It's not an issue of my math improving. It's an issue of you not understanding how logarithmic functions work. The increase in T when CO2 doubles from 280ppm to 560ppm is calculated to be 1.2C. But we're already at 400ppm, and the increase in T so far is very close to 1C. The remaining 160ppm increase will increase T much less than the 120ppm to get us to 400ppm already increased it. Unfortunately I can't find the original paper I had read that calculated the temperature increase to be ~0.1C when going from 400ppm to 500ppm CO2, but the 1.2C per doubling will give you very similar results.
Your numbers are wrong. CO2 doubling from pre-industrial level of 280ppm (to 560ppm) is supposed to generate 1.2C. source: https://scienceofdoom.com/2010...
Because the effect is logarithmic, it takes more and more CO2 to barely budge the temperature as CO2 concentrations rise. To generate another 1.2C in temperature rise, we would then have to increase CO2 to 1120ppm. To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.
And you're aware that constant relative humidity isn't applicable in a complex atmosphere where the frequency of thunderstorms increases with surface temperature, right? Meaning, the hotter it gets at the surface, the more thunderstorm cells form. And thunderstorm cells, incidentally, tend to move massive amounts of heat from the surface to the top of the Troposphere. Almost like the opposite of a feedback loop....
What's settled?
CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas.
It's effect is logarithmic, not linear.
How much warming will we see if we continue pumping CO2 at current rates?
We currently sit just over 400ppm CO2. According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.
The additional warming they're saying is going to happen comes from unproven, unsettled, feedback loop theories.
While you're technically correct, that logic will not be accepted here. Slashdot is dominated by the politically correct doctrine currently being taught in universities and colleges. So gender is a social construct, age isn't. Yet. Neither is race. Yet. Or species. Yet. I look forward to the day when we are to accept Species Dysphoria not as a psychological disorder but as something we should all be tolerant and accepting of.
Who's been more successful undermining the populace's faith in the process, the Russians, or {Jill Stein, the Democrats, the MSM, left wing organizations}?
Getting rid of all combustion engines in North America and Europe will still accomplish almost nothing in relation to worldwide pollution output as long as we continue to buy products from SE Asia. The massive manufacturing capacity of this region is mostly powered by dirty power plants. If people are truly interested in reducing actual worldwide pollution output instead of just moving it from one region to another, this issue needs to be addressed.
I have no problem with foreign governments hacking into political parties and releasing all of their nasty secrets. Politicians are supposed to be honest people serving their country. It's much easier to vote for the right candidate when all of their dirty secrets have been revealed for all to see.
I too am appalled at how many people don't take Russian interference seriously. The KGB spent a half century working to undermine the democratic institutions of the free West, and in many cases they succeeded spectacularly. When the Berlin wall fell and the USSR dissolved, all of the disinformation, subterfuge, misdirection, and methods of internal destruction were left in place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Did the current Russian government actively work to influence the US election? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm skeptical of the claim. Why would they work to get Hillary defeated when they would have had so much material with which to blackmail her? But former Russian (USSR) governments definitely acted to undermine future US governments, and we're still suffering the effects of those efforts today. Take the time to watch the video and listen to the efforts and plans the KGB implemented against the West, and how successful they were.
No I'm not. I'm comparing the price stipulated in a contract from a solar plant to the base cost of coal required to generate the same amount of electricity. I can't factor delivery, shipping, and operation into that, because I'm not citing an actual existing coal plant. As I stated, the article doesn't give any details as to what coal generated electricity costs in Chile. I also don't know how much profit the solar plant is expected to generate, if any, or if the solar plant is receiving subsidies in order to deliver the solar at this rate.
You can argue all you want about the bad reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. But none of that will change the fact that in 2008, there were more violent deaths in Chicago than there were in Iraq. The Obama/Clinton approach to the Middle East is a complete disaster. Millions of refugees from across North Africa and the middle east thanks to their arming of rebels everywhere. US armed rebels have been responsible for indiscriminately killing civilians everywhere across the Middle East including Libya, Egypt, Syria, northern Iraq, Yemen and Tunisia. But please, keep bringing up the invasion of Iraq to distract from this foreign policy disaster.
A guy with a gun who just shot someone is suddenly spooked, and can't take the 5 seconds it takes to check his victim's back pockets for a wallet? Who spooked him? He was shot multiple times in the back. Isn't that odd for a robber to shoot him multiple times and then run without taking his wallet?
What a load of horse shit you're shoveling. The election wasn't stolen. Releasing the dirty secrets of the DNC and Hillary's top guy is not stealing an election. So far the only questionable voting numbers are coming from Detroit, where the votes counted from the machines far exceed the number of ballots, and Detroit was heavily Clinton. Wisconsin's recount ended up adding a hundred votes to Trump. Stop reading #fakenews
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS. Syria, Libya, and the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq represent the worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US.
Because they lost everything in the election. Minority in both House and Senate, no presidential veto, and decimated at the state level. At this point, the Democrats are completely powerless, so they're trying to delegitimize Trump and foment civil unrest as their only means of opposing him.
