Ah, the big differences seem to be based around fuel enrichment and fabrication - the low EROI numbers come from people who assume you're using coal powered electricty to enrich your fuel.
As others have pointed out it's not hot enough to make useful power.
But, think combined heat and power if you want maximal efficiency. Low temperature heat is useless for making work, but it's great for keeping your house toasty.
It's a time to celebrate, not to have what sounds like a fairly businessy and serious event. This is like celebrating the Fourth of July by bombing Britain.
Every time we give up on Keynes we get a bubble followed by a crash.
It's so fucking easy - spend your way out of depressions, reimburse the debt when things are good. But you always get some idiot saying we should do the opposite.
Hint: Never vote for the right when the economy goes bad - they'll just make it worse. You could defend voting for the right in good times, but they'll probably fuck up as badly as the left even so.
The terminology is how you tell if a paper is written by people with applied science degrees in global warming computer modelling to get impact in the media and thus funding, and not by real scientists.
The terminology comes from a press release, not a paper.
It's written by a guy called Vince Stricherz:
I spent more than 20 years as a reporter and editor in broadcast, print and wire service news, and have been covering physical sciences at UW for more than a decade. I currently cover Earth and space sciences, chemistry and physics, and also handle some editing duties for UW Today and the Faculty & Staff Insider Web pages.
No need to indulge in uninformed speculation about "people with applied science degrees in global warming computer modelling" when two clicks will tell you it was written by a journalist.
The same models that can't predict the path of a hurricane, or whether it's going to be pissing rain on Canada for the next 14 days(though common wisdom says it will be).
Why did you say that. Even you know why it's not worth saying that.
People can make statistics support whatever position they want to, and none of those are in the least bit relevant. The facts are that if DDT were being made in quantities sufficient for protecting the millions of acres of US farmland, it would be even cheaper via economy of scale.
"Facts don't matter, my poor understanding of economic theory trumps all".
In 1971 the US used 14 million pounds of DDT, around 6340 tonnes, i.e around 2/3 of current world production. Where's the economy of scale?
Use had been higher in the '60s, up to 27 million pounds in 1966, but that is only 12000 tonnes, about 33% more than current production. Is that enough to produce massive economies of scale?
Thanks for the citation. Yeah I had a moment of going to 57 states there with CO vs CO2. I realized that just after posting it and hoped this thread was dead enough that no-one would read it.
Damn good thing the CO level was 0.2ppm, 400ppm of CO would be bad for you
See what I mean about 4:30, for example? I don't see any objective reason to include those high readings on either side of a volcano event. For many of the highest readings, it's just not clear if that's the beginning of the breeze shifting to include the volcanic CO2 or not.
Re-read what they say - the choice of the readings to omit from the series is not made by man, it's made by running the values through a filter. I suppose you can find out exactly what the filter is if you look hard enough.
I suppose to be on the safe side, one could exclude an hour on either side of the part that's obviously volcanic. If you do that, it excludes a lot of high readings and gives a different result. The readings you provided from other places help. I'm assuming those other places aren't also active volcanos!
The letter 'O' is represented in Morse code by three dashes, while the letter 'M' is represented by two dashes. Therefore the vibration pattern of . . . - - . . . spells out SMS, not SOS. It's a clever and subtle way to announce text messages, and kudos to the Apple engineer who came up with it.
Dozens of people have replied to those posts, but not one has cited a single measurement, anywhere in the world, even in the middle of LA, with readings anywhere NEAR that high. I just checked the reading in downtown Houston, TX, one of the country's dirtiest cities. It's 0.2 ppm. These guys are claiming overall atmospheric C02 of 400 ppm.
WTF? Where the hell do you get 0.2 ppm CO2? Source?
In Phoenix, USA CO2 concentration was monitored for nearly a year and values ranged from a daily minimum of 390 ppm rising to a daily maximum of 491 ppm, although a maximum value of 619 ppm was attained (Idso et al., 2002).
619 ppm in 2002 in Phoenix good enough for you?
Looks like your Houston figure is dodgy. Confusing CO with CO2 maybe?
* Researchers used tree ring data as a temperature proxy in their published climate predictions.
Yup
* Researchers found that when compared to direct measurement, tree ring data does not match actual temperatures.
Under some conditions, which they discussed at length in publicly published papers.
* Researchers continue to use tree ring data (that they now know is invalid) when it shows rising temperatures.
They do not know the data is invalid they know it diverges from the temperature data under certain conditions.
* Researchers drop tree ring data when it show dropping temperatures. (AKA 'hide the decline')
Researchers use the known temperature instead of a proxy when they know the temperature. They talk about this ad-nauseam.
* Hacker breaks into researchers email and finds email that the researcher tells another researcher about selectively dropping data.
That's not what he said.
* The email clearly states the purpose of dropping the data is to change the outcome of the prediction.
What prediction? It's a graph of historical temperature, not future temperature.
No one has explained how using data from a known bad source.
It's not a known bad source. It's a source that is known to only work under certain conditions. Many other sources have limits. You do know that a mercury thermometer won't work for temperatures below 234K? Does that mean mercury thermometers are a "known bad source"?
