The lakes you are referring to are within the caldera of Mount Newberry. They're not all that big. The outflow from them isn't big enough to supply this project so you would be lowering the level of the lakes. Something Oregonians wouldn't stand for. Those two lakes are gems and the whole area is good enough to be considered for a National Park. The area in general is quite arid although not as arid as Phoenix. The only source of water they could use would be the Deschutes River.
Don't worry, the water near there is not allowed to flow to the sea uninterrupted. The large river near the drilling site is the Deschutes river. From May to September over 80% of the water is taken out near Bend for irrigation. Further down near Madras is Round Butte Reservoir which catches water from the Deschutes, Crooked and Metolius rivers. Once the Deschutes reaches the Columbia River there are still The Dalles Dam and Bonneville Dam before it flows freely to the Pacific Ocean.
24 million gallons is just for testing purposes. If they actually develop the power they're going to need a lot more water than that. The area they are in is pretty arid and the only major source of water nearby is the Deschutes River. They might have to fight with irrigation districts over who gets it.
What surrounding population? There are a few people west of there in La Pine but to the east and south it's practically unpopulated and Mount Newberry is between the drilling and Bend (the nearest city of any size). Also, the area is quite arid so mud volcanoes are not possible. I just wonder where they're going to get the water.
This drilling doesn't get anywhere near the lava under Newberry, just hot rocks well above the lava, and the amount of heat that will be removed is trivial compared to the total heat available. I just don't see it as an issue in the short term, maybe 1,000 years from now.
Mount Newberry is a dormant volcano. There is no exposed lava and the proposed drilling just goes into hot rocks, not lava. If you were to drill down to where the lava actually is you might precipitate an eruption. That wouldn't be a good thing.
Replying to both you and demonlapin if we reach the point where we can't pay our bills as a nation we're screwed and we'll probably take most of the rest of the world down with us. It would probably issue in a new dark age.
The total debt right now is large but it was larger as a percentage of GDP right after WW II and we worked our way out of that. We can do it again. Of course the top marginal tax rate back in the 1950's was over 90%. That didn't cause our economy to collapse. A tax increase and reduction in military spending would take care of most of the problem.
That's 13 gigatonnes per year currently. From the Wikipedia reference on CO2 there is about 3,160 gigatonnes of it in the atmosphere with a concentration of 390 ppmv. That means each 1 ppmv in the atmosphere is about 8.1 gigatonnes of CO2. In 1830 CO2 was about 280 ppmv (and 260-280 ppmv for 10,000 years before that.) Now it is 390 ppmv, an increase of 110 ppmv, nearly all of it from human emissions. That's an increase of 891 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1830, over 80% of it since 1940. Only about 43% of the human emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere, the rest is absorbed by the oceans, plants and some other minor sinks. That means total human emissions of CO2 since 1830 amount to around 2,073 gigatonnes. That's a significant number compared to 3,160 gigatonnes of total atmospheric CO2.
According to the Wikipedia article on greenhouse gases CO2 is 9-26% of the global warming effect (being conservative I'll use 15% as the average). According to the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect the current surface temperature average is 14-15C (~58F) but without any greenhouse effect the surface temperature would be -18 or -19 C (~-1F) or around 33C of greenhouse warming. So using the 15% number CO2 in the atmosphere causes around of 5C (11F) of the warming directly but that warming from CO2 also causes elevated water vapor and other feedbacks which cause their own warming (and in some cases cooling). The direct climate sensitivity (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2) is about 1.2C but including feedbacks it's probably around 3C) That means the total warming (direct and indirect) from CO2 in the greenhouse effect is considerably larger than that, probably in the 10-15C range out of a total of about 33C. So if CO2 is responsible for 33--45% of the total greenhouse effect isn't it reasonable to expect a nearly 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a temperature increase?
I know Wikipedia isn't particularly authoritative but their numbers for stuff like this are usually pretty good. Is that citation enough for you?
What do you think it will do to the US's credit rating if the federal government doesn't pay those off. The consequences of not paying are worse than paying it is.
