Remember me
▼ Content

"Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith



Page 1 of 3123>
"Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith10-10-2021 22:39
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Here is a paper.
If you have comments/questions about it, email to warren.wds AT gmail.com.

One of my problems was: I was unable to use any climate-model program
and unable to get any help from anybody in the computer climate modeling community. As I explained in paper, a 1-line
change to such a code would answer important questions.
So if anybody can help, I'd like to know.

==========

URL: http://vixra.org/abs/2110.0016
Title: Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises
Author: Warren D. Smith

ABSTRACT:
We examine the following as a sustainable world-energy Plan.
Distribute floating wind turbines mainly within the "roaring forties"
and "furious fifties" regions of the southern oceans. Anchor them by
cables to the sea floor. Running along that floor is a hydrogen
pipeline. The turbines generate electricity which is transmitted down
to the sea floor by cable. There it electrolyses water to input H2
into the pipeline. The pipeline outputs are on (or near) land
somewhere. Turbine maintenance is mostly by robot. We find it appears
entirely technically and economically feasible to satisfy
approximately all (or at least a large fraction of) year-2020 human
energy demands in this way, but show with a new analysis of
wind-energy limitations that much more is impossible. Indeed, we'll
show this energy actually will be cheaper than current prices and also
cheaper (sometimes greatly) than schemes based on water-currents,
other-located wind turbines, or solar power – albeit the prices of the
lattermost have been rapidly changing. However, this project, as well
as any attempt to generate a large fraction of human energy from
winds, will cause noticeable alterations in weather and climate. I
provide initial guesses about what those alterations will be and
discussion of how to modify "global climate model" codes to
investigate that. (Basically this would be a 1-line code change, but
we demonstrate that many climate modeling codes are incredibly screwed
up and lied about.) We conclude with some deprecation of the "hydrogen
economy" and instead suggest the "aluminum economy."

========= (end)
11-10-2021 02:54
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
I'm doubtful the return on this hydrogen scheme, would justify the construction cost. The removal of hydrogen, would increase the salt content of the oceans, least near the electrolysis. It'll dissipate eventually... And, the fish can find new places to swim, oceans are huge...

The climate models are essentially video games. There is limited data, and they need to creatively fill a huge gap, to just make any sort of guess at what it could mean. Mostly just fantasy scenarios, which none have even remotely come true. But, they do need to find some way to keep their financing.
11-10-2021 03:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
[animated GIF omitted considering Harvey's dial-up connection]


Warren D Smith wrote:Here is a paper.

Were you looking only for compliments and praise or do you welcome the cold, bitter truth?

Warren D Smith wrote:If you have comments/questions about it, email to warren.wds AT gmail.com.

Nope. I'll post my comments here and you can read them along with everyone else.

Warren D Smith wrote:One of my problems was: I was unable to use any climate-model program

... because there is no such thing. In order to program a computer to emulate a climate model, the climate model must be unambiguously defined so that a program can be written to emulate it. You might take a moment to notice that no one in the history of humanity has ever unambiguously defined the global climate ... and that would include you and your paper. There is no unambiguous definition of the global climate in there anywhere. Your paper is therefore nothing but gibberish about undefined things and cannot helpfully inform any decision by really anyone.

Additionally, your paper's title implies that it is a solution to "crises" but you have not explained why any rational adult should believe that there there exist the crises that you mention. As it stands, one must already believe that there are world energy and carbon crises because you don't offer any information, verifiable or otherwise, to support the notion that you aren't just lying to induce baseless fear and panic. I, for one, don't believe your crises exist anywhere but in your own mind. Once I realized that your entire paper is based on a bizarre, uninformed delusion I stopped reading it.

Warren D Smith wrote:ABSTRACT: We examine the following as a sustainable world-energy Plan. Distribute floating wind turbines mainly within the "roaring forties" and "furious fifties" regions of the southern oceans. Anchor them by cables to the sea floor.

I notice you use the Marxist "we" to pretend humanity works happily together in harmony in one big happy communist collective Utopia where cost and ownership are concepts that simply no longer exist and therefore don't need to be considered. The infamous "we" brush the dust off the word "just" and "we just distribute floating wind turbines." You even used the word "distribute." Nice!

I take it that your plan does not consider who will own the turbines, having borne the cost of having produced them, and who will therefore own the resulting energy so acquired, or who will be on the hook for the maintenance and upgrades. I imagine the turbines will simply be deployed in the passive voice and "we" will simply receive the magickal stream of energy, thanks to ... to ... to the passive voice deployment of those wonderful turbines.

I love it anytime "we" get free energy from simply employing poor grammar. You should read through Pete Rogers' explanations of how gravity generates free energy by strategic conflation of past and present tenses. I see that you have learned this lesson; you get it.

Warren D Smith wrote:Running along that floor is a hydrogen pipeline.

You aren't completely up to speed on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, are you? Instead of "we" simply utilizing the electricity generated from the turbines to make our lives better, you want to convert that electricity into a different form in order to accomplish work to produce hydrogen gas which will be used to perform work to generate electricity ... far less electricity that was generated initially from the turbines. It's not that you just want to throw away usable energy; it's just that you don't understand thermodynamics and you don't really want to learn. You found it much easier to develop a plan that isn't complicated by thermodynamics concerns.

Are you ready for the bad news?

Warren D Smith wrote:The turbines generate electricity which is transmitted down to the sea floor by cable.

So instead of just storing the electricity in batteries which are then retrieved, you want to "transmit" the electricity down to the ocean floor. You never consulted any actual electrical engineers on this, did you? You found it easier to just ignore the huge loss that would be incurred by "transmitting" (tell me that you know that this is not the right word) the electricity down to the ocean floor.

Warren D Smith wrote:There it electrolyses water to input H2
into the pipeline. The pipeline outputs are on (or near) land
somewhere.

I won't even ask if this pipeline is maintained in the passive voice as well.

The ocean floor is not flat. Will the hydrogen be pumped at all? If so, this will consume energy. Jussayn.

Warren D Smith wrote:Turbine maintenance is mostly by robot.

So, yes, maintenance is free and nobody has to do anything. I get it. All plans are grand when economic realities are abandoned.

Warren D Smith wrote:We find it appears entirely technically and economically feasible to satisfy approximately all (or at least a large fraction of) year-2020 human energy demands in this way,

You are going to have to give me a moment to catch my breath.

This isn't the same "we" you were using above, right? I noticed that little "convenience." Well done.


Warren D Smith wrote: Indeed, we'll show this energy actually will be cheaper than current prices and also cheaper (sometimes greatly) than schemes based on water-currents, other-located wind turbines, or solar power – albeit the prices of the lattermost have been rapidly changing.

Ask me how I know that you will not be "showing" this with any sort of real-world demonstration. Go on, ask me how I know.


Warren D Smith wrote:However, this project, as well as any attempt to generate a large fraction of human energy from winds, will cause noticeable alterations in weather and climate.

It will not cause any noticeable alterations to anything that you have not unambiguously defined.

Ask me how I know.

[animated GIF omitted considering Harvey's dial-up connection]


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2021 04:23
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
To reply to "HarveyH55":
1.the costs are discussed in the paper and you'd have to read it. If you find any specific objection to my cost etc analyses then it could be considered.
2.Re your worry the scheme would "increase the salt content of the oceans": the total water-removal rate (due to water getting electrolyzed) of the system at maximum scale would be about 4*10^12 kg/year, which is about 1 part in 10^5 of the natural evaporation rate. All the resulting hydrogen would then be burned, then the resulting water would return via rain, rivers, etc to the oceans. So the long term effect on saltiness should be zero. It is possible the removal rate will not INCREASE by 1 part in 10^5 but actually DECREASE due to the wind turbines reducing wind on ocean reducing evaporative pick up (I have no idea) in which case effect actually would have opposite sign to your fear. In any case 1 part in 10^5 seems so tiny it is no problem for anything I can think of. For example if anybody altered the salinity of your blood by that amount it would too small for you or any lab test you can buy to detect.
11-10-2021 04:24
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
To reply to "HarveyH55":
1.the costs are discussed in the paper and you'd have to read it. If you find any specific objection to my cost etc analyses then it could be considered.
2.Re your worry the scheme would "increase the salt content of the oceans": the total water-removal rate (due to water getting electrolyzed) of the system at maximum scale would be about 4*10^12 kg/year, which is about 1 part in 10^5 of the natural evaporation rate. All the resulting hydrogen would then be burned, then the resulting water would return via rain, rivers, etc to the oceans. So the long term effect on saltiness should be zero. It is possible the removal rate will not INCREASE by 1 part in 10^5 but actually DECREASE due to the wind turbines reducing wind on ocean reducing evaporative pick up (I have no idea) in which case effect actually would have opposite sign to your fear. In any case 1 part in 10^5 seems so tiny it is no problem for anything I can think of. For example if anybody altered the salinity of your blood by that amount it would too small for you or any lab test you can buy to detect.
11-10-2021 05:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Here is a paper.
If you have comments/questions about it, email to warren.wds AT gmail.com.

