XKCD takes on global warming

[Ben]

Link to any of this data showing polar ice growth?

One of the most hilarious things is the argument that it's too expensive to address even if it is an issue.

Let's see:  consumer goods might go up today, therefore we need "practical" solutions to the problem of maybe not being able to grow wheat in a 100 years???  

What the hell is more practical than making some sacrifices now to avoid long term catastrophe?

That's a spurious argument. Half of us have already mentioned nuclear.

As for wheat, why would we not be able to grow it in 100 years? If anything, if you take AGW at the face value of climate deniers (climate deniers being people who push AGW), we'll be growing lots more wheat, because places like North Dakota will have longer growing seasons. One of the reasons CA beats states like Iowa for crop output is because we can grow crap all year.

[Andiron]

That's a spurious argument. Half of us have already mentioned nuclear.

As for wheat, why would we not be able to grow it in 100 years? If anything, if you take AGW at the face value of climate deniers (climate deniers being people who push AGW), we'll be growing lots more wheat, because places like North Dakota will have longer growing seasons. One of the reasons CA beats states like Iowa for crop output is because we can grow crap all year.

My very favorite part of the OMFGAGW acolytes;  Claims of certain doom that are several lifetimes off,  and in no danger of actually being refuted.

[RoadKingLarry]

The problem being that the only sacrifices being made are financial in nature for the folks in the middle.
Damn little of the "Save the Climate" crap does anything to actually address the problem or propose a solution.
Third world crap holes (including China) are encouraged to continue spewing toxic crap into the environment because it would be "unfair" to hold them to the same standards as developed countries when it comes to damaging the ecosystem.

The climate on this rock has been undergoing cyclic swings since there has been a climate to have cyclic swings.
In the '60s and '70s we were doomed to a new Ice Age if we didn't FIX IT NOW!
In the '90s it became MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING "oh god, oh god we're all gonna die" and the world will be covered in water because all the ice will melt and Kevin Costner will be in charge if we don't FIX IT NOW! We were given a 10 year time frame before NYC was going to under water, of course that was 15+ years ago.

Now it's MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE[/I] because the reality didn't fit the foretold results of the doctored data.

What this world needs is a good old fashioned plague that takes out 80% of the population.
Either I'd live through or I'd die with the rest but one way or the other at least I wouldn't have to listen to anymore liberal, elitist piss-ants lecturing me on what I need to sacrifice for the good of the world so they can continue to fly around in their private jets getting rich off of yet another save the climate scam.

[MechAg94]

Link to any of this data showing polar ice growth?

One of the most hilarious things is the argument that it's too expensive to address even if it is an issue.

Let's see:  consumer goods might go up today, therefore we need "practical" solutions to the problem of maybe not being able to grow wheat in a 100 years???  

What the hell is more practical than making some sacrifices now to avoid long term catastrophe?

As was mentioned above, nuclear has been a big part of the discussion.  What actual solutions have you brought up?  What real solutions have pro-AGW activists brought up?  The green energy initiatives and wind/solar push are accomplishing next to nothing.  Raising taxes and doing carbon credits only make the wealthy and the ruling class richer and in the end do not reduce CO2 emissions. 

If you want to find links on the ice in Antarctica, just use google.  It has been discussed for quite some time as Antarctic temperatures and ice levels are one of the things pro-AGW people have been consistently wrong about.

[Firethorn]

The problem being that the only sacrifices being made are financial in nature for the folks in the middle.

Indeed.  I have no real doubts about man-made global warming.  The consensus is there.  However, the actions we've been taking to address it is shortsighted, to say the least.

If we were on track to, say, double the number of nuclear plants we have in the next decade, then I'd say that we were taking effective action.  If cities were expanding electrified subways and trams, that would be effective action.

Hell, I advocate that stuff on the basis of eliminating air pollution anyways, even without having to worry about global warming.  Hell, up here in Alaska it's arguably a good thing - longer growing season is already helping with farming and such up here.

[De Selby]

That's a spurious argument. Half of us have already mentioned nuclear.

As for wheat, why would we not be able to grow it in 100 years? If anything, if you take AGW at the face value of climate deniers (climate deniers being people who push AGW), we'll be growing lots more wheat, because places like North Dakota will have longer growing seasons. One of the reasons CA beats states like Iowa for crop output is because we can grow crap all year.