There's no proof because Russia didn't hack the elections. Julian Assange said Russia wasn't the source of the DNC and Podesta leaks, and he's got way more credibility than a partisan politician, even if that politician is the POTUS. Russian hacking = the real #fakenews
No, it mentions what the contract will pay per MWh. It doesn't mention the cost of generation at all. It's possible the company screwed up and will be losing money over the life of the contract.
To be honest, the article itself is misleading. It quotes a contract to provide solar power at $29.10 per megawatt hour in Chile, and then states that it's roughly half the price of competing coal power. But it doesn't cite any Chilean coal plant numbers to compare with. Current price of coal (Central Appalachian)* is $48/ton. A ton of coal will generate almost 2MWh (1,927kWh) of electricity in a plant with a heat rate of 10,080 bTU/kWh. So your cost of coal per megawatt hour is $24.90. There is much more info needed, in order to fairly compare these two sources, missing from the article. For instance, will the solar plant provide a constant flow of electricity 24/7 like a coal plant could do, or is the $29.10/MWh contract to provide power only as it's generated, ie when the sun is shining?
*Note there are different qualities of coal, all with different prices, different pollutants, different energy densities. It is possible to get coal for much cheaper than the Central Appalachian price, but this is apparently a preferred grade of coal. I am not a coal expert, so I have no idea if this is on the expensive end or the cheap end of producing electricity with coal.
Where does he actually say he opposes the asianification of Silicon Valley? He doesn't say that there. Bannon and Trump are discussing foreign students studying in America. Trump says they come here to study, get degrees, and then we lose them, to which Bannon replies with that line you quoted about Silicon Valley CEO's being from Asia. He does not say whether he thinks it's good or bad. He does not say that he opposes it. It sounds more like he's refuting Trump's claim about losing them. So do you have anything else, or was that it?
Robots don't come from nowhere, they need to be designed, built, installed, programmed, and maintained. Even factories full of robots still need employees for facilities, maintenance, IT, management, finance, and more. So there will be lots of jobs in areas other than construction.
Debt ratios of US States: http://www.usgovernmentspendin...
California isn't the worst, that would be New York. But California certainly isn't the best either...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not an issue of my math improving. It's an issue of you not understanding how logarithmic functions work. The increase in T when CO2 doubles from 280ppm to 560ppm is calculated to be 1.2C. But we're already at 400ppm, and the increase in T so far is very close to 1C. The remaining 160ppm increase will increase T much less than the 120ppm to get us to 400ppm already increased it. Unfortunately I can't find the original paper I had read that calculated the temperature increase to be ~0.1C when going from 400ppm to 500ppm CO2, but the 1.2C per doubling will give you very similar results.
Your numbers are wrong. CO2 doubling from pre-industrial level of 280ppm (to 560ppm) is supposed to generate 1.2C. source: https://scienceofdoom.com/2010...
Because the effect is logarithmic, it takes more and more CO2 to barely budge the temperature as CO2 concentrations rise. To generate another 1.2C in temperature rise, we would then have to increase CO2 to 1120ppm. To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.
And you're aware that constant relative humidity isn't applicable in a complex atmosphere where the frequency of thunderstorms increases with surface temperature, right? Meaning, the hotter it gets at the surface, the more thunderstorm cells form. And thunderstorm cells, incidentally, tend to move massive amounts of heat from the surface to the top of the Troposphere. Almost like the opposite of a feedback loop....
What's settled?
CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. It's effect is logarithmic, not linear. How much warming will we see if we continue pumping CO2 at current rates?
We currently sit just over 400ppm CO2. According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.
The additional warming they're saying is going to happen comes from unproven, unsettled, feedback loop theories.
While you're technically correct, that logic will not be accepted here. Slashdot is dominated by the politically correct doctrine currently being taught in universities and colleges. So gender is a social construct, age isn't. Yet. Neither is race. Yet. Or species. Yet. I look forward to the day when we are to accept Species Dysphoria not as a psychological disorder but as something we should all be tolerant and accepting of.
Who's been more successful undermining the populace's faith in the process, the Russians, or {Jill Stein, the Democrats, the MSM, left wing organizations}?
Getting rid of all combustion engines in North America and Europe will still accomplish almost nothing in relation to worldwide pollution output as long as we continue to buy products from SE Asia. The massive manufacturing capacity of this region is mostly powered by dirty power plants. If people are truly interested in reducing actual worldwide pollution output instead of just moving it from one region to another, this issue needs to be addressed.
I have no problem with foreign governments hacking into political parties and releasing all of their nasty secrets. Politicians are supposed to be honest people serving their country. It's much easier to vote for the right candidate when all of their dirty secrets have been revealed for all to see.
