Register ICMag Forum Menu Features Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
You are viewing our:
in:
Forums > Talk About It! > Toker's Den > Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

Thread Title Search
Post Reply
Have you looked at the North Pole lately? Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-07-2018, 04:16 PM #1061
Phaeton
Speed of Dark

Phaeton's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Interior Alaska
Posts: 1,612
Phaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud of
Wink

Those pictures are worth a thousand deliberately disingenuous words.

Per the world temperature change map, I live in the light red area of Alaska, I remember back to the 1950's with fair clarity.
The 1940's were cold (per parents and grand parents), the 1950's were cold (per me), as were the the first years of the 1960's.
Late 1960's warmer winters began happening more often, cold spells became shorter.
The 1970's began an accelerated warming, cold winters were fewer with shorter duration of the high pressure ridges that cause inversions, resulting in fewer -60 and colder temperatures.
1989 saw a winter colder than the previous ten years, three weeks of -40. Nothing like the six weeks of -50 seen in the 1950's, but damn cold.

Jump to 2016. After an entire winter of above zero I removed my furnace and heated the house with the lights in the garden.
Not a problem, probably could have removed the furnace in 2013 but I worried about weather, cold winters still can happen, not as cold and not as often, but natural variability says they will happen.

The climate in Alaska has warmed and is continuing to warm faster every year.
Rumor has it this is a part of a worldwide result of climate changing the local weather patterns. I am not everywhere but that is true in Alaska.
Phaeton is offline Quote


5 members found this post helpful.
Click to visit Venus Vapes
Old 06-07-2018, 06:32 PM #1062
St. Phatty
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,610
St. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaeton View Post
Those pictures are worth a thousand deliberately disingenuous words.

Rumor has it this is a part of a worldwide result of climate changing the local weather patterns. I am not everywhere but that is true in Alaska.
Are you seeing any Methane emissions ?

I hear about that. I don't know what the concentration is. Can't help but wonder if you ever see methane burning on the ground from the permafrost generating methane.

Seems like a lightning strike on a section of permafrost with methane around might make a little Boom.
St. Phatty is offline Quote


Old 06-07-2018, 06:48 PM #1063
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,100
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1806/1806.02320.pdf



The Little Ice Age was 1.0-1.5o C cooler than current warm period according to LOD and NAO
__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


Old 06-07-2018, 11:09 PM #1064
igrowone
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 4,191
igrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant future
it's warm up there

it is quite a spike of warmth at the greenland sheet, melt is hanging in there
how long will it last? that's what i'd like to know
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	greenland_daily_melt.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	86.0 KB
ID:	458720 Click image for larger version

Name:	greenland_daily_melt_plot.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	69.8 KB
ID:	458721
__________________
current grow: www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=7872194
igrowone is offline Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-07-2018, 11:39 PM #1065
St. Phatty
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,610
St. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant futureSt. Phatty has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by igrowone View Post
it is quite a spike of warmth at the greenland sheet, melt is hanging in there
how long will it last? that's what i'd like to know
How long will the ice last or how long will the melt last ?

Barring a change in the energy equations that govern the planet (e.g. how much radiation they get from the sun), there are not many normal events that can slow down the heating process that will lead to the ice-caps' eventually being small enough to not be significant as a mechanism for cooling.

When that happens, it will be like that movie Day After Tomorrow, where everything freezes ... except a different version, where it burns with wildfire and Heat.

People are already fighting for that cool place near the coast. It mostly takes place in the form of real estate price appreciation. E.g. in Sonoma County. If you want to live close enough to the ocean to feel that morning & afternoon fog, boy are you going to pay for it.
St. Phatty is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-08-2018, 12:33 AM #1066
Teddybrae
Member

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Latitude 25 S Altitude 300 Meters.
Posts: 241
Teddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of lightTeddybrae is a glorious beacon of light
we don't need Methane escaping from Permafrost. we've got Frackers that set fire to coalfields underground. when the fire breaks out of the ground and lights the bush ... the Miners down the road say: oh, no. not us. prove it!
Teddybrae is online now Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-08-2018, 07:43 PM #1067
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,100
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
If We’re Lucky, This Innovation Will Nuke Climate Change Scaremongering

The Malthusians are never going to win.