Most of my big vacations are in places were there is limited or no connectivity because I'm whitewater rafting. Once my work asked me to take a cell phone along and I told them if they wanted to send a satellite phone along with me I'd check in once a day. They decided not to. By the second day of a trip I usually don't even think about work until we reach the take out. A vacation where you're checking your messages every day is not really a vacation at all.
... after all it's definition is (more or less) covering the entire surface of the world with solar cells.
The Sun puts more energy on the surface of the Earth in less than 12 hours than humans currently use in a year. We're not anywhere close to having to cover the whole planet or even the whole land surface of the planet with solar cells. A few years ago someone calculated how much area would have to be covered by solar cells to supply all of our power and it was about 40x40 (miles or kilometers, I don't remember which). That's pretty small to me.
The growth in renewable energy around the world has been about as fast as it can be without a WW II type effort to increase it. It will take another 20-30 years to build it out so it's the dominant energy source.
I think you are wrong. In a completely dry atmosphere, no water vapor, no clouds and other greenhouse gases and aerosols not varying I think the percentage of the total greenhouse effect from CO2 would be pretty close to constant. The Sun's output varying wouldn't affect the percentage much, just the absolute amount of energy captured by CO2.
... there is no consistent proof that "we have done" anything.
I gave you an example of one thing that is consistently provable. Humans emitted about 30 gigatonnes of CO2 in 2010. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 13 gigatonnes. The isotopic ratio of c12 to c13 in the atmosphere has changed because fossil fuels have a higher c12/c13 ratio. Further evidence that burning fossil fuels is the source of the atmospheric increase.
Another consistently provable thing is that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in the infrared band. That is easily measured in the laboratory.
I didn't mention any of those other things you talked about but it was amusing to read.
There is consistent proof that the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere are due primarily to human burning of fossil fuels. I'd like to see you try to disprove that.
Slashdot Mirror
The lakes you are referring to are within the caldera of Mount Newberry. They're not all that big. The outflow from them isn't big enough to supply this project so you would be lowering the level of the lakes. Something Oregonians wouldn't stand for. Those two lakes are gems and the whole area is good enough to be considered for a National Park. The area in general is quite arid although not as arid as Phoenix. The only source of water they could use would be the Deschutes River.
Don't worry, the water near there is not allowed to flow to the sea uninterrupted. The large river near the drilling site is the Deschutes river. From May to September over 80% of the water is taken out near Bend for irrigation. Further down near Madras is Round Butte Reservoir which catches water from the Deschutes, Crooked and Metolius rivers. Once the Deschutes reaches the Columbia River there are still The Dalles Dam and Bonneville Dam before it flows freely to the Pacific Ocean.
24 million gallons is just for testing purposes. If they actually develop the power they're going to need a lot more water than that. The area they are in is pretty arid and the only major source of water nearby is the Deschutes River. They might have to fight with irrigation districts over who gets it.
No, the rocks they are drilling into are not even close to being melted by heat.
You're going to pump water 150 miles from the Pacific Ocean to feed the power station? Riiiggghhhttt!
That's a pretty hilarious video but it happened in the 1960's. I think ODOT learned their lesson on that one.
What surrounding population? There are a few people west of there in La Pine but to the east and south it's practically unpopulated and Mount Newberry is between the drilling and Bend (the nearest city of any size). Also, the area is quite arid so mud volcanoes are not possible. I just wonder where they're going to get the water.
This drilling doesn't get anywhere near the lava under Newberry, just hot rocks well above the lava, and the amount of heat that will be removed is trivial compared to the total heat available. I just don't see it as an issue in the short term, maybe 1,000 years from now.
Mount Newberry is a dormant volcano. There is no exposed lava and the proposed drilling just goes into hot rocks, not lava. If you were to drill down to where the lava actually is you might precipitate an eruption. That wouldn't be a good thing.
I agree with you but we live in a world of instant gratification. We want everything NOW!
Having the voter retain a copy of their ballot just makes vote buying easier and more practical. "Prove you voted my way before I pay you off."
See reply to nedlohs above.
Replying to both you and demonlapin if we reach the point where we can't pay our bills as a nation we're screwed and we'll probably take most of the rest of the world down with us. It would probably issue in a new dark age.