One of my problems was: I was unable to use any climate-model program
and unable to get any help from anybody in the computer climate modeling community. As I explained in paper, a 1-line
change to such a code would answer important questions.
So if anybody can help, I'd like to know.

First problem: climate models are just random number generators. Random numbers are not capable of prediction.
Warren D Smith wrote:
==========

URL: http://vixra.org/abs/2110.0016
Title: Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises
Author: Warren D. Smith

2nd problem: Carbon is not a crisis. You don't get to dictate energy markets. Define 'The Problem'.
Warren D Smith wrote:
ABSTRACT:
We examine the following as a sustainable world-energy Plan.

You don't get to dictate energy markets. We already have sustainable forms of energy, such as oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc. Each of these far more capable of generating power cheaply, watt for watt, than any piddle power you are proposing.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Distribute floating wind turbines mainly within the "roaring forties"
and "furious fifties" regions of the southern oceans. Anchor them by
cables to the sea floor.

Ever hear of anchor drag? Won't work. Also, you are ignoring the weight of 2 miles of cable and the effect of salt water on materials.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Running along that floor is a hydrogen
pipeline.

The pressure at the sea floor is approx 25000psi. This will easily crush your pipeline. In addition, hydrogen at that depth is a mere 55psi. You will have to supply pumps to get that hydrogen out of the pipe that can produce a gas head of over 55 pounds. This will exceed the energy you get from burning the hydrogen.
Warren D Smith wrote:
The turbines generate electricity which is transmitted down
to the sea floor by cable.

Copper wire to reach the sea floor will weigh approx 4 tons. This will easily snap the wire.
You could use aluminum, it will weigh a mere ton. This will also easily snap the wire.
Both materials corrode in seawater. I have not included the necessary insulation and armoring needed to withstand 25000psi pressures and currents the wire will encounter.

Further, wire has resistance. Aluminum has greater resistance per foot than copper. You will lose most of your energy to heating the ocean water. Very little will be available to run any electrolysis. It may not be enough to run it at all. The resistance you will see in copper is approx 3 ohms to get to the sea floor (assuming 1/0 AWG). The resistance of aluminum is worse, approx 5 ohms.

You could use thinner wire, but the resistance only goes up rapidly by doing so.

Warren D Smith wrote:
There it electrolyses water to input H2
into the pipeline. The pipeline outputs are on (or near) land
somewhere.

You are going to have to pump it. You will need to produce a gas head of over 55psi. Delivery at the surface head is only the excess psi beyond that value. This is already assuming your pipe hasn't been already crushed by the tremendous pressures on the sea floor. You are also now using more energy than you get out of the hydrogen by pumping it.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Turbine maintenance is mostly by robot.

Robots are easily lost at sea and have very limited capabilities. Better to send a ship and crew. Unfortunately, it does nothing for that poor anode down at the bottom of the sea, which corrodes away due to electrolysis. It will have to be replaced periodically. As the anode degrades, the efficiency of the cell drops.

Warren D Smith wrote:
We find it appears
entirely technically and economically feasible to satisfy
approximately all (or at least a large fraction of) year-2020 human
energy demands in this way,

Your finding has left a lot of important bits of engineering out. It also has left out the cost of even attempting such a project.
Warren D Smith wrote:
but show with a new analysis of
wind-energy limitations that much more is impossible. Indeed, we'll
show this energy actually will be cheaper than current prices and also
cheaper (sometimes greatly) than schemes based on water-currents,
other-located wind turbines, or solar power – albeit the prices of the
lattermost have been rapidly changing.

ANYTHING at sea is more expensive than land, particularly if it has to operate underwater.
Warren D Smith wrote:
However, this project, as well
as any attempt to generate a large fraction of human energy from
winds, will cause noticeable alterations in weather and climate.

Human energy doesn't come from wind. It comes from eating food. Define 'climate change'. Please describe how a piddly little propeller can change the weather.
Warren D Smith wrote:
I provide initial guesses about what those alterations will be

Your guesses are ignoring significant factors in engineering. This pipe dream of yours (har!) is not going to work. Even attempting it is going to cost you far more than you are going to get out of it.
Warren D Smith wrote:
and discussion of how to modify "global climate model" codes to investigate that.

Modifying your code is your hobby. It has nothing to do with actual weather. There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth has many climates. Climate has no values associated with it. It is purely a subjective word.
Warren D Smith wrote:
(Basically this would be a 1-line code change, but
we demonstrate that many climate modeling codes are incredibly screwed
up and lied about.)

They all are. Happy coding!
Warren D Smith wrote:
We conclude with some deprecation of the "hydrogen economy" and instead suggest the "aluminum economy."

People already produce and sell hydrogen gas. The most effective method of transport is liquidifed hydrogen.
People already produce and sell aluminum. You will find it used on many an airplane or engine block in a car.

There is already a hydrogen economy and an aluminum economy.

Just from the abstract alone, I would flunk this paper.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 11-10-2021 05:30
11-10-2021 17:30
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
To reply to "Into the night":
You are more or less correct about your fears re electrical cable strength.
A length=L wire suspended in Earth gravity g in vacuum, will break (at the top),
if L>(TensileStrength)/(g*Density).
Copper: Density=9.0gram/cc; TensileStrength>=221 MPa, L=2.5km.
Aluminum: Density=2.81gram/cc; TensileStrength=276 MPa, L=10.0km.
Steel (commercial piano wire, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_wire)
density=7.8gram/cc, TensileStrength=2620 to 2930 MPa; L>=34.3km.
LDPE (plastic): density=0.87 to 0.96 gram/cc, TensileYieldStrength=7 to 42 MPa;
L=0.74 to 4.9km.
So evidently a cable made of a COMBINATION of steel, aluminum, and plastic insulator
would work. The plan was to (a) anchor the floating turbines to sea floor with 1 or more cables
(presumably strong ones) and (b) connect it electrically to electrolyzers at sea floor H-pipeline, via presumably good conductors. Nothing stops us from doing both a and b at same time by using a cable constructed out of both something strong and something else that is a good conductor. Indeed, utility companies today tend to use a combination of steel for strength and aluminum or copper for conductivity for long suspended cables on land.

And actually even pure aluminum would work (L>=15.5km) if we also take into account the 1.03 gram/cc buoyancy provided by sea water instead of assuming suspended in vacuum. (Polyethylene actually floats, so bouyancy can be rather significant.)
I remind you that the paper says "the depths are between 2 and 8 km
in the seas we shall be concerned with."

Another point raised by "Night" that seems worrying was "Ever hear of anchor drag? Won't work." Well, unlike ships that sometimes have experienced anchor drag, in the present application we intend for the anchor to be installed permanently and do not intend for it to be trivially removable any time the ship decides it wants to leave. Given that different goal, different anchor design is appropriate and the problem becomes much easier..

The hydrogen pipeline contains internal pressure which during operation will be about equal to sea pressure at the deepest depths considered. So it certainly will not be crushed. (A more realistic fear would be the opposite -- it would explode.). Before operation it could be installed filled with water in which case again no crush forces whatsoever.. Undersea gas pipelines are used today at a depth of 3.2 km ( https://www.offshore-technology.com/features/featureinstalling-the-worlds-deepest-fpso-and-gas-pipeline-4275698/ ).

Finally, I am not interested in people who have never written, modified, compiled, or used a climate model in their lives, telling me from their armchairs not to use them. I instead am interested in somebody who actually knows what they are doing, providing help using them, or even better running it themselves -- since the hardware I have access to is probably inadequate.
11-10-2021 19:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Warren D Smith wrote:
To reply to "Into the night":
You are more or less correct about your fears re electrical cable strength.
A length=L wire suspended in Earth gravity g in vacuum, will break (at the top),
if L>(TensileStrength)/(g*Density).
Copper: Density=9.0gram/cc; TensileStrength>=221 MPa, L=2.5km.
Aluminum: Density=2.81gram/cc; TensileStrength=276 MPa, L=10.0km.
Steel (commercial piano wire, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_wire)
density=7.8gram/cc, TensileStrength=2620 to 2930 MPa; L>=34.3km.
LDPE (plastic): density=0.87 to 0.96 gram/cc, TensileYieldStrength=7 to 42 MPa;
L=0.74 to 4.9km.
So evidently a cable made of a COMBINATION of steel, aluminum, and plastic insulator
would work. The plan was to (a) anchor the floating turbines to sea floor with 1 or more cables
(presumably strong ones) and (b) connect it electrically to electrolyzers at sea floor H-pipeline, via presumably good conductors. Nothing stops us from doing both a and b at same time by using a cable constructed out of both something strong and something else that is a good conductor. Indeed, utility companies today tend to use a combination of steel for strength and aluminum or copper for conductivity for long suspended cables on land.