Ben, I was responding to comments in this thread about how all the solutions cost money to the economy.  That is true - so does shifting to nuclear.  The point is that if correct, predictions about global warming make that a wise investment.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n2/full/nclimate2470.html

Global wheat production is estimated to fall by 6% for each °C of further temperature increase and become more variable over space and time.

[De Selby]

As was mentioned above, nuclear has been a big part of the discussion.  What actual solutions have you brought up?  What real solutions have pro-AGW activists brought up?  The green energy initiatives and wind/solar push are accomplishing next to nothing.  Raising taxes and doing carbon credits only make the wealthy and the ruling class richer and in the end do not reduce CO2 emissions. 

If you want to find links on the ice in Antarctica, just use google.  It has been discussed for quite some time as Antarctic temperatures and ice levels are one of the things pro-AGW people have been consistently wrong about.

You mean links like this?

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km).

Just a few more scientists in on the conspiracy I guess...

[Ben]

Ben, I was responding to comments in this thread about how all the solutions cost money to the economy.  That is true - so does shifting to nuclear.  The point is that if correct, predictions about global warming make that a wise investment.

Agreed, in that all alternative energy production, as well as nuclear, is a wise investment, as long as it is not forced by government. It should be encouraged by government (via tax incentives vs increased taxes), and if government (in the US) was serious about it all, they would get the hell out of the way of nuclear. Propping up Solyndra while blocking all nuclear is not a wise invetment, it's politics.

From the Nature article:

Many models simulated yields well, but were less accurate at higher temperatures.

Without paying $32 for the full article, it appears their models need algorithm improvements, given they are postulating based on temp increases. I'll agree with the space and time variability on a global scale (predominately Third World) as with natural climate change, it will take people a while to figure out what grows best where. On a US scale, not so much. Farmers already have the technology to grow crops where they wouldn't naturally grow, or not grow efficiently. I'm looking out the window at 40 acres of mature corn ready to be chopped, that only grew here because groundwater irrigation got it through the hot Summer (corn loves heat, but it also loves water, and it doesn't rain here in the Summer).

[seeker_two]

It's that tricky black ice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efiW2K8gASM

Black ice matters.

Depends on the beverage.....

https://youtu.be/EnR9ah0v1o4

[Andiron]

Depends on the beverage.....

https://youtu.be/EnR9ah0v1o4

 

Speaking of black ice..  I'd rather forget the time I drank a quantity of this stuff:


https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/433/8676/

[birdman]

Agreed, in that all alternative energy production, as well as nuclear, is a wise investment, as long as it is not forced by government.

Disagree.  -any- alternative energy production -other- than nuclear (which hasn't been "alternative" for decades) is a poor investment.

Why?  You said it yourself:

It should be encouraged by government (via tax incentives vs increased taxes), and if government (in the US) was serious about it all, they would get the hell out of the way of nuclear.

Since we have the following history:
Nuclear was being rapidly introduced until the government got in the way

And

Solar and other "alternatives" -only- got investment with government interference

Leads to the conclusion: with the caveat of zero government interference, it's economically flawed to put money in anything but nuclear, and -if- there is "positive" governmental support of other forms of energy, then while it might be short-term economically positive for private money to be expended, recognize that by definition, any returns are merely mis allocated tax dollars rather than actual market profit.

[Ben]

Disagree.  -any- alternative energy production -other- than nuclear (which hasn't been "alternative" for decades) is a poor investment.

I disagree with your disagreement.  

Actually I was probably generalizing too much. Solar as an example: I'm completely against investing in ginormous solar nodes for distributed power. I can't do the accurate math (but you probably can in your head) but the power output to space taken up by the solar farms has to be a ridiculously inefficient ratio, with nuclear being the inverse, possibly by a couple orders of magnitude.

On the other hand, everybody has a roof taking up space already, and for areas where geography and weather make sense, I see no reason not to replace roof shingles with solar panels to supplement or completely power individual structures. That has required R&D to improve solar panels from say, 20 years ago. While I don't want government meddling in that, I have no problem with government tax breaks for private companies developing the technology, or consumers adopting the technology. Let it be personal choice, and let the market drive whether the tech goes anywhere.