While more open to letting users want with their phones than most devices, the N900 hardware has some significant black boxes and comes with binary blobs.
Which, as far as I know, don't have anything to do with keyboard input.
Yes of course they need to disregard some of the data from this particular station, which is the problem with this monitoring station. In the sample graph on the page, they chose to include the 4:30 AM reading, which looks like it may well be part of the volcanic breeze. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's entirely subjective whether or not you want to include that.
Subjective massaging of data like that represents the person's OPINION, not an objective measurement.
What part of
These periods of elevated and variable CO2 levels are so different from the typical measurements that is easy to remove them from the final data set using a simple mathematical “filter.”
don't you understand?
And, given that it comes up with the same results as all the other measurements we have, what is your problem?
They discarded 15% of the days because they clearly didn't fit. Why would they include some clearly anomalous readings, or exclude some clearly normal readings? And what would happen even if they included them? The graph would get noisier, but the trend would be the same. (*)
It's pretty easy to see which days are affected by volcanic CO2 increases.
These periods of elevated and variable CO2 levels are so different from the typical measurements that is easy to remove them from the final data set using a simple mathematical “filter.”
But you think there is an amazing conspiracy. This tells us more about what's going on in your head than what's going on in the atmosphere.
((*) Note that the readings are only discarded in the sense that they are not included in this series, they don't actualy throw the readings away - the "discarded" readings have been used for other research, for example into how volcanic C02 mixes with the atmosphere).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the big differences seem to be based around fuel enrichment and fabrication - the low EROI numbers come from people who assume you're using coal powered electricty to enrich your fuel.
This would, of course, be insane.
A solar cell takes far more energy (likely coal or oil) to produce than the panel will ever, EVER, get back in its usable life.
Wrong, a solar cell will produce 6x as much energy over it's life as it took to produce. That factor is continuing to increase. It's not as good as most other electric power sources, but it edges out nuclear's 5x. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03/energy-return-on-investment-which-fuels-win
Zow, EROI of 5 for nuclear? That's amazingly low. Most quotes I see are for around 40-60.
The referenced paper: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review seems to be somewhat out of step with other figures I've seen.
Dishwasher sized will fit into most full size cars right now.
For values of "full sized" approaching "ridiculously big".
As others have pointed out it's not hot enough to make useful power.
But, think combined heat and power if you want maximal efficiency. Low temperature heat is useless for making work, but it's great for keeping your house toasty.
Why do you put it in such a confusing way? Why "Number of Republicans voting NO for both bailouts"?
Oh, because you're trying to hide the fact that most republicans voted "yes" for the bank bailouts.
See the buried AC comment above for the details.
Go USA!
It's a time to celebrate, not to have what sounds like a fairly businessy and serious event. This is like celebrating the Fourth of July by bombing Britain.
Soundls like a plan to me.
Go for it!
This is exactly the opposite of the truth.
Every time we give up on Keynes we get a bubble followed by a crash.
It's so fucking easy - spend your way out of depressions, reimburse the debt when things are good. But you always get some idiot saying we should do the opposite.
Uh, Britain is in Europe you moron.
And Britain is not doing any better than France, and considerably worse than Germany.
Well, you a reaping what you sowed.
Hint: Never vote for the right when the economy goes bad - they'll just make it worse. You could defend voting for the right in good times, but they'll probably fuck up as badly as the left even so.
The terminology is how you tell if a paper is written by people with applied science degrees in global warming computer modelling to get impact in the media and thus funding, and not by real scientists.
The terminology comes from a press release, not a paper.
It's written by a guy called Vince Stricherz:
I spent more than 20 years as a reporter and editor in broadcast, print and wire service news, and have been covering physical sciences at UW for more than a decade. I currently cover Earth and space sciences, chemistry and physics, and also handle some editing duties for UW Today and the Faculty & Staff Insider Web pages.
No need to indulge in uninformed speculation about "people with applied science degrees in global warming computer modelling" when two clicks will tell you it was written by a journalist.
Play the ball, not the man.
What is your argument?
Waaah, he won't tell me the nickname he uses to hide his real name, AGW is a scam and Al Gore is fat.
Can't see a lot of intellect there.
So, do you agree with Stumbles that:
This whole global warming because of mans activities just took a hard nose dive into concrete.
and what in this article makes you think that?
The obvious mistakes were pointed out repeatedly, but still the papers were published...
[Citation Needed]
The same models that can't predict the path of a hurricane, or whether it's going to be pissing rain on Canada for the next 14 days(though common wisdom says it will be).
Why did you say that. Even you know why it's not worth saying that.
Dishonest people make dishonest arguments.
You got a flamebait mod.
Should have been +5 insightful.
After all the article itself was posted as troll/flambait.
That's an argument for them banning clients, not servers.
People can make statistics support whatever position they want to, and none of those are in the least bit relevant. The facts are that if DDT were being made in quantities sufficient for protecting the millions of acres of US farmland, it would be even cheaper via economy of scale.
"Facts don't matter, my poor understanding of economic theory trumps all".