I too am appalled at how many people don't take Russian interference seriously. The KGB spent a half century working to undermine the democratic institutions of the free West, and in many cases they succeeded spectacularly. When the Berlin wall fell and the USSR dissolved, all of the disinformation, subterfuge, misdirection, and methods of internal destruction were left in place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Did the current Russian government actively work to influence the US election? Maybe, maybe not, but I'm skeptical of the claim. Why would they work to get Hillary defeated when they would have had so much material with which to blackmail her? But former Russian (USSR) governments definitely acted to undermine future US governments, and we're still suffering the effects of those efforts today. Take the time to watch the video and listen to the efforts and plans the KGB implemented against the West, and how successful they were.
or maybe develop a versioning system to go along with the edit button, so everyone can see what changed and when...
No I'm not. I'm comparing the price stipulated in a contract from a solar plant to the base cost of coal required to generate the same amount of electricity. I can't factor delivery, shipping, and operation into that, because I'm not citing an actual existing coal plant. As I stated, the article doesn't give any details as to what coal generated electricity costs in Chile. I also don't know how much profit the solar plant is expected to generate, if any, or if the solar plant is receiving subsidies in order to deliver the solar at this rate.
More civilians have died from Obama/Clinton arming rebels across the Middle East than died from the Iraq war and the subsequent insurgency there.
You can argue all you want about the bad reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. But none of that will change the fact that in 2008, there were more violent deaths in Chicago than there were in Iraq. The Obama/Clinton approach to the Middle East is a complete disaster. Millions of refugees from across North Africa and the middle east thanks to their arming of rebels everywhere. US armed rebels have been responsible for indiscriminately killing civilians everywhere across the Middle East including Libya, Egypt, Syria, northern Iraq, Yemen and Tunisia. But please, keep bringing up the invasion of Iraq to distract from this foreign policy disaster.
A guy with a gun who just shot someone is suddenly spooked, and can't take the 5 seconds it takes to check his victim's back pockets for a wallet? Who spooked him? He was shot multiple times in the back. Isn't that odd for a robber to shoot him multiple times and then run without taking his wallet?
So if he died in a robbery, why wasn't he robbed? And why did Wikileaks offer a reward for info about his death?
What a load of horse shit you're shoveling. The election wasn't stolen. Releasing the dirty secrets of the DNC and Hillary's top guy is not stealing an election. So far the only questionable voting numbers are coming from Detroit, where the votes counted from the machines far exceed the number of ballots, and Detroit was heavily Clinton. Wisconsin's recount ended up adding a hundred votes to Trump. Stop reading #fakenews
US agents were supplying arms to numerous rebel factions. Many of these weapons and rebel groups have joined ISIS. Syria, Libya, and the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq represent the worst foreign policy strategy every implemented by the US.
Because they lost everything in the election. Minority in both House and Senate, no presidential veto, and decimated at the state level. At this point, the Democrats are completely powerless, so they're trying to delegitimize Trump and foment civil unrest as their only means of opposing him.
There's no proof because Russia didn't hack the elections. Julian Assange said Russia wasn't the source of the DNC and Podesta leaks, and he's got way more credibility than a partisan politician, even if that politician is the POTUS. Russian hacking = the real #fakenews
No, it mentions what the contract will pay per MWh. It doesn't mention the cost of generation at all. It's possible the company screwed up and will be losing money over the life of the contract.
To be honest, the article itself is misleading. It quotes a contract to provide solar power at $29.10 per megawatt hour in Chile, and then states that it's roughly half the price of competing coal power. But it doesn't cite any Chilean coal plant numbers to compare with. Current price of coal (Central Appalachian)* is $48/ton. A ton of coal will generate almost 2MWh (1,927kWh) of electricity in a plant with a heat rate of 10,080 bTU/kWh. So your cost of coal per megawatt hour is $24.90. There is much more info needed, in order to fairly compare these two sources, missing from the article. For instance, will the solar plant provide a constant flow of electricity 24/7 like a coal plant could do, or is the $29.10/MWh contract to provide power only as it's generated, ie when the sun is shining?
*Note there are different qualities of coal, all with different prices, different pollutants, different energy densities. It is possible to get coal for much cheaper than the Central Appalachian price, but this is apparently a preferred grade of coal. I am not a coal expert, so I have no idea if this is on the expensive end or the cheap end of producing electricity with coal.
Where does he actually say he opposes the asianification of Silicon Valley? He doesn't say that there. Bannon and Trump are discussing foreign students studying in America. Trump says they come here to study, get degrees, and then we lose them, to which Bannon replies with that line you quoted about Silicon Valley CEO's being from Asia. He does not say whether he thinks it's good or bad. He does not say that he opposes it. It sounds more like he's refuting Trump's claim about losing them. So do you have anything else, or was that it?
Robots don't come from nowhere, they need to be designed, built, installed, programmed, and maintained. Even factories full of robots still need employees for facilities, maintenance, IT, management, finance, and more. So there will be lots of jobs in areas other than construction.
On the record as opposing the Asianification of Silicon valley? Really? Please provide citation where he specifically says he opposes it.
Debt ratios of US States: http://www.usgovernmentspendin... California isn't the worst, that would be New York. But California certainly isn't the best either...