By David Harsanyi June 8, 2018

A team of scientists at Harvard University and a company called Carbon Engineering announced this week that they’ve figured out a low-cost, industrial-scale method of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Needless to say, it sounds like an exciting technology, which would, as The Atlantics Robinson Meyer notes, “transform how humanity thinks about the problem of climate change.”
To be fair, though, plenty of humans have argued that innovation, rather than widespread state-compelled behavior modification or top-down economic regimes like the ones the Left has proposed over the years, would eventually deal with climate change. This conviction was based on the historic propensity of those human beings to hatch advances in efficiency and technology when left to their own devices. They always do.
If the industrial-scale de-carbonization stabilizes temperatures — and it now seems inevitable that it’ll be a big part of the solution — the Malthusian notions that dominate the modern Left will once again lose out to capitalistic innovation. This was inevitable when Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon were betting on resource scarcity, Al Gore was producing chilling Oscar-winning science-fiction films, and contemporary Chicken Littles were telling us the human race was doomed.
“This opens up the possibility that we could stabilize the climate for affordable amounts of money without changing the entire energy system or changing everyone’s behavior,” Ken Caldeira, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, told The Atlantic.
That’s fantastic news, because, despite decades of sensational predictions and “education” on the topic, our behavior hasn’t really changed. Americans simply weren’t prepared to surrender their prosperity, freedom, comfort, cars, red meat, travel, air conditioners, etc. to global warming fears, no matter what they told pollsters. Nor would anyone else, for that matter.
It now seems likely that we’re going to be able to reach environmentalists’ carbon-cutting goals at a fraction of the price. The paper claims that companies will be able to remove a metric ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for as little as $94. The cost of averting less than one degree of warming by 2100, according to some, would have cost around $2 trillion every year for a century — which doesn’t include the economic toll it would extract from the world’s economy.
In the near future, in addition to continued gains in efficiency, your community may have a choice between paying for giant, expensive fields of intermittently useful windmills and solar panels or a plant that cleans the air by converting hydrocarbon into liquid fuel. I wonder which one rational people will choose.
For many environmentalists, all this will be welcome news. I doubt it will be for the politically motivated climate warriors, whose aim has always been social engineering in the cause of curbing capitalistic excesses. Even if decarbonization is successful, they will demand we continue to mandate inefficient renewable energies. They will demand tax dollars be used to prop up the clean-energy industry. They will continue to demand we ban fracking. They will continue to propose creating fabricated markets that artificially spike the cost of fossil fuels to pay for supposed negative externalities.
But, as a political matter, it’s going to be a lot more difficult to sell those policies when they can no longer claim the apocalypse is nigh.
After all, we’ve been told for a long time that the Earth was on the precipice of disaster. Every year was our very last chance to save it. It wasn’t enough to merely concede that warming was probably happening, but a person had to adopt whatever policy proposals Democrats were pushing in toto. Tradeoffs didn’t exist in this world. Future innovations didn’t exist. Only the apocalypse beckoned.
The entire climate-change debate had been predicated on the idea that only dramatic intrusions into energy consumption and regulating citizens’ contemporary habits — not only by wealthy nations but also emerging countries whose people were finally benefiting from cheap energy — would stop us from heading towards the abyss. You could be poorer, less free, and do almost nothing to change the trajectory of warming.
We can’t have complete certitude about the future, of course, but you’re not a techno-utopian to trust that humans typically find ways to adapt. You’re not Pollyannaish to point out that, by nearly every quantifiable measure, the state of humanity has improved over the years we were busy panicking about global warming — people are safer, live longer, and are freer. They’ve cut poverty, illiteracy, infant mortality, and so on.
Plenty of those gains rely on the availability of cheap, dependable energy — as does our own growth and wealth. That is why rejecting the climate change panic-mongers might have been one of the smartest things American voters have done over the past two decades.


https://thefederalist.com/2018/06/08/...caremongering/


__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


Old 06-08-2018, 07:49 PM #1068
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,100
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/...351(18)30225-3


A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere



Highlights

  • •Detailed engineering and cost analysis for a 1 Mt-CO2/year direct air capture plant
  • •Levelized costs of $94 to $232 per ton CO2 from the atmosphere
  • •First DAC paper with commercial engineering cost breakdown
  • •Full mass and energy balance with pilot plant data for each unit operation

Context & Scale

An industrial process for large-scale capture of atmospheric CO2 (DAC) serves two roles. First, as a source of CO2 for making carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuels, enabling carbon-free energy to be converted into high-energy-density fuels. Solar fuels, for example, may be produced at high-insolation low-cost locations from DAC-CO2 and electrolytic hydrogen using gas-to-liquids technology enabling decarbonization of difficult-to-electrify sectors such as aviation. And second, DAC with CO2 sequestration allows carbon removal.
The feasibility of DAC has been disputed, in part, because publications have not provided sufficient engineering detail to allow independent evaluation of costs. We provide an engineering cost basis for a commercial DAC system for which all major components are either drawn from well-established commercial heritage or described in sufficient detail to allow assessment by third parties. This design reflects roughly 100 person-years of development by Carbon Engineering.


Summary

We describe a process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere in an industrial plant. The design captures ∼1 Mt-CO2/year in a continuous process using an aqueous KOH sorbent coupled to a calcium caustic recovery loop. We describe the design rationale, summarize performance of the major unit operations, and provide a capital cost breakdown developed with an independent consulting engineering firm. We report results from a pilot plant that provides data on performance of the major unit operations. We summarize the energy and material balance computed using an Aspen process simulation. When CO2 is delivered at 15 MPa, the design requires either 8.81 GJ of natural gas, or 5.25 GJ of gas and 366 kWhr of electricity, per ton of CO2 captured. Depending on financial assumptions, energy costs, and the specific choice of inputs and outputs, the levelized cost per ton CO2 captured from the atmosphere ranges from 94 to 232 $/t-CO2.