In 1971 the US used 14 million pounds of DDT, around 6340 tonnes, i.e around 2/3 of current world production. Where's the economy of scale?
Use had been higher in the '60s, up to 27 million pounds in 1966, but that is only 12000 tonnes, about 33% more than current production. Is that enough to produce massive economies of scale?
Source: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35-c5.pdf
Damn, that's the best argument I've seen so far.
Thanks for the citation. Yeah I had a moment of going to 57 states there with CO vs CO2. I realized that just after posting it and hoped this thread was dead enough that no-one would read it.
Damn good thing the CO level was 0.2ppm, 400ppm of CO would be bad for you
See what I mean about 4:30, for example? I don't see any objective reason to include those high readings on either side of a volcano event. For many of the highest readings, it's just not clear if that's the beginning of the breeze shifting to include the volcanic CO2 or not.
Re-read what they say - the choice of the readings to omit from the series is not made by man, it's made by running the values through a filter. I suppose you can find out exactly what the filter is if you look hard enough.
I suppose to be on the safe side, one could exclude an hour on either side of the part that's obviously volcanic. If you do that, it excludes a lot of high readings and gives a different result. The readings you provided from other places help. I'm assuming those other places aren't also active volcanos!
Wikipedia is your friend.
The letter 'O' is represented in Morse code by three dashes, while the letter 'M' is represented by two dashes. Therefore the vibration pattern of . . . - - . . . spells out SMS, not SOS. It's a clever and subtle way to announce text messages, and kudos to the Apple engineer who came up with it.
ITYM NOKIA
I've been asking and asking for citations to any other similar result.
Well, just looking at the page I pointed out to you you can see the graphs for Barrow, Samoa and the South Pole.
Actual numbers can be found at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel-flask/sio-keel-flasksam.html
Dozens of people have replied to those posts, but not one has cited a single measurement, anywhere in the world, even in the middle of LA, with readings anywhere NEAR that high. I just checked the reading in downtown Houston, TX, one of the country's dirtiest cities. It's 0.2 ppm. These guys are claiming overall atmospheric C02 of 400 ppm.
WTF? Where the hell do you get 0.2 ppm CO2? Source?
Just quickly looking around the web I can find papers like Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature across an urban-rural transect
Which includes the gem:
In Phoenix, USA CO2 concentration was monitored for nearly a year and values ranged from a daily minimum of 390 ppm rising to a daily maximum of 491 ppm, although a maximum value of 619 ppm was attained (Idso et al., 2002).
619 ppm in 2002 in Phoenix good enough for you?
Looks like your Houston figure is dodgy. Confusing CO with CO2 maybe?
Here is what we know:
* Researchers used tree ring data as a temperature proxy in their published climate predictions.
Yup
* Researchers found that when compared to direct measurement, tree ring data does not match actual temperatures.
Under some conditions, which they discussed at length in publicly published papers.
* Researchers continue to use tree ring data (that they now know is invalid) when it shows rising temperatures.
They do not know the data is invalid they know it diverges from the temperature data under certain conditions.
* Researchers drop tree ring data when it show dropping temperatures. (AKA 'hide the decline')
Researchers use the known temperature instead of a proxy when they know the temperature. They talk about this ad-nauseam.
* Hacker breaks into researchers email and finds email that the researcher tells another researcher about selectively dropping data.
That's not what he said.
* The email clearly states the purpose of dropping the data is to change the outcome of the prediction.
What prediction? It's a graph of historical temperature, not future temperature.
No one has explained how using data from a known bad source.
It's not a known bad source. It's a source that is known to only work under certain conditions. Many other sources have limits. You do know that a mercury thermometer won't work for temperatures below 234K? Does that mean mercury thermometers are a "known bad source"?
While more open to letting users want with their phones than most devices, the N900 hardware has some significant black boxes and comes with binary blobs.
Which, as far as I know, don't have anything to do with keyboard input.
Yes of course they need to disregard some of the data from this particular station, which is the problem with this monitoring station. In the sample graph on the page, they chose to include the 4:30 AM reading, which looks like it may well be part of the volcanic breeze. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It's entirely subjective whether or not you want to include that.
Subjective massaging of data like that represents the person's OPINION, not an objective measurement.
What part of
These periods of elevated and variable CO2 levels are so different from the typical measurements that is easy to remove them from the final data set using a simple mathematical “filter.”
don't you understand?
And, given that it comes up with the same results as all the other measurements we have, what is your problem?
They discarded 15% of the days because they clearly didn't fit. Why would they include some clearly anomalous readings, or exclude some clearly normal readings? And what would happen even if they included them? The graph would get noisier, but the trend would be the same. (*)
Look at the graphs:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/
It's pretty easy to see which days are affected by volcanic CO2 increases.
These periods of elevated and variable CO2 levels are so different from the typical measurements that is easy to remove them from the final data set using a simple mathematical “filter.”
But you think there is an amazing conspiracy. This tells us more about what's going on in your head than what's going on in the atmosphere.
((*) Note that the readings are only discarded in the sense that they are not included in this series, they don't actualy throw the readings away - the "discarded" readings have been used for other research, for example into how volcanic C02 mixes with the atmosphere).