Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Ceepea · Jun 7, 2014

"We plan to use triple-junction photovoltaic cells on a micro-channel cooled module which can directly convert more than 30 percent of collected solar radiation into electrical energy and allow for the efficient recovery of an additional 50 percent waste heat," said Bruno Michel, manager, advanced thermal packaging at IBM Research. "We believe that we can achieve this with a very practical design that is made of lightweight and high strength concrete, which is used in bridges, and primary optics composed of inexpensive pneumatic mirrors -- it's frugal innovation, but builds on decades of experience in microtechnology."

Maybe my wording was 'imprecise'....

Doer · Jun 7, 2014

Ceepea said:
ZURICH - 22 Apr 2013: Today on Earth Day, scientists have announced a collaboration to develop an affordable photovoltaic system capable of concentrating solar radiation 2,000 times and converting 80 percent of the incoming radiation into useful energy. The system can also provide desalinated water and cool air in sunny, remote locations where they are often in short supply.

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/40912.wss

Oh OK. Not panels. High energy concentrators. I have read about this. I I saw a design using a glass sphere as the collector. No point of focus problem as the chip rotates on a track around the sphere to follow the sun path.

Doer · Jun 7, 2014

Woops Beef. That is why we have to be careful.

No primary 80%. Yeah. I knew that. But, cascading and using the waste heat is still the proper way to proceed.

The fuel cells have this heat bi-product as well, that has to be removed for good functioning.

Ceepea · Jun 7, 2014

Doer said:
Woops Beef. That is why we have to be careful.

No primary 80%. Yeah. I knew that. But, cascading and using the waste heat is still the proper way to proceed.

The fuel cells have this heat bi-product as well, that has to be removed for good functioning.

It would have been more accurate to say they can harvest up to 80% of total solar radiation.

Absolutely. Harvesting the waste heat adds another level of efficiency to the system.

BigNBushy · Jun 7, 2014

UncleBuck said:
lol, it worked so well.

it was a direct red quote.

nah, i just want you to cite what red is talking about. 100x, 500x, sky is your limit, princess.

good job on declaring yet another victory followed by putting me on ignore, like red does,

say, what did red himself say about that sort of thing the other day?

i will continue to await your citation, water carrier.

About the penis thing...

You may have included a quote from red, but you're constantly droning on about your massive erections and stuff thirteen year old boys laugh at.

As to the other, Dr.K has taken the results of many studies and simply multiplied.

100 times as common...

At least 5 times as effective. ..

100 X 5 = 500.

Are you arguing that product is not 500?

No one is spending a lot of time on the issue because there is nothing man can do about it.

These scientists get lots of money to study co2, they're not going to cut their nose off to spite their face.

MuyLocoNC · Jun 7, 2014

Ceepea said:
It would have been more accurate to say they can harvest up to 80% of total solar radiation.

No it wouldn't. It would be just as inaccurate and a pie in the sky fantasy. They can't fucking do any of that yet. It's right there in your previous post.

scientists have announced a collaboration to develop

Do you claim to have gotten laid because you and a few buddies have announced plans to go to the bar and bang some chicks?

For fucks sake, you people could be buried in a matchbox if they gave you an enema.

BigNBushy · Jun 7, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
water vapour is One Hundred Times More Abundant than Co2
~4% water vapour in the global average vs 0.035% Co2

thats 100 times more

water is ~20x more powerful at trapping heat mole for mole than Co2, but "baselining" for evaporative cooling, and water/cloud/ice/snow albedo brings water to ~5x more effective than Co2 by the statisticians at the global warming brain trust.

Co2's effect on the greenhouse system is vanishingly small

I read something once that Venus, billions of years ago, had oceans and a fairly earth like atmosphere.

They estimated that the oceans there were tiny by comparison and that life had not evolved to also use co2.

Since oceans take co2 out of the atmosphere, and theirs were smaller, and the Venus had more volcanic activity, a run away co2 event took off.

The increased heat evaporated off the surface water, and now you can melt led on the surface.

That is the danger of increasing earth's co2 in the atmosphere.

We've doubled the natural am out of co2. But atmospheric concentration is still exceedingly small.

We don't know where the tipping point is, but there is possibly the same danger here on Earth.

Dr Kynes · Jun 7, 2014

ginjawarrior said:
yeah your reading your graphs wrong unless your suggesting the candle in this clip is burning at --80 C.....

a case of just enough knowledge to be dangerous?

and what is the concentration of Co2 in that tube ?

what would be the result if the tube contained the same levels of water vapour or methane, or ozone?

Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas, and appears in concentrations of 0.035%
water vapour ozone and methane are much better greenhouse gasses, and water vapour is 100x more abundant in the atmosphere

nobody argued Co2 is NOT a "greenhouse gas"

in fact ALL gases are "greenhouse gasses" since all of them can trap and hold heat as a result of their status as Matter.

how much of the candle's heat would have reached his camera if he had filled that tube with "Anthropogenic Greenhouse Jello"?