And actually even pure aluminum would work (L>=15.5km) if we also take into account the 1.03 gram/cc buoyancy provided by sea water instead of assuming suspended in vacuum. (Polyethylene actually floats, so bouyancy can be rather significant.)
I remind you that the paper says "the depths are between 2 and 8 km
in the seas we shall be concerned with."

Won't work. I have already explained why. Adding insulation to the lines only makes them heavier despite any buoyancy. Electric companies do not use steel. They use bare aluminum wire for overhead trunk lines suspended on tall towers, and bare aluminum on all feeders. There is no steel other than a supporting tower or pole.
On a service entrance, they will suspend the insulated wire from the transformer to the entrance using a aluminum wire. Rarely they use steel, as it rusts. Aluminum does too, but the rust stops at the surface naturally. You apparently are clueless how the electrical system works.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Another point raised by "Night" that seems worrying was "Ever hear of anchor drag? Won't work." Well, unlike ships that sometimes have experienced anchor drag, in the present application we intend for the anchor to be installed permanently and do not intend for it to be trivially removable any time the ship decides it wants to leave. Given that different goal, different anchor design is appropriate and the problem becomes much easier..

Makes no difference. Anchor drag is a problem. I don't think you understand anything about the properties of dirt.
Warren D Smith wrote:
The hydrogen pipeline contains internal pressure which during operation will be about equal to sea pressure at the deepest depths considered.

It can't. Hydrogen at that depth is only 55psi.
Warren D Smith wrote:
So it certainly will not be crushed.

It will be crushed under 25000psi.
Warren D Smith wrote:
(A more realistic fear would be the opposite -- it would explode.).

Not a chance. It will be crushed.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Before operation it could be installed filled with water in which case again no crush forces whatsoever..

You can't ship hydrogen gas through the water. How are you going to pump that water out? You will need a pump that can develop a head of more than 25000psi! That pump cannot be on the surface due to cavitation.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Undersea gas pipelines are used today at a depth of 3.2 km ( https://www.offshore-technology.com/features/featureinstalling-the-worlds-deepest-fpso-and-gas-pipeline-4275698/ ).
Have you seen the pumps used on these?
[quote]Warren D Smith wrote:
Finally, I am not interested in people who have never written, modified, compiled, or used a climate model in their lives, telling me from their armchairs not to use them.

Bulverism fallacy. Climate models in computers are nothing more than random number generators, usually of type randU with some randN and randR elements (if the system is capable of generating randR).
Warren D Smith wrote:
I instead am interested in somebody who actually knows what they are doing, providing help using them, or even better running it themselves -- since the hardware I have access to is probably inadequate.

Makes no difference. The concept of a climate model is utterly useless.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 11-10-2021 19:13
11-10-2021 19:43
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
"Night": Adding insulation to the lines only makes them heavier despite any buoyancy.

--incorrect. Insulation if made of LDPE (I gave the numbers) will actually make the lines effectively lighter underwater.

"Night": Electric companies do not use steel. They use bare aluminum wire for overhead trunk lines suspended on tall towers, and bare aluminum on all feeders. There is no steel other than a supporting tower or pole... You apparently are clueless how the electrical system works.

--reply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-conductor_steel-reinforced_cable

"Night": Hydrogen at that depth is only 55psi.

--No: hydrogen can be any pressure. In our case it is generated by electrolysis of water and therefore has pressure at least equal to the water's simply in order to be able to come out
of the water at all. So our hydrogen has pressure slightly exceeding
sea pressure at the deepest depth it is generated at. Therefore the force on the pipeline walls
will be OUTWARD and the risk will not be of crushing, but rather explosion.
Also for the same reason the water in the pipeline will be expelled by the hydrogen (if we begin with pipe being water-filled). No pumping per se is needed because the pressure gradient is large enough to power the flow (as I'd discussed in the paper). Various other things commenters erroneously claimed paper had never considered, also were analysed in the paper.

Perhaps it will help your comprehension if you consider some actually-operating commercial pipelines. The Nordstream pipeline carries Russian natural gas under the Baltic sea to Europe.
The length of the subsea part of that pipeline is 1222 km (759 mi).
Nordstream is actually two parallel pipelines, both with capacity of 27.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year.
The twin pipes each have a diameter of 1220 mm (48 in), wall thicknesses (I presume this refers to the metal part only?) of 26.8 to 41 mm, and internal operating pressure of 220 bar (22 MPa; 3200 psi), equivalent to the pressure at a sea depth of about 2.2 km. At that pressure natural gas has density=0.207 gram/cc i.e. 20% of the density of sea water. For that reason the pipeline needs to be weighted down.
A picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#/media/File:Nord_Stream_pipe_in_Kotka.jpg
looks like the pipe walls are multilayered made of (in order from inside to out)
1. white and/or copper colored substance (perhaps thin copper plating inside plastic or ceramic?)
2. metal, presumably steel,
3. white substance (plastic or ceramic?),
4. black substance (rubber or plastic?)
5. concrete.
where layers 2 & 5 are the thick ones, and layer 5 is 2-3 times thicker than layer 2.
Layer 2 provides almost all the strength.
Layer 5 provides both some external protection, plus weighting so the gas-filled pipeline will
stay sunk.

The pipeline that I have in mind could be designed pretty similarly to Nordstream. It needs a bit
more weighting since hydrogen is lighter than natgas.
11-10-2021 19:43
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
"Night": Adding insulation to the lines only makes them heavier despite any buoyancy.

--incorrect. Insulation if made of LDPE (I gave the numbers) will actually make the lines effectively lighter underwater.

"Night": Electric companies do not use steel. They use bare aluminum wire for overhead trunk lines suspended on tall towers, and bare aluminum on all feeders. There is no steel other than a supporting tower or pole... You apparently are clueless how the electrical system works.

--reply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-conductor_steel-reinforced_cable

"Night": Hydrogen at that depth is only 55psi.

--No: hydrogen can be any pressure. In our case it is generated by electrolysis of water and therefore has pressure at least equal to the water's simply in order to be able to come out
of the water at all. So our hydrogen has pressure slightly exceeding
sea pressure at the deepest depth it is generated at. Therefore the force on the pipeline walls
will be OUTWARD and the risk will not be of crushing, but rather explosion.
Also for the same reason the water in the pipeline will be expelled by the hydrogen (if we begin with pipe being water-filled). No pumping per se is needed because the pressure gradient is large enough to power the flow (as I'd discussed in the paper). Various other things commenters erroneously claimed paper had never considered, also were analysed in the paper.

Perhaps it will help your comprehension if you consider some actually-operating commercial pipelines. The Nordstream pipeline carries Russian natural gas under the Baltic sea to Europe.
The length of the subsea part of that pipeline is 1222 km (759 mi).
Nordstream is actually two parallel pipelines, both with capacity of 27.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year.
The twin pipes each have a diameter of 1220 mm (48 in), wall thicknesses (I presume this refers to the metal part only?) of 26.8 to 41 mm, and internal operating pressure of 220 bar (22 MPa; 3200 psi), equivalent to the pressure at a sea depth of about 2.2 km. At that pressure natural gas has density=0.207 gram/cc i.e. 20% of the density of sea water. For that reason the pipeline needs to be weighted down.
A picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#/media/File:Nord_Stream_pipe_in_Kotka.jpg
looks like the pipe walls are multilayered made of (in order from inside to out)
1. white and/or copper colored substance (perhaps thin copper plating inside plastic or ceramic?)
2. metal, presumably steel,
3. white substance (plastic or ceramic?),
4. black substance (rubber or plastic?)
5. concrete.
where layers 2 & 5 are the thick ones, and layer 5 is 2-3 times thicker than layer 2.
Layer 2 provides almost all the strength.
Layer 5 provides both some external protection, plus weighting so the gas-filled pipeline will
stay sunk.

The pipeline that I have in mind could be designed pretty similarly to Nordstream. It needs a bit
more weighting since hydrogen is lighter than natgas.
11-10-2021 20:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night": Adding insulation to the lines only makes them heavier despite any buoyancy.

--incorrect. Insulation if made of LDPE (I gave the numbers) will actually make the lines effectively lighter underwater.

Anchor drag....anchor drag...anchor drag...
Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night": Electric companies do not use steel. They use bare aluminum wire for overhead trunk lines suspended on tall towers, and bare aluminum on all feeders. There is no steel other than a supporting tower or pole... You apparently are clueless how the electrical system works.

--reply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium-conductor_steel-reinforced_cable

You also cannot use Wikipedia as a reference for anything. You are showing one specific type of cable used for certain installations.
Using a steel reinforced cable will make the cable weigh even more.
Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night": Hydrogen at that depth is only 55psi.

--No: hydrogen can be any pressure. In our case it is generated by electrolysis of water and therefore has pressure at least equal to the water's simply in order to be able to come out
of the water at all.

