Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: I don't know about you, but from applied logic perspective from an engineer I can only presume someone has to be a drooling idiot, ignorant, gullible, lazy or a fanatic to believe CO2 is forcing the climate. Very crass and arrogant; I will leave finding the logical errors in that sentence as an exercise for the student... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 1, 2020 4 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Oh sorry, forgot to mention the glaciers part.... Little Ice age.... Killed off trees/shrubs hundreds of KM north of where they grown now... Glaciers around the world were growing/advancing for hundreds of years.... Stopped ~1850 or so. What the Lying frauds at NASA etc so thoughtfully "forgot" to mention in their glacial retreat "evidence" is that the vast majority of glacial retreat happened before 1940. When very few people even had access to coal/oil/NG, let alone were using it. The world damned well better be warming up since then. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coffeeguyzz + 454 GM March 1, 2020 Ohio just released their latest quarterly production numbers yesterday from their horizontal wells (~2,500). Oil is up to 74,000 bbld (17% increase yoy), natgas hit ~7 1/2 Bcfd (3% increase yoy). The productivity seems to be markedly improving with about 10 wella averaging over 1 Billion cubic foot per month output (that is Northeast Pennsylvania level productivity). About 40 wells produced over 2 Bcf and another 130 produced over 1 Bcf for the quarter. Dramatic per well uplift over an expanding area of southeast Ohio. The ~half dozen oil wells that averaged over 1,000 bbld for the quarter are clear outliers in the overall context. However, the fact that Eclipse/Montage and Encino are the operators doing this, might indicate many years possibility at this modest level of oil production. Combining Ohio's annual 2.7 Trillion cubic feet production with Pennsylvania's ~7 Tcf and West Virginia's 2.4 Tcf gives over 12 Trillion cubic feet of yearly natty from this region. For folks not struck by the implications of 12 Trillion cubic feet per year output, this could be a good learning moment to compare recent discoveries and all the ballyhoo associated with recent finds of 30/50/80 Tcf total resource Large, certainly, but a mere few years' Appalachian Basin output. Regarding this entire natgas/solar/wind discussion ... several years of frustrating back and forth on Dennis' site have led me to conclude that the Ra/Zephyr acolytes are as much theologically driven as moved by facts, provable data, some familiarity with economics as well as operational characteristics of the hardware involved. This long suffering realization has prompted me to forgo becoming ensnarled in these types of discussions. For those open minded as to the high probability of rapid, global buildout of gas fired electricity production, becoming acquinted with the modularization approach to LNG plant buildout, ultra efficient marine transport, FSRUs of various sizes and cost to enable rapid, cheap, near ubiquitous delivery of fuel ... and, on the juice generating side, the adoption of various sizes of power plants from the massive 1,500 Mw+ CCGPs down to refurbished 50/125 mw turbines (check out the laser cladding and 3D printing rejuvenation processes) should provide chrystal clear affirmation of where and how future electricity will be produced. Heck, even micro plants are popping up in off the path locales with series of 5 Mw turbines providing both power and heat. Central American countries and the hinterlands of Brazil, far flung islands in Indonesia and the PI are amongst the promising, near term markets. Lookin' like we are in this Age of Gas, folks. Sorry, Greta. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 42 PF March 1, 2020 Tell that to the 15,000 workers Siemens GE and MHI are in the process of laying off Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WayneMechEng + 89 WP March 1, 2020 (edited) On 2/23/2020 at 11:33 AM, Tom Kirkman said: You are saying that industrial batteries - in 40 foot containers - stacked 4 high - in 20 miles x 20 miles square can store enough electricity to power the entire U.S for half a year. Am I understanding you correctly? As a retired mechanical engineer, I find Tom Kirkman to always be at least 99% right when shooting down the idea that RE is a panacea for the world's energy and climate change challenges. I sent a recommendation to my elected officials here in Alberta (I am a dual citizen born in the US) to initiate an unbiased Engineering Infrastructure Study to determine how we can migrate to the best technical, economical, and politically feasible outcome (with timeline) in order to reduce our carbon footprint. Arbitrary and unrealistic goals set by federal and global politicians are only proposed to garner popular votes. Review the Foxy Loxy and Chicken Little story. There are many private firms working on a myriad of storage system designs. Some are in use. May the best designs win. Regarding the space needed for storage. Voltage generated by wind turbines is not high enough to push power into the grid. So step-up transformers and complex control systems are required. No problem for the electrical engineers, and they have devised control systems. However, very high voltage is needed to efficiently send power and there is a transmission distance limit of several hundred miles. Therefore, many power plants are needed to establish a redundant and reliable (base power needed) grid across our continent. Back to the point, electrical storage needs be local to the wind turbine generators, at the lowest voltage. A calculation of space required for one centralized location is only an amusement for Ripley's "Believe It or Not". The US is beating its Paris Accord goals because of entrepreneur's and a free market. President Trump does not have to subsidize RE. Take a look at Wikipedia "Politics of Climate Change". Remember, if RE costs more, it will come out of the citizens pocketbook, one way or another. Netflix has a great series, "Islands of the Future" (these systems are in place now and working fine). These islands started very different RE projects that suited their needs.and unique circumstances decades ago, while we listened to speeches from Kyoto and Paris, and scare speeches from Greta. No help from Globalists either. Okay, we are warming. Engineers can be used to plan a realistic path forward. PS I am not making a dime from my former profession. Edited March 2, 2020 by WayneMechEng One sentence in third paragraph didn't make sense. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douglas Buckland + 6,308 March 1, 2020 7 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.google.com.my/amp/s/business.financialpost.com/business-insider/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/amp 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guillaume Albasini + 851 March 1, 2020 5 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: I don't know about you, but from applied logic perspective from an engineer I can only presume someone has to be a drooling idiot, ignorant, gullible, lazy or a fanatic to believe CO2 is forcing the climate. You are free to disagree but do it in a polite manner. Insulting your opponents isn't the better way to convince them. If you consider as ignorant idiots those who agree with the overwhelming evidence gathered by the scientific community, you are probably living on a flat Earth. The scientists consider that global warming is due to human activity. The natural factors would have resulted in a cooling rather than a warming over the past 50 years. While there are natural factors that affect the Earth’s climate, the combined influence of volcanoes and changes in solar activity would have resulted in cooling rather than warming over the past 50 years. The global warming witnessed over the past 150 years matches nearly perfectly what is expected from greenhouse gas emissions and other human activity, both in the simple model examined here and in more complex climate models. The best estimate of the human contribution to modern warming is around 100%. Some uncertainty remains due to the role of natural variability, but researchers suggest that ocean fluctuations and similar factors are unlikely to be the cause of more than a small fraction of modern global warming. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said: https://www.google.com.my/amp/s/business.financialpost.com/business-insider/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change/amp Interesting, but very few on that list would know anything much about climate change. Most astronauts of the past were fighter pilots or something similar - not scientists. Engineers are also generally not scientists - they apply known science. It is mostly just a criticism of the over-confidence in, and promotion of, the current the data than outright denial of any effect. Edited March 1, 2020 by Enthalpic 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, WayneMechEng said: As a retired mechanical engineer, I find Tom Kirkman to always be at least 99% right when shooting down the idea that RE is a panacea for the world's energy and climate change challenges. I sent a recommendation to my elected officials here in Alberta (I am a dual citizen born in the US) to initiate an unbiased Engineering Infrastructure Study to determine how we can migrate to the best technical, economical, and politically feasible outcome (with timeline) in order to reduce our carbon footprint. Arbitrary and unrealistic goals set by federal and global politicians are only proposed to garner popular votes. Review the Foxy Loxy and Chicken Little story. There are many private firms working on a myriad of storage system designs. Some are in use. May the best designs win. Regarding the space needed for storage. Voltage generated by wind turbines is not high enough to push power into the grid. So step-up transformers and complex control systems are required. No problem for the electrical engineers, and they have devised control systems. However, very high voltage is needed to efficiently send power and even so has a transmission limit of several hundred miles. Therefore, many power plants are needed to establish a redundant and reliable (base power needed) grid across our continent. Back to the point, electrical storage needs be local to the wind turbine generators, at the lowest voltage. A calculation of space required for one centralized location is only an amusement for Ripley's "Believe It or Not". The US is beating its Paris Accord goals because of entrepreneur's and a free market. President Trump does not have to subsidize RE. Take a look at Wikipedia "Politics of Climate Change". Remember, if RE costs more, it will come out of the citizens pocketbook, one way or another. Netflix has a great series, "Islands of the Future" (these systems are in place now and working fine). These islands started very different RE projects that suited their needs.and unique circumstances decades ago, while we listened to speeches from Kyoto and Paris, and scare speeches from Greta. No help from Globalists either. Okay, we are warming. Engineers can be used to plan a realistic path forward. PS I am not making a dime from my former profession. Where in Alberta? I'm in E-town. You still think voting UCP was a good idea? HaHa (increased deficits, reduced industry investment, reduced services, nothing good). US withdrew from the Paris accord.... no goals to beat. Perhaps some improvement but as you point out that was market forces; probably just because natural gas became so cheap and displaced some coal, trump gets zero credit. Edited March 1, 2020 by Enthalpic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, WayneMechEng said: Remember, if RE costs more, it will come out of the citizens pocketbook, one way or another. Externalities of fossil fuels pollution already drains peoples pocket books and hurts their health. Edited March 1, 2020 by Enthalpic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, Guillaume Albasini said: The scientists consider that global warming is due to human activity. I note you refuted not one single thing I said. No, scientists do not think it is due to human activity. They say, they do not know. Because anyone who is not an idiot knows the SUN/CLOUDS are in charge of our climate. CO2 increasing just increases the partial pressure of the atmosphere and the simple fact CO2 millions years ago was many times as high as it is today, and the temps were same as today, but hey, that is geology so you can ignore it right? Yet abundant life developed just fine. As for your "scientists": According to the "models" warming should be several times higher than what is seen currently. So much for "science".... oh wait... SCIENCE is SHOWING how you got your results, not HIDING the sausage making. So, why are so called "scientists" you claim to follow and admire, not publishing their model manipulations? Because it is not SCIENCE. They are the modern equivalent of the Paleontology fraudsters in our time. Only show their buddies who are "in the club"... Science? Nope, just publish articles with no cross examination by anyone and everyone. SHOW YOUR WORK is how SCIENCE works. 