Dr Kynes · Jun 7, 2014

BigNBushy said:
I read something once that Venus, billions of years ago, had oceans and a fairly earth like atmosphere.

They estimated that the oceans there were tiny by comparison and that life had not evolved to also use co2.

Since oceans take co2 out of the atmosphere, and theirs were smaller, and the Venus had more volcanic activity, a run away co2 event took off.

The increased heat evaporated off the surface water, and now you can melt led on the surface.

That is the danger of increasing earth's co2 in the atmosphere.

We've doubled the natural am out of co2. But atmospheric concentration is still exceedingly small.

We don't know where the tipping point is, but there is possibly the same danger here on Earth.

venus is MUCH closer to the sun than the earth

it receives far more solar radiation than earth (lol inverse cube law) only if the sun's irradience were dramatically lower could venus have liquid water.

heres the place you prolly heard that nugget
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071011-venus.html

thats what ya call "Crackpot Bullshit"

climate models lol.

that guy is asserting that for ~400 million years venus has liquid oceans, which is about how long a drop of water stays liquid on a hot frying pan, in geologic terms.

**Plop!** hey look venus has oceans... **sizzle** Aaaaaand it's gone.

mars used to have a lot more atmosphere than it does now too perhaps Mars should be used as a cautionary example of why we NEED a greenhouse effect

Edit: and we have NOT doubled the natural level of co2.
in the past (as previously cited) the earth has had 15x more co2, Naturally.

the "baseline" established for "preindustrial co2" is 280ppm the current value is 40% higher not 100% higher.

BigNBushy · Jun 7, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
venus is MUCH closer to the sun than the earth

it receives far more solar radiation than earth (lol inverse cube law) only if the sun's irradience were dramatically lower could venus have liquid water.

heres the place you prolly heard that nugget
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071011-venus.html

thats what ya call "Crackpot Bullshit"

climate models lol.

that guy is asserting that for ~400 million years venus has liquid oceans, which is about how long a drop of water stays liquid on a hot frying pan, in geologic terms.

**Plop!** hey look venus has oceans... **sizzle** Aaaaaand it's gone.

mars used to have a lot more atmosphere than it does now too perhaps Mars should be used as a cautionary example of why we NEED a greenhouse effect

From my understanding of what I have heard, mars was doomed to lose its atmosphere because of insufficient gravity.

I also think that earth is at the far edge of the goldilocks zone, which might place Venus at the near edge. We don't fully understand the exact borders of the goldilocks zone do we?

That combined with the fact that 3 billion years ago the sun might not have been so hot.

Venus is appx 2/3 au from the sun isn't it?

Dr Kynes · Jun 7, 2014

BigNBushy said:
From my understanding of what I have heard, mars was doomed to lose its atmosphere because of insufficient gravity.

I also think that earth is at the far edge of the goldilocks zone, which might place Venus at the near edge. We don't fully understand the exact borders of the goldilocks zone do we?

That combined with the fact that 3 billion years ago the sun might not have been so hot.

Venus is appx 2/3 au from the sun isn't it?

"goldilocks zone"???

this is some bullshit

i first heard assholes sayin that shit just a few years ago, they used to say "life zone" or "habitable zone" but i guess that wasnt Hans Christian Andersen enough

Earth: 93,000,000 miles from the sun
Venus: 67,000,000 miles from the sun

yep looks like about 2/3 the distance which means just about twice as much solar energy strikes venus, all day every day, year in and year out for well, eternity.

all things being equal, that means venus's surface temps, even if it's atmosphere were identical to ours, would be DOUBLE ours.

winter temperature in Buffalo New York on venus: a balmy 68 degrees
summer temps in Buffalo New York on venus: 160 degrees.

winter temps in Los Angeles on venus: 136 degrees, bring a sweater!
summer temps in Losangeles on Venus: 170 degrees.

Padawanbater2 · Jun 7, 2014

Venus is 30% closer to the Sun than Earth, its warmer than even Mercury because of its atmosphere, which is dominated by carbon dioxide

heckler73 · Jun 7, 2014

ginjawarrior said:
yeah your reading your graphs wrong unless your suggesting the candle in this clip is burning at --80 C.....

a case of just enough knowledge to be dangerous?

I am very glad you brought that up.
Go back to that hyperphysics link I provided, and enter the two lower peak values for CO2, and tell me what temperature it spits out

Then you'll understand why the flame disappears.
That was the big revelation I had last night when looking at this..

BigNBushy · Jun 7, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
Venus is 30% closer to the Sun than Earth, its warmer than even Mercury because of its atmosphere, which is dominated by carbon dioxide

The amount of co2 in Venus' s atmosphere is comparable to the amount of nitrogen in ours.