The total debt right now is large but it was larger as a percentage of GDP right after WW II and we worked our way out of that. We can do it again. Of course the top marginal tax rate back in the 1950's was over 90%. That didn't cause our economy to collapse. A tax increase and reduction in military spending would take care of most of the problem.
That's 13 gigatonnes per year currently. From the Wikipedia reference on CO2 there is about 3,160 gigatonnes of it in the atmosphere with a concentration of 390 ppmv. That means each 1 ppmv in the atmosphere is about 8.1 gigatonnes of CO2. In 1830 CO2 was about 280 ppmv (and 260-280 ppmv for 10,000 years before that.) Now it is 390 ppmv, an increase of 110 ppmv, nearly all of it from human emissions. That's an increase of 891 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1830, over 80% of it since 1940. Only about 43% of the human emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere, the rest is absorbed by the oceans, plants and some other minor sinks. That means total human emissions of CO2 since 1830 amount to around 2,073 gigatonnes. That's a significant number compared to 3,160 gigatonnes of total atmospheric CO2.
According to the Wikipedia article on greenhouse gases CO2 is 9-26% of the global warming effect (being conservative I'll use 15% as the average). According to the Wikipedia article on the greenhouse effect the current surface temperature average is 14-15C (~58F) but without any greenhouse effect the surface temperature would be -18 or -19 C (~-1F) or around 33C of greenhouse warming. So using the 15% number CO2 in the atmosphere causes around of 5C (11F) of the warming directly but that warming from CO2 also causes elevated water vapor and other feedbacks which cause their own warming (and in some cases cooling). The direct climate sensitivity (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2) is about 1.2C but including feedbacks it's probably around 3C) That means the total warming (direct and indirect) from CO2 in the greenhouse effect is considerably larger than that, probably in the 10-15C range out of a total of about 33C. So if CO2 is responsible for 33--45% of the total greenhouse effect isn't it reasonable to expect a nearly 40% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a temperature increase?
I know Wikipedia isn't particularly authoritative but their numbers for stuff like this are usually pretty good. Is that citation enough for you?
What do you think it will do to the US's credit rating if the federal government doesn't pay those off. The consequences of not paying are worse than paying it is.
Most of my big vacations are in places were there is limited or no connectivity because I'm whitewater rafting. Once my work asked me to take a cell phone along and I told them if they wanted to send a satellite phone along with me I'd check in once a day. They decided not to. By the second day of a trip I usually don't even think about work until we reach the take out. A vacation where you're checking your messages every day is not really a vacation at all.
Invading Iran would be an even bigger mistake than invading Iraq was. You think the federal deficit it bad now?
The Sun puts more energy on the surface of the Earth in less than 12 hours than humans currently use in a year. We're not anywhere close to having to cover the whole planet or even the whole land surface of the planet with solar cells. A few years ago someone calculated how much area would have to be covered by solar cells to supply all of our power and it was about 40x40 (miles or kilometers, I don't remember which). That's pretty small to me.
Oh, the US empire is much more subtle than that.
The growth in renewable energy around the world has been about as fast as it can be without a WW II type effort to increase it. It will take another 20-30 years to build it out so it's the dominant energy source.
I think you are wrong. In a completely dry atmosphere, no water vapor, no clouds and other greenhouse gases and aerosols not varying I think the percentage of the total greenhouse effect from CO2 would be pretty close to constant. The Sun's output varying wouldn't affect the percentage much, just the absolute amount of energy captured by CO2.
You (assuming you are the same AC) said:
I gave you an example of one thing that is consistently provable. Humans emitted about 30 gigatonnes of CO2 in 2010. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by about 13 gigatonnes. The isotopic ratio of c12 to c13 in the atmosphere has changed because fossil fuels have a higher c12/c13 ratio. Further evidence that burning fossil fuels is the source of the atmospheric increase.
Another consistently provable thing is that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in the infrared band. That is easily measured in the laboratory.
I didn't mention any of those other things you talked about but it was amusing to read.
But then the plastic would absorb the CO2 in your soda and it would go flat.
There is consistent proof that the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere are due primarily to human burning of fossil fuels. I'd like to see you try to disprove that.
CO2 in the atmosphere is so well and quickly mixed that there is no danger of depletion zones substantial enough to seriously affect plant life.