[Angel Eyes]

On the other hand, everybody has a roof taking up space already, and for areas where geography and weather make sense, I see no reason not to replace roof shingles with solar panels to supplement or completely power individual structures.

This is especially useful for those living off-grid.

[MechAg94]

You mean links like this?

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Just a few more scientists in on the conspiracy I guess...

Yes, that is consistent with a lot of global warming stuff I have seen.  All you see in the world at present is consistent with our global warming models except that none of it was predicted and our models can't be used to back track actual temperature records.  I am sure the primary point of the paper is "our research and our models are great, give us more research grants". 

[Scout26]

That's a spurious argument. Half of us have already mentioned nuclear.

As for wheat, why would we not be able to grow it in 100 years? If anything, if you take AGW at the face value of climate deniers (climate deniers being people who push AGW), we'll be growing lots more wheat, because places like North Dakota will have longer growing seasons. One of the reasons CA beats states like Iowa for crop output is because we can grow crap all year.

IIRC, one reason for many of the wars between England/Britain and France had to do with the wine trade and French refusal to allow the Brits to export their wine into France (and verse vica).  That, of course, is in addition to the usual ego issues of Kings and the like...

[Hawkmoon]

The whole argument seems simple to me.

Around 900 A.D., Eric the Red was kicked out of Iceland and founded a settlement on Greenland. Other settlements followed. The Vikings lived and farmed on Greenland for approximately 500 years, finally abandoning their settlements about the time of Christopher Columbus' famous voyage, because Greenland had become too cold for them to continue an agrarian economy there.

So ...

When it gets too HOT to farm on Greenland, come talk to me abot global warming.

[birdman]

While I don't want government meddling in that...

I have no problem with government tax breaks for private companies developing the technology, or consumers adopting the technology.

How is this not oxymoronic?

[Ben]

How is this not oxymoronic?

One is force of government. The other is government encouraging innovation, which should be applied to a wide range of endeavors, not just energy. When the government gets out of the way and lowers taxes and reduces regulation, the economy thrives, as does innovation.

[KD5NRH]

Actually I was probably generalizing too much. Solar as an example: I'm completely against investing in ginormous solar nodes for distributed power. I can't do the accurate math (but you probably can in your head) but the power output to space taken up by the solar farms has to be a ridiculously inefficient ratio, with nuclear being the inverse, possibly by a couple orders of magnitude.

Roughly 3 acres per megawatt done right.  (Allowing paths between arrays for maintenance, etc.)  A lot of solar farms are 5-10 acres per megawatt due to idiots wanting to prove that $4+/W thin film modules are somehow better than <$3/W (turnkey installation price) polycrystalline modules.  Usually this is done by saying it's out in the desert and thin films lose slightly less efficiency at normal operating temperature for the climate, even though polys are still better after the loss.  The thin film modules are usually physically smaller too, so you end up with racking costs out the wazoo to mount 2-3 times as many ~120W modules instead of 250-315W modules.

They also tend to be test beds for various types of trackers.  Just looking at Google imagery for the Alamo 1, 2, 3 and 4 solar farms near San Antonio, 5-15% of their trackers don't appear to be pointed the same direction as the others at any given time, so the failure rate there supports our preference for fixed arrays.  (1, 2 and 4 are single axis while 3 is dual axis, as will be 5 when it's completed.  Single axis does appear to be somewhat more reliable, but I can't imagine the added cost of maintaining moving parts over fixed arrays doesn't cut into any benefits pretty heavily.)  Their spacing also appears to be far more than necessary, I'd guess to try to squeeze as much as possible from early morning and late evening sun, but that's already going through so much extra atmosphere as to be a losing proposition anyway.

OTOH, the sites we've looked at aren't exactly prime real estate, (usually flood plain that for whatever reason isn't planted in pecans or scrubland too rocky for grazing) so space really isn't that much of a concern.

[MechAg94]

One is force of government. The other is government encouraging innovation, which should be applied to a wide range of endeavors, not just energy. When the government gets out of the way and lowers taxes and reduces regulation, the economy thrives, as does innovation.