Dr Kynes · Jun 7, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
Venus is 30% closer to the Sun than Earth, its warmer than even Mercury because of its atmosphere, which is dominated by carbon dioxide

so as long as we keep Co2 at less than 96% of the atmosphere, we are doing better than venus.

that really takes the pressure off.

even though it is a WEAK greenhouse gas, concentrations approaching 100% will naturally cause considerable greenhousing.

since we are at 0.035%, we arent in any danger of going venusian.

BigNBushy · Jun 7, 2014

Dr Kynes said:
"goldilocks zone"???

this is some bullshit

i first heard assholes sayin that shit just a few years ago, they used to say "life zone" or "habitable zone" but i guess that wasnt Hans Christian Andersen enough

Earth: 93,000,000 miles from the sun
Venus: 67,000,000 miles from the sun

yep looks like about 2/3 the distance which means just about twice as much solar energy strikes venus, all day every day, year in and year out for well, eternity.

all things being equal, that means venus's surface temps, even if it's atmosphere were identical to ours, would be DOUBLE ours.

winter temperature in Buffalo New York on venus: a balmy 68 degrees
summer temps in Buffalo New York on venus: 160 degrees.

winter temps in Los Angeles on venus: 136 degrees, bring a sweater!
summer temps in Losangeles on Venus: 170 degrees.

I've heard goldilocks zone my entire life from all levels of sophistication. I've also heard the ones you mentioned.

The temperature you gave for venus is not mutually exclusive with life.

There are organisms on earth that would enjoy 180f.

It isn't conducive to human life, but life could happen there, water could maintain liquidity. And something could have evolved to handle it.

Dr Kynes · Jun 7, 2014

BigNBushy said:
The amount of co2 in Venus' s atmosphere is comparable to the amount of nitrogen in ours.

venus: 96% co2
earth: 70% nitrogen

thats not very comparable.

Edit: and mercury's temps are "lower' because it has no atmosphere, thus one side is hotter than a pistol, and the other side is colder than a witch's tit in a brass brassiere.

the hot side is Fuckin Hot and the cold side is Fuckin Cold so the average is "pretty hot"

it's a planetary McDlt

Dr Kynes · Jun 7, 2014

BigNBushy said:
I've heard goldilocks zone my entire life from all levels of sophistication. I've also heard the ones you mentioned.

The temperature you gave for venus is not mutually exclusive with life.

There are organisms on earth that would enjoy 180f.

It isn't conducive to human life, but life could happen there, water could maintain liquidity. And something could have evolved to handle it.

honestly, with constant temps like that, venus could not support life.

venus' atmosphere, if magically transformed to earth norms, would rapidly turn into a steam bath, temps would skyrocket, the water cycle would fail, hydrogen and oxygen would be exhausted into space, and in short order venus would be venus again.

why doesnt venus have any water any more? cuz it's temps are high enough to break the oxygen and hydrogen covalent bonds turning water molecules into noble gasses.

Dr Kynes · Jun 7, 2014

Ceepea said:
"We plan to use triple-junction photovoltaic cells on a micro-channel cooled module which can directly convert more than 30 percent of collected solar radiation into electrical energy and allow for the efficient recovery of an additional 50 percent waste heat," said Bruno Michel, manager, advanced thermal packaging at IBM Research. "We believe that we can achieve this with a very practical design that is made of lightweight and high strength concrete, which is used in bridges, and primary optics composed of inexpensive pneumatic mirrors -- it's frugal innovation, but builds on decades of experience in microtechnology."

Maybe my wording was 'imprecise'....

dont apololgize for imprecise wording, if you get too precise, youll be derided as "TL;DR"

if, as asserted, somebody is cookin up 80% efficient solar systems i am interested, but it looks like it's 30% efficiency (which still aint bad) and some thermocouples to gather some of the exccess heat.

that wont total 80% of solar radiation but it's better than a kick in the nuts.

Ceepea · Jun 7, 2014

MuyLocoNC said:
No it wouldn't. It would be just as inaccurate and a pie in the sky fantasy. They can't fucking do any of that yet. It's right there in your previous post.

Did you watch the video? lol

It works, there have been subsequent press releases since that one back in 2013.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9246558/IBM_solar_energy_tech_claims_to_harness_power_of_2_000_suns

Computerworld - IBM, working with other researchers, has announced an "affordable photovoltaic system that can concentrate solar radiation 2,000 times."

A byproduct of the system is that it also produces a massive amount of heat. That heat can be harvested to perform other functions, such as desalinating water and creating cool air in sunny, remote locations where they are often in short supply, the IBM researchers said.

The High Concentration PhotoVoltaic Thermal (HCPVT) system can convert 80% of the incoming solar radiation into useful energy.

Do you claim to have gotten laid because you and a few buddies have announced plans to go to the bar and bang some chicks?

For fucks sake, you people could be buried in a matchbox if they gave you an enema.

They're claiming to have reached 80% efficiency.

Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member