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: SHOW YOUR WORK is how SCIENCE works. Do you even have library access to journals? I miss my university, and former employers e-library credentials... Edited March 1, 2020 by Enthalpic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Yet abundant life developed just fine. Abundant life will almost certainly continue to exist if catastrophic climate change occurs. Humans would suffer but, of course, other organisms will benefit like the "CO2 is plant food" arguments. Are you a plant? They love things like CO2, ammonia and manure... Edited March 1, 2020 by Enthalpic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said: Do you even have library access to journals? I miss my university, and former employers e-library credentials... Everyone does. You walk down to your public university library and read. Been doing it for decades at the University of Washington. Everything is sitting there waiting to be read. And then read others(rarely) trying to redo said persons work and .... no one can do it to get their graphs. Why? Hidden manipulations. Of course sometimes they screw up and publish data using just publicly available data like from large areas such as the USA which is trans continental in scope and their graphs look NOTHING like the actual RAW data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 1 minute ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Everyone does. You walk down to your public university library and read. Kudos to you if you actually do that. Pretty inconvenient if you want to read a lot; and I doubt you can take take anything out if you are not a student. I will admit I've gone and used a photocopier for a few papers I really liked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 1, 2020 Just now, Enthalpic said: Kudos to you if you actually do that. Pretty inconvenient if you want to read a lot; and I doubt you can take take anything out if you are not a student. I will admit I've gone and used a photocopier for a few papers I really liked. Not a student, and too cheap to sign up to be a "friend" of the library or whatever they are calling it today. Cannot take journals out of the different libraries dotted around campus not even when you are a student. You have to pay to get a copy, though this depends on what it is. I usually go on a Saturday(bus is sometimes free as well). Some of our local public libraries also have journals but are usually of the ilk like American Scientific or bee keeper journal, or ... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 1, 2020 14 minutes ago, Enthalpic said: Abundant life will almost certainly continue to exist if catastrophic climate change occurs. Humans would suffer but, of course, other organisms will benefit like the "CO2 is plant food" arguments. Are you a plant? They love things like CO2, ammonia and manure... Why would humans suffer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Not a student, and too cheap to sign up to be a "friend" of the library or whatever they are calling it today. Cannot take journals out of the different libraries dotted around campus not even when you are a student. You have to pay to get a copy, though this depends on what it is. I usually go on a Saturday(bus is sometimes free as well). Some of our local public libraries also have journals but are usually of the ilk like American Scientific or bee keeper journal, or ... That's because nobody uses paper journals anymore; it's all just organization based access credentials. American scientific is not bad; I have had a subscription to Scientific American for many years (my mom auto-renews it) and that is also not too bad but obviously more entertainment than real science. Edited March 1, 2020 by Enthalpic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Why would humans suffer? If what they propose happens, major cities will be under water; plus a bunch of other crap. Edited March 1, 2020 by Enthalpic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 11 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: You have to pay to get a copy, though this depends on what it is. Don't ask the librarian... use a pay photocopier or just take pictures with your smartphone. I am a big believer in free access to almost all information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 17 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Some of our local public libraries also have journals if you ask your local public librarian for something they don't have in stock there is a good chance you can get it within a week using "library exchange." Journals maybe not so much. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, Enthalpic said: If what they propose happens major cities will be under water; plus a bunch of other crap. Major cities under water... is called Cleaning House and has nothing to do with CO2. DID humans have anything to do with the ocean levels dropping 130m during the last ice age? No! Did humans have anything to do with the melting of said glaciation and temperatures MUCH warmer than today as little as ~8000 years ago? NO! Then why is everyone's default position humans(CO2 belching) are the cause over some tiny minuscule delta T/sea level rise measured at best in a couple centimeters from basic history as little as 10k years ago? Arrogant Hubris of humanity knows no bounds! That giant ass ball of flame in the sky may have something to say about the climate hrmm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, Enthalpic said: if you ask your local public librarian for something they don't have in stock there is a good chance you can get it within a week using "library exchange." Journals maybe not so much. Never tried requesting a journal. Books, yes. Especially the journals I am interested in. Never seen them outside of big public UNI's. Who knows, might be worth a shot. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Arrogant Hubris of humanity knows no bounds! That giant ass ball of flame in the sky may have something to say about the climate hrmm... Well it is plasma; but indeed we should use the suns power for more things - after all it created the damn oil... Edited March 1, 2020 by Enthalpic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enthalpic + 1,496 March 1, 2020 2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: NOTHING like the actual RAW data. Many authors include links to the raw date if you want to spend literally years analyzing it yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