Don't know anything about partial pressures, do ya?
Warren D Smith wrote:
So our hydrogen has pressure slightly exceeding
sea pressure at the deepest depth it is generated at.

No, dude. You have to compress the hydrogen to do that. That means another pump.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Therefore the force on the pipeline walls
will be OUTWARD and the risk will not be of crushing, but rather explosion.

No. It will be crushing.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Also for the same reason the water in the pipeline will be expelled by the hydrogen (if we begin with pipe being water-filled). No pumping per se is needed because the pressure gradient is large enough to power the flow (as I'd discussed in the paper). Various other things commenters erroneously claimed paper had never considered, also were analysed in the paper.

Apparently you know very little about plumbing. You can't evacuate a pipeline filled with water that way. Do you know anything about airlock? Apparently not.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Perhaps it will help your comprehension if you consider some actually-operating commercial pipelines. The Nordstream pipeline carries Russian natural gas under the Baltic sea to Europe.

Only a part of the Baltic sea, and only along a shallow portion. Again, you are ignoring the massive pumps required to do even this.
The length of the subsea part of that pipeline is 1222 km (759 mi).
Nordstream is actually two parallel pipelines, both with capacity of 27.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year.
The twin pipes each have a diameter of 1220 mm (48 in), wall thicknesses (I presume this refers to the metal part only?) of 26.8 to 41 mm, and internal operating pressure of 220 bar (22 MPa; 3200 psi), equivalent to the pressure at a sea depth of about 2.2 km. At that pressure natural gas has density=0.207 gram/cc i.e. 20% of the density of sea water. For that reason the pipeline needs to be weighted down.
A picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#/media/File:Nord_Stream_pipe_in_Kotka.jpg
looks like the pipe walls are multilayered made of (in order from inside to out)
1. white and/or copper colored substance (perhaps thin copper plating inside plastic or ceramic?)
2. metal, presumably steel,
3. white substance (plastic or ceramic?),
4. black substance (rubber or plastic?)
5. concrete.
where layers 2 & 5 are the thick ones, and layer 5 is 2-3 times thicker than layer 2.
Layer 2 provides almost all the strength.
Layer 5 provides both some external protection, plus weighting so the gas-filled pipeline will
stay sunk.

The pipeline that I have in mind could be designed pretty similarly to Nordstream. It needs a bit
more weighting since hydrogen is lighter than natgas.
[/quote]
The sea floor is considerably deeper than the Baltic sea.
You still have not dealt with anchor drag.
You still have not dealt with tensile strength of wire.
You still have not dealt with losing power due to heating.
You still have not dealt with 25000psi.
You still have not dealt with the requirements of clearing the pipe.
You still have not dealt with the inevitable leaks in such a pipe.
You still have not justified computer 'climate models'.
An additional one: Just how many of these machines are you proposing across, say the Atlantic ocean? How much power do you see an individual machine producing at the turbine? What kind of navigational hazard are you talking about here?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 11-10-2021 20:17
11-10-2021 20:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)


Warren D Smith wrote:Finally, I am not interested in people who have never written, modified, compiled, or used a climate model in their lives,

You are a moron who does not even know the difference between a model and a computer program that implements the model. Why does someone such as yourself who knows nothing about software engineering or mathematical models pretend to somehow be authoritative in these areas?

I'll write it again, nobody has ever modeled the global climate because the global climate has never been formally defined, owing mostly to the fact that "global climate" is a contradiction in and of itself. As such, there isn't anyone who has ever written, modified compiled or used a climate model in his or her life. This means that you have never written, modified, compiled or used a climate model in your life.

Are you familiar with the term "STFU"?

Learn what a model is. Learn what a computer program is. Thereafter, when you refer to models, don't speak in terms of computer programs. One does not compile a model. One constructs a model and one compiles code. If one modifies a model then one must modify the program that implements the model; however, one may modify a computer program without modifying the underlying model being implemented.

Look, I realize that software engineering and mathematics are very technical subjects and you shouldn't be afraid to come to me with your questions, and you really should consider running your posts by me before you post them so you can avoid writing really stupid things.

Warren D Smith wrote: I instead am interested in somebody who actually knows what they are doing,

You must be a millennial. The word "somebody" is singular whereas the word "they" is a plural. You can write either "I am interested in somebody who actually knows what he is doing" or "I am interested in people who know what they are doing" but you cannot mix singulars and plurals and expect to maintain parallel structure.



Anyway, your grammar is as poor as your aptitude in math and software engineering.

I recommend you start by formulating a coherent thesis statement and then working from there.

11-10-2021 21:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
IBdaMann wrote:


Warren D Smith wrote:Finally, I am not interested in people who have never written, modified, compiled, or used a climate model in their lives,

You are a moron who does not even know the difference between a model and a computer program that implements the model. Why does someone such as yourself who knows nothing about software engineering or mathematical models pretend to somehow be authoritative in these areas?

I'll write it again, nobody has ever modeled the global climate because the global climate has never been formally defined, owing mostly to the fact that "global climate" is a contradiction in and of itself. As such, there isn't anyone who has ever written, modified compiled or used a climate model in his or her life. This means that you have never written, modified, compiled or used a climate model in your life.

Are you familiar with the term "STFU"?

Learn what a model is. Learn what a computer program is. Thereafter, when you refer to models, don't speak in terms of computer programs. One does not compile a model. One constructs a model and one compiles code. If one modifies a model then one must modify the program that implements the model; however, one may modify a computer program without modifying the underlying model being implemented.

Look, I realize that software engineering and mathematics are very technical subjects and you shouldn't be afraid to come to me with your questions, and you really should consider running your posts by me before you post them so you can avoid writing really stupid things.

Warren D Smith wrote: I instead am interested in somebody who actually knows what they are doing,

You must be a millennial. The word "somebody" is singular whereas the word "they" is a plural. You can write either "I am interested in somebody who actually knows what he is doing" or "I am interested in people who know what they are doing" but you cannot mix singulars and plurals and expect to maintain parallel structure.



Anyway, your grammar is as poor as your aptitude in math and software engineering.

I recommend you start by formulating a coherent thesis statement and then working from there.



I am unaware what programming language he is constructing his program in to 'model climate'. Some languages, such as C, C++, assembly, etc. are compiled. Others, such as Java, Python, Perl, Ruby, most lisps, Tutor, etc. are condensed, not compiled. They run as token interpreters. Other languages like some older BASICs, shells (including the Bash shell), certain lisps, etc. are interpreted. They are not condensed or compiled in any way.

I am assuming at this point the code is probably in C/C++, and is therefore compiled. I do not know what system he is coding this thing on, but that determines the linkage capability. That is not part of the compile, but it is often included as part of making the final image (binary) to run.

Of course, you are quite correct. Since 'climate' is a subjective word, no one has been able to define 'climate' in any sort of value form, making 'climate models' an exercise in futile semantics and nothing more than random number generators of type randU.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
11-10-2021 21:54
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Replying again to "Night":
Conceming the electrical cables to the seafloor, here is one possible toy design.
Make the cable consist of 2 aluminum conductors each with diameter=1, both enclosed in a common polyethylene insulator with outer diameter=4.45, and assume density(aluminum)=2.81, density(polyethylene)=0.83, density(seawater)=1.03.
(This design resembles long distance underwater power cables that are being used commercially today.). Anyhow, I have cleverly chosen these numbers so that this cable has NEUTRAL buoyancy, i.e. effectively zero weight (will neither sink nor rise).
This example should hopefully make it clear that cables unable to support their weight, simply is
not an insuperable problem.

WDS: So our hydrogen has pressure slightly exceeding
sea pressure at the deepest depth it is generated at.
"Night": No, dude. You have to compress the hydrogen to do that. That means another pump.

--reply: Sorry Night, incorrect. The electrolyser IS the compressor+pump. It generates H2 at a high pressure. Specifically it always generates it at least at a slightly higher pressure than the water. That pressure does the pumping. It in fact requires a bit more electrical energy to electrolyse water at a higher pressure, for exactly this reason (as is well known).

And notice in the description of the Nordstream pipeline I gave, they run it at a higher internal gas pressure than any seawater pressure at any point in the Baltic (even the deepest part of the Baltic). Been using NordStrem for 10 years now. Thus, as I've been saying, the risk they face is not crushing, but rather pipeline burst.
In the case of Norstream, they attain this internal pressure with the aid of pumps.
In my case, I attain it by simply generating the H2 in the first place at high pressure.
My method is better since I avoid the need for pumps.

"NIght":
1. The sea floor is considerably deeper than the Baltic sea.
2. You still have not dealt with anchor drag. Anchor drag. Anchor drag. Anchor drag.
3. You still have not dealt with tensile strength of wire.
4. You still have not dealt with losing power due to heating.
5. You still have not dealt with 25000psi.
6. You still have not dealt with the requirements of clearing the pipe.
7. You still have not dealt with the inevitable leaks in such a pipe.
8. You still have not justified computer 'climate models'.
9. Just how many of these machines are you proposing across, say the Atlantic ocean? How much power do you see an individual machine producing at the turbine?
10. What kind of navigational hazard are you talking about here?