No, one is force of govt.  The other is the govt saying the will use less force.  Lowering taxes is not the same as tax breaks or incentives.

[birdman]

One is force of government. The other is government encouraging innovation, which should be applied to a wide range of endeavors, not just energy. When the government gets out of the way and lowers taxes and reduces regulation, the economy thrives, as does innovation.

I agree that lowering taxes and reducing regulation is a good thing.
I -disagree- that to do so in a targeted by industry/product is a good thing...it's no different than legislative subsidy, just "easier" and quasi-hidden to do so through tax code changes.

No, one is force of govt.  The other is the govt saying the will use less force.  Lowering taxes is not the same as tax breaks or incentives.

Yeah, what he said :)

[Ben]

I agree that lowering taxes and reducing regulation is a good thing.
I -disagree- that to do so in a targeted by industry/product is a good thing...it's no different than legislative subsidy, just "easier" and quasi-hidden to do so through tax code changes.
 

Yeah, what he said :)

I'll concede that point. :)

[birdman]

Roughly 3 acres per megawatt done right.  (Allowing paths between arrays for maintenance, etc.)  A lot of solar farms are 5-10 acres per megawatt due to idiots wanting to prove that $4+/W thin film modules are somehow better than <$3/W (turnkey installation price) polycrystalline modules.

I feel very strongly negative about:
1. Pricing per MW nameplate/peak vs LCOE amortized cost including availability, OM, and replacement when comparing sources.
2. Determining area based on peak/nameplate power, rather than area per yearly average MWhr
3. -not- including storage costs (which underprices the real cost of solar and other intermittent sources as it basically puts that cost on someone else)
4. Comparing / calculating break even costs based on the current end user price per kWhr -rather- than the feed-in tariff paid back for surplus power (see 3).

When the above are taken into account, solar sucks...in all ways...and will always, even if it achieved the 40-50+% maximum quantum efficiency when compared apples to nuclear.

See. I -like- the environment, and if there is a way to provide all the energy we need, and more, at low cost, forever, while covering as little of the planet as possible...I'm for that.  

The -only- way solar will ever be truly competitive with nuclear AT CURRENT COSTS is if launch costs drop below $300-500/kg or we can mine materials from the moon autonomously, thereby enabling SPS (I did a recent study and we are within a factor of <5-10 on this -now-, which bodes well).  That said, if you took the reigns of over regulation and other costs off nuclear, it's doubtful even at zero launch costs SPS would compete.

[Firethorn]

OTOH, the sites we've looked at aren't exactly prime real estate, (usually flood plain that for whatever reason isn't planted in pecans or scrubland too rocky for grazing) so space really isn't that much of a concern.

Some thoughts:
1.  Tracking.  You're right.  At current poly costs, the extra power from tracking doesn't justify the costs of adding it. 
2.  On spacing:  It's not just maximizing early/late power, it's also a maintenance thing.  You put the panels too close together, you'd have a hard time fitting a truck in between the rows for annual cleaning and any necessary maintenance.

That said, I'd support straight up pollution taxes for whatever companies are releasing out of their stacks or whatever.  That's a harm on us all...

[KD5NRH]

2.  On spacing:  It's not just maximizing early/late power, it's also a maintenance thing.  You put the panels too close together, you'd have a hard time fitting a truck in between the rows for annual cleaning and any necessary maintenance.

IIRC, (I'm too lazy to dig up the spreadsheet where I figured all of this up based on inter-row shading, material costs, etc.) my minimum spacing to avoid shade issues was a bit over 10' from the extreme rear of one rack to the extreme front of the one behind it.  Add ~2' to that for the rear legs being inset well within the footprint.  Side spacing (racks were also built to basically max out whatever <20kW inverter we had a bulk contract for at the time in order to make the system completely modular and scalable since some clients were wanting to build out multi-MW arrays with only 50-200kW in the initial phase as a proof of concept) was only a couple inches, but driving a <8' wide pickup down a >12' aisle at "maintenance" speeds shouldn't really be all that challenging, even with a big tank and a guy in the back power washing the arrays as they go.

Essentially, our designs look a lot more like the Blue Wing Solar Farm, but with larger individual arrays of larger, higher wattage modules.