Introduction

The capture of CO2 from ambient air was commercialized in the 1950s as a pre-treatment for cryogenic air separation. In the 1960s, capture of CO2 from air was considered as a feedstock for production of hydrocarbon fuels using mobile nuclear power plants.1 In the 1990s, Klaus Lackner explored the large-scale capture of CO2 as a tool for managing climate risk,2 now commonly referred to as direct air capture (DAC).
Estimates of the cost of DAC vary widely. Cost estimates based on simple scaling relationships yield results3, 4, 5, 6, 7 from 50 to 1,000 $/tCO2. Uncertainty might be reduced if detailed specifications of individual DAC technologies were available. Yet, despite growing interest in carbon removal as a component of climate strategy, one thorough review,8 many papers on DAC-to-CCS (carbon capture and storage) comparison,9, 10, 11, 12, 13 specific absorbers,14, 15, 16, 17 or components of plausible DAC systems,18 no prior paper provides a design and engineering cost basis for a complete DAC system for which all major components are (1) drawn from well-established commercial engineering heritage, or (2) described in sufficient detail to allow assessment by third parties. This paper aims to fill that gap.
Plausible DAC processes19 use solid sorbents20, 21 or aqueous basic solutions22 as the capture media. Solid sorbents offer the possibility of low energy input, low operating costs, and applicability across a wide range of scales. The challenges of solid sorbent designs are first, the need to build a very large structure at low cost while allowing the entire structure to be periodically sealed from the ambient air during the regeneration step when temperature, pressure, or humidity must be cycled. And second, the inherently conflicting demands of high sorbent performance, low cost, and long economic life in impure ambient air.
Aqueous sorbents offer the advantage that the contactor can operate continuously, can be built using cheap cooling-tower hardware, and the (liquid) surface is continuously renewed allowing very long contactor lifetimes despite dust and atmospheric contaminants. Once captured, CO2 can be easily pumped to a central regeneration facility allowing economies of scale and avoiding the need to cycle conditions in the inherently large air contactor. Disadvantages of aqueous systems include the cost and complexity of the regeneration system and water loss in dry environments.
Carbon Engineering (CE) has been developing an aqueous DAC system since 2009. In 2012, we described our air-liquid contactor,23 the front end of the process. Here, in the next section, we provide an end-to-end overview of our baseline DAC system, proceeding from a high-level description of and heat and mass balance down to descriptions of individual unit operations. The following section provides results from a 1 t-CO2/day pilot plant operated since 2015. CE's capital cost estimating process is described in the section on Process Economics along with the levelized cost of capture under various plant configurations and economic assumptions. Finally, the Discussion provides comparison with prior literature and a discussion of options for improving the technology.

full paper at link above....


__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


Old 06-09-2018, 06:43 AM #1069
G.O. Joe
Senior Member

G.O. Joe's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ditchweed City
Posts: 1,173
G.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to allG.O. Joe is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by trichrider View Post
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3
OK, a group says they've made expensive CO2 from air with the help of a special air-liquid contact apparatus, all paid for with grants from the American and Canadian governments, if anyone is interested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trichrider View Post
https://thefederalist.com/2018/06/08/scientific-discovery-will-nuke-climate-change-scaremongering/
A big picture of some dude's face while he's pissing on mine and telling me it's raining just doesn't get me off like it does for visitors to that site.

What is the value of a carbon credit? What is the price per ton of liquid and solid CO2? This is ancient chemistry, not breaking news. The question isn't how to remove CO2 from air, it's how much that costs (10x more than initially estimated is standard?) and who is paying and what is the fate of the carbon.

OK so you've found yet another person who wants to make his way as a head-burying tool for oil gas and coal, or is just a general rightist spin doctor for hire. Do you know anyone who's interested in facts instead of being part of a treasonous machine subverting the country for financial gain in various sectors?

__________________
In the clinical field, the practical application of these substances must be awaited with the usual necessary patience. - Roger Adams
Marihuana
February 19, 1942
G.O. Joe is offline Quote


3 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-09-2018, 02:04 PM #1070
igrowone
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 4,191
igrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant future
pulling co2 out of the air, i'll grant you it is a plan of a sort
the simplest and possibly cheapest way to go is the reverse coal mine
low tech all the way
trees are partially burnt to form charcoal
and you put the charcoal in some place where is will stay sequestered
empty coal mines sites are convenient
then it should occur to you, the next logical step is fuck that shit
just stop burning coal
__________________
current grow: www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=7872194
igrowone is offline Quote


2 members found this post helpful.

Post Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:08 AM.




This site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
You must be of legal age to view ICmag and participate here.
All postings are the responsibility of their authors.
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.