--replies.
1. Oddly enough, I knew that already. You are not raising some objection here that I was unaware of and had not already dealt with.
2. As I pointed out on page 1 of my paper, the "Hywind Scotland Array" of floating wind turbines anchored to the sea floor by cable, has already been operating for 4 years 18 miles NW of Peterhead Scotland after a test in 220m deep water off Norway. This operational period included during a hurricane. Its turbines have hub height 101m. Evidently it did not drag its anchors.
3. Dealt with.
4, 9, and 10. The problem revealed by this is that "Night" apparently did not read the paper.
5. 25000 psi would be the pressure at a depth of 17 km.
But no point in the oceans is even 11 km deep.
6. Dealt with.
7. My paper involves many parallel pipes, so if one fails the others can remain in use while they try to fix it. That also is probably same reason why Nordstream is 2 pipes, not 1 wider pipe. As far as I know, Nordstream never leaked during the 10 years operation so far (if anybody has counterexamples, please inform me). But I guess I agree it would be better to plan for how to solve such problems ahead of time. Ideas? I guess the crudest possible idea would just be to replace some entire pipeline segment for segments that go bad. (Design to allow that, say
every 10 miles there is a gizmo to allow switching out that 10-mile segment, and shut offs so that the most that can leak out is 10 miles worth of gas.)
At the rate NordStream is failing (i.e. zero fails in 10 years) even that crudest possible answer is entirely adequate and will not hurt my paper's budget.
8. Well, let's just say that the paper discusses that all quite a bit. The critic/commenters have not yet reached even 5% of the level of that discussion, while meanwhile 2 climate modelers just won Nobel for the consensus high success of their 50+ year old models, so the onus certainly is not on me.
12-10-2021 00:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
[animated GIF omitted for Harvey's sake]


Into the Night wrote:I am unaware what programming language he is constructing his program in to 'model climate'.

Regardless, if it is a programming language then it is "code" that is either compiled or interpreted, and is not the model itself. The model is constructed first as an ontology of some sort which is then implemented in a computer program. The order of operations cannot be reversed, i.e. you cannot first start writing the program to implement the model that is yet to be constructed.

Only someone totally incompetent in writing software would confuse the model to be implemented by the code with the code that implements the model.

Into the Night wrote:I am assuming at this point the code is probably in C/C++,

Sure, it's possible that he is imagining a computer program written in C or C++ but he is not talking about any sort of "global climate" model because no such thing exists. He is babbling nonsense. He should consult with an actual software engineer before he starts yapping about software and he should consult with a mathematician before he starts yapping about models ... and he should have his mother check his grammar before he posts.

By the way ... you date yourself with your notion that the program is written in C/C++ ... instead of FORTRAN (which would have made you older) or Python (which would make you younger) or Perl or Java (which would put you in the middle there somewhere).

In short, he is only posting here in an attempt to fool as many people as he can into believing he is a thmart perth'n who should be held in awe. The people who post on this board aren't supposed to realize that he doesn't have a clue about what he's supposedly discussing because that would spoil the charade.

Into the Night wrote:Of course, you are quite correct. Since 'climate' is a subjective word, no one has been able to define 'climate' in any sort of value form, making 'climate models' an exercise in futile semantics and nothing more than random number generators of type randU.

You might have picked up on his apparent need to virtue signal. Now we all know that he is resolved to rolling up his sleeves and taking "Climate" very seriously.

What I noticed is that he is just another "too stupid to learn" climate-lemming. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for him to say something honest or insightful.

[animated GIF omitted for Harvey's sake]
12-10-2021 01:20
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
I'll admit to not actually reading all 27 pages, and only skimming through. Mostly looking for a Bill of Materials, construction estimates, which aren't included. Most of what I read was opinion, with other similar papers cited. The price is probably too great, and would scare people away from reading further.
12-10-2021 01:42
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
HarveyH55:I'll admit to not actually reading all 27 pages, and only skimming through. Mostly looking for a Bill of Materials, construction estimates, which aren't included. Most of what I read was opinion, with other similar papers cited. The price is probably too great, and would scare people away

--reply: construction and cost estimates and materials estimates all were included in the paper.
And it was indeed found the cost of energy produced this way would be smaller than the prices we currently pay.

Obviously, if you don't want to read it, that is fine. But I object to people telling me "the paper does not contain XX" and "the paper never considered XX' when it in fact does/did.

The commenters so far have criticized it aggressively. That is fine with me.
But more thought and analysis from them would, ultimately, be more effective.
For example, no critic so far has ever offered a single formula for anything -- suggesting
it has all been direct from the gut, bypassing, or at least not heavily involving, the brain.
12-10-2021 02:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Replying again to "Night":
Conceming the electrical cables to the seafloor, here is one possible toy design.
Make the cable consist of 2 aluminum conductors each with diameter=1, both enclosed in a common polyethylene insulator with outer diameter=4.45, and assume density(aluminum)=2.81, density(polyethylene)=0.83, density(seawater)=1.03.
(This design resembles long distance underwater power cables that are being used commercially today.). Anyhow, I have cleverly chosen these numbers so that this cable has NEUTRAL buoyancy, i.e. effectively zero weight (will neither sink nor rise).
This example should hopefully make it clear that cables unable to support their weight, simply is
not an insuperable problem.

Power is not transmitted for long distances underwater. Unit error. It's about pressure and tensile strength, not unit weight.
Warren D Smith wrote:
WDS: So our hydrogen has pressure slightly exceeding
sea pressure at the deepest depth it is generated at.
"Night": No, dude. You have to compress the hydrogen to do that. That means another pump.

--reply: Sorry Night, incorrect. The electrolyser IS the compressor+pump. It generates H2 at a high pressure. Specifically it always generates it at least at a slightly higher pressure than the water. That pressure does the pumping. It in fact requires a bit more electrical energy to electrolyse water at a higher pressure, for exactly this reason (as is well known).

Still can't figure out partial pressures, can ya?
Warren D Smith wrote:
And notice in the description of the Nordstream pipeline I gave, they run it at a higher internal gas pressure than any seawater pressure at any point in the Baltic (even the deepest part of the Baltic). Been using NordStrem for 10 years now. Thus, as I've been saying, the risk they face is not crushing, but rather pipeline burst.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Sorry dude, you are ignoring partial pressures again.
Warren D Smith wrote:
In the case of Norstream, they attain this internal pressure with the aid of pumps.
In my case, I attain it by simply generating the H2 in the first place at high pressure.
My method is better since I avoid the need for pumps.

Plumbing doesn't work that way. You are again demonstrating you know nothing about airlock.
Warren D Smith wrote:
"NIght":
1. The sea floor is considerably deeper than the Baltic sea.
2. You still have not dealt with anchor drag. Anchor drag. Anchor drag. Anchor drag.
3. You still have not dealt with tensile strength of wire.
4. You still have not dealt with losing power due to heating.
5. You still have not dealt with 25000psi.
6. You still have not dealt with the requirements of clearing the pipe.
7. You still have not dealt with the inevitable leaks in such a pipe.
8. You still have not justified computer 'climate models'.
9. Just how many of these machines are you proposing across, say the Atlantic ocean? How much power do you see an individual machine producing at the turbine?
10. What kind of navigational hazard are you talking about here?

--replies.
1. Oddly enough, I knew that already. You are not raising some objection here that I was unaware of and had not already dealt with.

You are NOT dealing with it. You are specifically ignoring it. False equivalence fallacies.
Warren D Smith wrote:
2. As I pointed out on page 1 of my paper, the "Hywind Scotland Array" of floating wind turbines anchored to the sea floor by cable, has already been operating for 4 years 18 miles NW of Peterhead Scotland after a test in 220m deep water off Norway. This operational period included during a hurricane. Its turbines have hub height 101m. Evidently it did not drag its anchors.

It is not only dragging its anchors, the chain it's using is undergoing severe corrosion.
Warren D Smith wrote:
3. Dealt with.
[quote]Warren D Smith wrote:
4, 9, and 10. The problem revealed by this is that "Night" apparently did not read the paper.

No need. The abstract you published here is enough.
Warren D Smith wrote:
5. 25000 psi would be the pressure at a depth of 17 km.
But no point in the oceans is even 11 km deep.

Nope. Math error. Try again. Apparently you are unaware how to calculate hydrostatic pressures.
Warren D Smith wrote:
6. Dealt with.

