place you would both have to pump it there again and it would then be WARMER than the ecology could handle.

There a millions of patents in the world and an extraordinary few are ever profitable no matter how bright the idea behind it.

Wind and solar power are capable of grossly more power output per land area and yet they are totally ineffective. California's Pacific Gas and Electric has an installed base capable of developing 19% of their peak needs and they have at the very best year (a drought year) developed 3% of their average needs. The normal is 2%.

Wishing for a new Thomas Edison or a new Nickolai Tesla isn't a very intelligent thing to do. (most people don't even pronounce it right - it's pronounced "Teshla". The voice recognician instruments can't even understand my name when it's spelled.)

The way energy works is known. There are NO secrets. And the FIRST rule is to have a large temperature differential.


Variegated temperature seawater systems would be possible
if, like solar panels, enough taxpayer revenues are applied
as an energy source. If you were pumping that water yourself
with a bicycle trainer setup you would find it senseless.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andrew - before saying something like that don't you think that you should know something about it?

The average ocean temperature at 5,000 ft is 62 degrees. The surface temperature around northern California is 55 degrees. That both a difference of only 7 degrees and an INVERSION of what the OTEC plans which were originally meant for use on Saipan. But even there the water temperatures are not very large.

Show us the calculation of the energy present in two one cubic meter volumes of water with a 7 degree differential temperature.

Hell, you aren't going to do that. Well it's about the same value as a gallon and a half of gasoline. Thermal conversions of very low temperature differentials are notoriously inefficient and the actual recovery would be probably around 2%. Or about three hundreds of a gallon recovery in actual energy.

If you were going to drive your car 25 miles how much gas would it consume at 55 mph? Divide that by 0.03 and multiply that by 2 cubic meters.

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 8:27:58 PM UTC-8, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
On 12-15-2016 19:30, Frank Miles wrote:
Pete is quite right. But it's not just Asia - large areas of the western US
are highly dependent on melting snow. Rain is important too - I'm not claiming
that snow supplies all water - but without the snow serious problems develop.

Melting snow is just delayed rain. :-)

--
Wes Groleau

And the most common use for it is hydroelectric power and not drinking water.

Well EVEN if they continued as they are more land is being made than is being lost.

Where is this land being made? I know China is making some islands in the South China Sea to set up airports, docks to militarize the area. But I am not sure that counts.

A whoa high point of this trip was arriving at Yellowstone Norris Junction Camp finding the hot springs then blowing a huge white vapor column skyward to a level where the go people flew down in a helicopter for a long looks on WTH was going on in there.

In keeping with the Fed crit, that was the last day for camping at Norris