2015 “smashed” 2014’s global temperature record

Post by guscost » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 11:06 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #48

ps4fanboy wrote: post #32

Nuclear Power, until those who care about the environment accept that the only clean at scale power solution for base load is nuclear power we will get no where. "Renewables" are great and should be in the mix but they are not an at scale solution. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/source... By going mostly electric for our transportation and nuclear for power generation we could really make a den…

Earth has a set amount of uranium that is destroyed when creating energy. Currently we have about 200 years of uranium available for economical extraction. But if we tried to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear, we would be out within a few decades. Then we'd need to move to other non-renewable materials (thorium?) or start mining astroids. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glob... And the min…

Post by js8 » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 11:07 PM UTC

JupiterMoon wrote: post #75

vectorjohn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people keep saying this, but I really don't think it's true. Solar and wind work fine at scale. There is nothing un-scalable about them. What they don't do is work at night, and in that case nuclear is a fine option. Although batteries that can run a house overnight aren't that expensive.

Any idea what proportion of Western Europe would need to be covered in solar panels and wind farms to reliably give 90% of the required kWh per day? The other 10% could come from tidal. But you'd need much of the potential hydro capacity to act as energy storage. (Assuming battery/hydro back up on a daily basis).

Post by jupiter90000 » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 11:07 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #93

jupiter90000 wrote: post #40

Is anyone aware if there is reliable data prior to say 1880? [1] Is there any possibility that large scale climate trends could be outside of the observed window of time available? For instance, some large scale natural state-shifting appears to occur on the order of hundreds of years (reference is about earthquakes, but maybe relevant?) [2]. Based on everything I've heard/read/etc about this, it seems unlikely that…

"Reliable" is obviously a spectrum, and nothing beats a thermometer. However, there are multiple independent reconstructions of temperatures over the past 2000 years using a variety of proxy sources, from rings in trees to coral growth to bores in Antarctic ice [0]. They provide sufficient evidence that the IPCC thinks it's "likely" (a technical term) that temperatures are higher than anytime in the past thousand yea…

Post by JupiterMoon » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 11:07 PM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #16

ergothus wrote: post #3

Okay - help someone that doesn't truly understand this. Earth's surface can gain heat through 4 ways I can think of (and this is just what I can think of and is likely wrong): 1) Geothermal brings more heat from core/mantle up. I don't think this is currently any larger than normal, nor do I imagine this varies much. 2) Oceans can give up heat they are storing and provide it on the surface. I don't know if El Nino is…

The Earth can only "gain" heat through #3, solar radiation. The other 3 items you list can store and release heat at a later time, but they can not generate more heat than they already possess now. (This is not strictly true, conversion of mass to energy, e=mc^2, means that nuclear and fusion energy could create new heat at the expense of matter, but we generally assume that on planets, this is negligible.) So if peo…

Post by ekianjo » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

vectorjohn wrote: post #46

ps4fanboy wrote: post #32

Nuclear Power, until those who care about the environment accept that the only clean at scale power solution for base load is nuclear power we will get no where. "Renewables" are great and should be in the mix but they are not an at scale solution. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/source... By going mostly electric for our transportation and nuclear for power generation we could really make a den…

Lots of people keep saying this, but I really don't think it's true. Solar and wind work fine at scale. There is nothing un-scalable about them. What they don't do is work at night, and in that case nuclear is a fine option. Although batteries that can run a house overnight aren't that expensive.