Nope. You cannot clear a pipe that way. You still don't understand plumbing.
Warren D Smith wrote:
7. My paper involves many parallel pipes, so if one fails the others can remain in use while they try to fix it. That also is probably same reason why Nordstream is 2 pipes, not 1 wider pipe. As far as I know, Nordstream never leaked during the 10 years operation so far (if anybody has counterexamples, please inform me). But I guess I agree it would be better to plan for how to solve such problems ahead of time. Ideas? I guess the crudest possible idea would just be to replace some entire pipeline segment for segments that go bad. (Design to allow that, say
every 10 miles there is a gizmo to allow switching out that 10-mile segment, and shut offs so that the most that can leak out is 10 miles worth of gas.)

Not gas leaking out, water leaking in. More fixtures are just more chances of leaks.
Warren D Smith wrote:
At the rate NordStream is failing (i.e. zero fails in 10 years) even that crudest possible answer is entirely adequate and will not hurt my paper's budget.

Papers don't have budgets.
Warren D Smith wrote:
8. Well, let's just say that the paper discusses that all quite a bit.
The critic/commenters have not yet reached even 5% of the level of that discussion, while meanwhile 2 climate modelers just won Nobel for the consensus high success of their 50+ year old models, so the onus certainly is not on me.

Irrelevance fallacy. 'Expert' worship. The Nobel prize is not a proof. False authority fallacy. Base rate fallacies. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Burden of proof fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 03:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
IBdaMann wrote:
[animated GIF omitted for Harvey's sake]


Into the Night wrote:I am unaware what programming language he is constructing his program in to 'model climate'.

Regardless, if it is a programming language then it is "code" that is either compiled or interpreted, and is not the model itself. The model is constructed first as an ontology of some sort which is then implemented in a computer program. The order of operations cannot be reversed, i.e. you cannot first start writing the program to implement the model that is yet to be constructed.

Only someone totally incompetent in writing software would confuse the model to be implemented by the code with the code that implements the model.

I gotta agree with you there. There is the model, the data structures used to represent the model, and the code. In this sense, the model is a plan to form the data structures around, the data structures are the noun, and the code is the verb.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I am assuming at this point the code is probably in C/C++,

Sure, it's possible that he is imagining a computer program written in C or C++ but he is not talking about any sort of "global climate" model because no such thing exists. He is babbling nonsense. He should consult with an actual software engineer before he starts yapping about software and he should consult with a mathematician before he starts yapping about models ... and he should have his mother check his grammar before he posts.

Both very true. Of course, some of his grammar problems come from the Liberal language. It just shows his illiteracy.
IBdaMann wrote:
By the way ... you date yourself with your notion that the program is written in C/C++ ... instead of FORTRAN (which would have made you older) or Python (which would make you younger) or Perl or Java (which would put you in the middle there somewhere).

Heh. FORTRAN, while still used on rare occasions, has mostly been replaced by C/C++. Most anyone writing in a compiler language these days is using C/C++ (with some assembly for turnkey, driver, or highly optimized code use). I have used FORTRAN, Pascal, ALGOL, RPG, PL/1, and even COBOL (I rarely admit using COBOL) in my travels. Today, Java is the modern COBOL. It is just as bulky, and just as a mess to code in. It has also become a proprietary language.

You can still get compilers for these older languages, but most folks don't bother.

The oldest language in common use today is Lisp. Emacs configuration is based on lisp, and the Bash shell makes use of it. Make also makes use of it. The Google web crawler is written in lisp. I know of several websites written in lisp.

An oldie, but goodie!

IBdaMann wrote:
In short, he is only posting here in an attempt to fool as many people as he can into believing he is a thmart perth'n who should be held in awe. The people who post on this board aren't supposed to realize that he doesn't have a clue about what he's supposedly discussing because that would spoil the charade.

He's definitely trying for the charade. It seems he's currently trying to go for the 'expert' worship tactic.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Of course, you are quite correct. Since 'climate' is a subjective word, no one has been able to define 'climate' in any sort of value form, making 'climate models' an exercise in futile semantics and nothing more than random number generators of type randU.

You might have picked up on his apparent need to virtue signal. Now we all know that he is resolved to rolling up his sleeves and taking "Climate" very seriously.

What I noticed is that he is just another "too stupid to learn" climate-lemming. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for him to say something honest or insightful.

Really don't blame you. You've seen this religion as long as I have known you.
IBdaMann wrote:
[animated GIF omitted for Harvey's sake]


I appreciate this actually. While clever, the GIFs do detract from your posts, in my opinion.
My advice (it's free!) is to limit the use of GIFs as signets, and concentrate on creating better memes. I wouldn't use one as a signet, especially a large one.

You do, after all, have a great talent for creating these images. I particularly like the one you use for Keepit. It's so appropriate.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 03:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'll admit to not actually reading all 27 pages, and only skimming through. Mostly looking for a Bill of Materials, construction estimates, which aren't included. Most of what I read was opinion, with other similar papers cited. The price is probably too great, and would scare people away from reading further.

Heh. The thing about pipe dreams (Har!) like this is that they don't specify ANY bill of materials, nor even pay any attention to engineering principles.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 03:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Warren D Smith wrote:
HarveyH55:I'll admit to not actually reading all 27 pages, and only skimming through. Mostly looking for a Bill of Materials, construction estimates, which aren't included. Most of what I read was opinion, with other similar papers cited. The price is probably too great, and would scare people away

--reply: construction and cost estimates and materials estimates all were included in the paper.
And it was indeed found the cost of energy produced this way would be smaller than the prices we currently pay.

Obviously, if you don't want to read it, that is fine. But I object to people telling me "the paper does not contain XX" and "the paper never considered XX' when it in fact does/did.

The commenters so far have criticized it aggressively. That is fine with me.
But more thought and analysis from them would, ultimately, be more effective.
For example, no critic so far has ever offered a single formula for anything -- suggesting
it has all been direct from the gut, bypassing, or at least not heavily involving, the brain.

Since you have not specified the engineering, I find this statement hard to believe. Insulting people is not the way to go through life, dude.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 12-10-2021 03:05
12-10-2021 03:57
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1373)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Here is a paper.
If you have comments/questions about it, email to warren.wds AT gmail.com.

One of my problems was: I was unable to use any climate-model program
and unable to get any help from anybody in the computer climate modeling community. As I explained in paper, a 1-line
change to such a code would answer important questions.
So if anybody can help, I'd like to know.

==========

URL: http://vixra.org/abs/2110.0016
Title: Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises
Author: Warren D. Smith

ABSTRACT:
We examine the following as a sustainable world-energy Plan.
Distribute floating wind turbines mainly within the "roaring forties"
and "furious fifties" regions of the southern oceans. Anchor them by
cables to the sea floor. Running along that floor is a hydrogen
pipeline. The turbines generate electricity which is transmitted down
to the sea floor by cable. There it electrolyses water to input H2
into the pipeline. The pipeline outputs are on (or near) land
somewhere. Turbine maintenance is mostly by robot. We find it appears
entirely technically and economically feasible to satisfy
approximately all (or at least a large fraction of) year-2020 human
energy demands in this way, but show with a new analysis of
wind-energy limitations that much more is impossible. Indeed, we'll
show this energy actually will be cheaper than current prices and also
cheaper (sometimes greatly) than schemes based on water-currents,
other-located wind turbines, or solar power – albeit the prices of the
lattermost have been rapidly changing. However, this project, as well
as any attempt to generate a large fraction of human energy from
winds, will cause noticeable alterations in weather and climate. I
provide initial guesses about what those alterations will be and
discussion of how to modify "global climate model" codes to
investigate that. (Basically this would be a 1-line code change, but
we demonstrate that many climate modeling codes are incredibly screwed
up and lied about.) We conclude with some deprecation of the "hydrogen
economy" and instead suggest the "aluminum economy."

========= (end)


You may of missed the boat.last week I had explained to me that Andrew Forrest former CEO of FMG has applied for tenure to the state government to build wind farms and solar power on his mining leases in the Pilbara.It is a vast area and the wind blows and it rains 10-15 days a year.All the material and resources are here in Western Australia and will be sourced localy.It is going to happen and the power generated will energise all of Australia and a large portion of South East Asia.Who was ever going to build your pipedream and what for.I been to the Southern ocean at Albany and it is not very pleasant place to be.Massive swells and storms.Australia will still mine and sell coal as long as someone will buy it.Humanity was always going to transition to new forms of energy generation its just been sped up by the clowns who believe we are warming.We are not warming the ice is not melting and the sea levels are not rising.Deal with it.Like wars speed up technology this AGW/CC bollocks has done the same thing.I personaly think burning coal to make steam to turn a generator is primative however once the plant is built you get 60-70 years of operation.Wind/solar 10 years.Do the math.Andrew Forrest has the money and the connections to make this happen now.Governments will still be in the impact phase when this is already operational.Private enterprise works


duncan61
12-10-2021 04:08
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Here is a paper.
If you have comments/questions about it, email to warren.wds AT gmail.com.

One of my problems was: I was unable to use any climate-model program
and unable to get any help from anybody in the computer climate modeling community. As I explained in paper, a 1-line
change to such a code would answer important questions.
So if anybody can help, I'd like to know.

==========

URL: http://vixra.org/abs/2110.0016
Title: Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises
Author: Warren D. Smith

ABSTRACT:
We examine the following as a sustainable world-energy Plan.
Distribute floating wind turbines mainly within the "roaring forties"
and "furious fifties" regions of the southern oceans. Anchor them by
cables to the sea floor. Running along that floor is a hydrogen
pipeline. The turbines generate electricity which is transmitted down
to the sea floor by cable. There it electrolyses water to input H2
into the pipeline. The pipeline outputs are on (or near) land
somewhere. Turbine maintenance is mostly by robot. We find it appears
entirely technically and economically feasible to satisfy
approximately all (or at least a large fraction of) year-2020 human
energy demands in this way, but show with a new analysis of
wind-energy limitations that much more is impossible. Indeed, we'll
show this energy actually will be cheaper than current prices and also
cheaper (sometimes greatly) than schemes based on water-currents,
other-located wind turbines, or solar power – albeit the prices of the
lattermost have been rapidly changing. However, this project, as well
as any attempt to generate a large fraction of human energy from
winds, will cause noticeable alterations in weather and climate. I
provide initial guesses about what those alterations will be and
discussion of how to modify "global climate model" codes to
investigate that. (Basically this would be a 1-line code change, but
we demonstrate that many climate modeling codes are incredibly screwed
up and lied about.) We conclude with some deprecation of the "hydrogen
economy" and instead suggest the "aluminum economy."

========= (end)



I hate agreeing with these guys. They're sick. The mental hospital discharged them because they're hopelessly lost causes.
For what you're suggesting, changing sea levels would develop a lot of energy. This gets into different materials and how it creates an electrical charge relevant to stress in a buoyant device.
With these guys, they're just nut cases who simply don't understand quantum theory and how it generates a charge in a tensor field. Their local mental hospitals realized this. Kind of why they're here.
12-10-2021 04:09
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Looks like "Into Night" or "The Parrot Killer" or whatever he is currently calling himself, has now simply resorted to saying "wrong" about 10 times in a row rather than actually finding any error
nor even being able to complete sentences in most cases. This has in most cases made it infeasible to respond to him/her/it. However, in a few cases I can:

>>Warren D Smith wrote:
>>5. 25000 psi would be the pressure at a depth of 17 km.
>>But no point in the oceans is even 11 km deep.
"Night": Nope. Math error. Try again. Apparently you are unaware how to calculate hydrostatic pressures.

--reply. Not only do I know, and you do not, how to calculate hydrostatic pressures, but actually we can avoid the need to CALCULATE since the pressure and depth at the deepest point in the ocean (Marianas Trench) has actually been directly MEASURED when, e.g, people actually went there: 16000 psi.

Re "clearing the pipe" a possible simple scheme is as follows:
Consider some horizontal segment of the pipe. Initially water-filled. Generate H2 gas while open valves on holes on pipe bottom. Gas fills upper part of pipe, water leaves bottom thru holes. Then close valves. There also are other schemes. Not a problem.

"Night": The Nobel prize is not a proof.
--reply. Well, as I said, there is no need for ME to prove climate models. Others already did, then
awarded Nobel. Normally, when considering battles between some internet troll afraid even to reveal their name on the one hand -- who repeatedly cannot even get simple arithmetic right -- versus Nobel prize winners and the entire scientific community, I do not consider it my responsiblity to "prove" the Nobel prize stuff versus the troll. I consider it the troll's responsibility to ever produce any evidence toward a disproof. But so far: zero.
You may not like that truth, but I am sorry to say, that is the situation. You need to,
but perhaps cannot, recognize that.







I suggest that "Night" also shut up about "partial pressures." Just take the attitude you do not understand pressures. Since you do not.
12-10-2021 04:18
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Looks like "Into Night" or "The Parrot Killer" or whatever he is currently calling himself, has now simply resorted to saying "wrong" about 10 times in a row rather than actually finding any error
nor even being able to complete sentences in most cases. This has in most cases made it infeasible to respond to him/her/it. However, in a few cases I can:

>>Warren D Smith wrote:
>>5. 25000 psi would be the pressure at a depth of 17 km.
>>But no point in the oceans is even 11 km deep.
"Night": Nope. Math error. Try again. Apparently you are unaware how to calculate hydrostatic pressures.

--reply. Not only do I know, and you do not, how to calculate hydrostatic pressures, but actually we can avoid the need to CALCULATE since the pressure and depth at the deepest point in the ocean (Marianas Trench) has actually been directly MEASURED when, e.g, people actually went there: 16000 psi.

Re "clearing the pipe" a possible simple scheme is as follows:
Consider some horizontal segment of the pipe. Initially water-filled. Generate H2 gas while open valves on holes on pipe bottom. Gas fills upper part of pipe, water leaves bottom thru holes. Then close valves. There also are other schemes. Not a problem.

"Night": The Nobel prize is not a proof.
--reply. Well, as I said, there is no need for ME to prove climate models. Others already did, then
awarded Nobel. Normally, when considering battles between some internet troll afraid even to reveal their name on the one hand -- who repeatedly cannot even get simple arithmetic right -- versus Nobel prize winners and the entire scientific community, I do not consider it my responsiblity to "prove" the Nobel prize stuff versus the troll. I consider it the troll's responsibility to ever produce any evidence toward a disproof. But so far: zero.
You may not like that truth, but I am sorry to say, that is the situation. You need to,
but perhaps cannot, recognize that.







I suggest that "Night" also shut up about "partial pressures." Just take the attitude you do not understand pressures. Since you do not.



Only history proves models. They haven't been proven yet. As for ITN, before you say he is garbage, find out who we are. Those of us in this forum have been in here for a while.
We know each other. Climate debate is also toxic and these guys like you have it wrong. It is funny isn't it? The IPCC has wrong just as these guys do.
As for ITN, he isn't IBDM and I tell IBDM, son, listen to your pa while I'm not his father. Take things too seriously and then I'll be apologizing to IBDM for not being a better father to him. You wouldn't want that would you?
12-10-2021 05:07
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Also: "Into The Night" says Hywind Scotland's floating wind turbine collection is
"not only dragging its anchors, the chain it's using is undergoing severe corrosion."

Can anybody provide any evidence for or against either of those claims? "Night" provided none, but presumably if either claim is correct, then evidence exists to back it up. I will say this, though: if it dragged, then in the 4 years it has been there, it did not move far. Also the first floating wind turbine started running in 2009, so, there has been a fair amount of experience with these things not dragging, or at least clearly never being dragged far even after 12 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor
discusses seafloor anchors both temporary and in section 4 permanent.
The latter have been successfully used for at least 200 years. There are a wide range supplied commercially with various holding forces claimed by their manufacturers on different types of sea floors, etc. For example this "stevpris MK5" general purpose permanent-mooring-anchor product introduced in 1993
http://vryhof.com/products/anchors/stevpris-mk5/
claims to provide at least 50 times its own weight in holding force on any seafloor type
and that there are still 2200 still in use 29 years later. "Its own weight" is available up to 50 tonnes. Their graphical brochure
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3274142/STEVSHARK/Vryhof_Anhor_History.pdf
discusses a wide range of products -- if you know your seafloor type you can pick one designed for that type. This writeup discusses the use of their products with floating wind turbines:
http://vryhof.com/cases/video-installing-north-seas-first-semi-submersible-floating-wind-turbine/

So all in all, looks like a problem that has already been solved.
12-10-2021 05:26
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Also: "Into The Night" says Hywind Scotland's floating wind turbine collection is
"not only dragging its anchors, the chain it's using is undergoing severe corrosion."

Can anybody provide any evidence for or against either of those claims? "Night" provided none, but presumably if either claim is correct, then evidence exists to back it up. I will say this, though: if it dragged, then in the 4 years it has been there, it did not move far. Also the first floating wind turbine started running in 2009, so, there has been a fair amount of experience with these things not dragging, or at least clearly never being dragged far even after 12 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor
discusses seafloor anchors both temporary and in section 4 permanent.
The latter have been successfully used for at least 200 years. There are a wide range supplied commercially with various holding forces claimed by their manufacturers on different types of sea floors, etc. For example this "stevpris MK5" general purpose permanent-mooring-anchor product introduced in 1993
http://vryhof.com/products/anchors/stevpris-mk5/
claims to provide at least 50 times its own weight in holding force on any seafloor type
and that there are still 2200 still in use 29 years later. "Its own weight" is available up to 50 tonnes. Their graphical brochure
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3274142/STEVSHARK/Vryhof_Anhor_History.pdf
discusses a wide range of products -- if you know your seafloor type you can pick one designed for that type. This writeup discusses the use of their products with floating wind turbines:
http://vryhof.com/cases/video-installing-north-seas-first-semi-submersible-floating-wind-turbine/

So all in all, looks like a problem that has already been solved.



I actually want to build a better wind turbine. It seems what the Wright Bros. knew isn't known or understood today. And all they had then was A.M. radio.
Heddy Lamar had yet to invent the technology that today's cellphone's use.
Now to get up to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2b0Xi84dYY

p.s., a better solar panel would work as well, but who's gonna post my bail?
Edited on 12-10-2021 05:33
12-10-2021 05:37
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Dear "James blank": do you actually have any evidence the other posters came from mental institutions?

Also, it'd kind of be nice if anybody reading/commenting on my paper here, actually had a real name. Not "parrot killer," but an actual name and possibly even professional/educational qualifications. I mean, this place bills itself as foremost climate www-forum in world, but the only posters I have encountered are trolls with fake names. I was hoping for something just a teeny bit better. Am I using it wrong?
12-10-2021 05:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
[Harvey-friendly non-animation]


Into the Night wrote:Heh. FORTRAN, while still used on rare occasions, has mostly been replaced by C/C++. Most anyone writing in a compiler language these days is using C/C++ (with some assembly for turnkey, driver, or highly optimized code use).

There is a lot of C++ out there because it is pretty dug-in, but the tide is moving towards a Java/Javascript/Python takeover, mostly due to the countlessly proliferating embedded applications and the development tools available for them such as NetBeans, MATLAB, Maven, JUnit, etc... Don't forget Java's virtual machine locking down Java as a platform-independent standard. Java can only grow in ubiquity. Python is this generation's C++; it's what all the millennial engineers are learning and what they use whenever they need to whip up an application.

I don't see C++ going away anytime soon, but I do see it slowly being overtaken and replaced.

Into the Night wrote:I have used FORTRAN, Pascal, ALGOL, RPG, PL/1, and even COBOL (I rarely admit using COBOL) in my travels.

I learned a lot of math on FORTRAN, i.e. analysis of algorithms, numerical analysis, etc ... I learned programming, data structures and software design using Pascal. Much of the rest used 8088 assembly. Wow.

Into the Night wrote:Today, Java is the modern COBOL. It is just as bulky, and just as a mess to code in. It has also become a proprietary language.

You are confusing Java with something else. Java is much better than C++, it is definitely not "bulky" and is a platform-independent open-source standard "OpenJDK." Try taking another look at it. Maybe you are thinking of Ada or something similar.

Into the Night wrote:The oldest language in common use today is Lisp.

Funny story: LISP is based on symbolic expressions. The professor from whom I learned LISP wanted everyone to remember the rules so his term for a symbolic expression was "SEX." e.g. "SEX is arbitrarily determined and will be as long as you want", "All of LISP revolves around SEX", "Every parenthesis must have its mate for the SEX to be done correctly", etc...

Into the Night wrote:My advice (it's free!) is to limit the use of GIFs as signets, and concentrate on creating better memes. I wouldn't use one as a signet, especially a large one.

The glaring problem with the animations is obviously the size, but I swear that they looked so much smaller when I made them. Static JPEGs are compressed and don't take up much memory. Animations, however, are many frames deep and that turns them from a puddle into Loch Ness. The main issue is that I made each animation for the purpose of learning something specific, or better worded, because I had a realization "I bet that would totally work!" So the learning was the priority.

Once I made them, by God I was going to use them. After all, animations take a lot of work if they are made by hand. The internet is full of animations that are computer-generated but mine are all made by me ... so I'm going to get my effort's worth.

Nonetheless, fear not. For a while now I have been mulling over design ideas for a really small yet totally awesome animation. I'm somewhat busy at the moment but I'll be getting to it soon. I had been putting it off but Harvey's reminder that he uses dial-up has prompted me to apply greater urgency.

I know, I should make my new animation coincide with my 10,000th post. Fair enough. I'll get on it.

[Harvey-friendly non-animation]
12-10-2021 05:48
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Dear "James blank": do you actually have any evidence the other posters came from mental institutions?

Also, it'd kind of be nice if anybody reading/commenting on my paper here, actually had a real name. Not "parrot killer," but an actual name and possibly even professional/educational qualifications. I mean, this place bills itself as foremost climate www-forum in world, but the only posters I have encountered are trolls with fake names. I was hoping for something just a teeny bit better. Am I using it wrong?



I will give you my take on climate change. It is to some extent natural. History proves this. Are we influencing climate change. I would say yes. Any discussion of climate change is toxic.
With these guys, they are a part of the debate. Myself, I am James Lindgaard and the police might tell you that I killed someone. I haven't but the police can say what they will. That is a true story. They thought Mark James Lindgaard was James Arne Lindgaard. The press reported what they said.
With climate change, history shows it happens. As for myself, I say ODSs and bromines as well as hydrocarbons are the problem and not CO2.
As for these guys, a mental institution would reject them. Some people simply can't be helped. Think 12 Monkeys and these guys are missing 12 of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15s4Y9ffW_o
Edited on 12-10-2021 06:07
12-10-2021 06:15
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1373)
Warren D Smith
I am Duncan Gray and I live in Western Australia.Can I suggest you do not focus on ITN and IBDM and possibly explain why you wish to generate power by wind then convert it to hydrogen at sea.Andrew Forrest has commited to making a Hydrogen plant in North Queensland on the land?
12-10-2021 06:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
duncan61 wrote:Can I suggest you do not focus on ITN and IBDM and possibly explain why you wish to generate power by wind then convert it to hydrogen at sea.

He has been ignoring me. Why do you suspect that he would consider focusing on me?

Is this another case of you just not following along?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2021 06:57
Warren D Smith
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Duncan Gray:why generate power by wind then convert it to hydrogen at sea?

WDS: well, paper discusses. Includes calculation showing cannot generate enough wind power on land (and offshore near-land) in USA ever, no matter how many wind turbines we build, to meet even half what the human energy consumption rate in USA was during year 2012.
Same presumably true many places, not just USA. Certainly true on world total land surface --
all wind power extractible on all land is just not enough to provide human energy consumption,
no matter how many wind turbines we build. I have simple new analyses of limitations behind those.

Paper includes data showing much more wind power available at sea than on land. The most concentrated and consistent wind power anywhere on earth in is the 45-55S latitude band; virtually 100% ocean there. Despite extra costs associated with wind turbines out at sea, still worth it. Paper shows wind power available there is comparable to entire world current raw power consumption. Includes calculations showing wind power there is more concentrated renewable-energy "ore" than any other form anywhere. To obtain solar from area A we need to build collectors occupying area A, actually more like 4A for 24 hour average. For wind to get power from cross-sectional area A we build a rotor blade squareroot(A) long. See that difference? Squareroot versus no squareroot? That is a big and fundamental cost effectiveness advantage. Also solar involves expensive materials with small production rates which would need to increase by factors like 100 for solar power to match human consumption rates. For wind, only pretty common materials needed, and only at production rates similar to what we already have.

Human civilization is in deep trouble. There has never been any previous occurrence of the entire world running out of any essential raw material. But this will occur. Human civilization as
we know it will end when that happens. There will be a large population crash. Also, if humans keep extracting fossil fuels including low grade coals, oil shales, tar sands, burn them all -- which they might -- then it looks like that will be enough
to destroy the climate within around 300 years to the point most of the earth land surface will exceed 35C wet bulb temperatures, i.e. fatal for humans. Paper explains+cites.
We need to act to save the situation.
Because fossil fuels will run out an human civilization dependent on high power consumption, need to do something.

OK, now: why hydrogen? Because paper examined several energy transmission methods and hydrogen pipeline worked, while the others I analysed were (paper showed) not good enough
at least not with current technology.

Finally, I claim the wind plan I have will have noticeable effects on climate. I want to understand that better. So I want assistance from climate modelers. So far I have been unable to get any such assistance at all.
12-10-2021 07:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Looks like "Into Night" or "The Parrot Killer" or whatever he is currently calling himself, has now simply resorted to saying "wrong" about 10 times in a row rather than actually finding any error

I have pointed out your errors in detail, dumbass. Now you are just resorting to insulting people. Expect to get insulted back.
Warren D Smith wrote:
nor even being able to complete sentences in most cases. This has in most cases made it infeasible to respond to him/her/it. However, in a few cases I can:

Your grammar problem is YOUR grammar problem. It is probably because you do not understand English. You only understand Liberal.
Warren D Smith wrote:
>>Warren D Smith wrote:
>>5. 25000 psi would be the pressure at a depth of 17 km.
>>But no point in the oceans is even 11 km deep.
"Night": Nope. Math error. Try again. Apparently you are unaware how to calculate hydrostatic pressures.

--reply. Not only do I know, and you do not, how to calculate hydrostatic pressures, but actually we can avoid the need to CALCULATE since the pressure and depth at the deepest point in the ocean (Marianas Trench) has actually been directly MEASURED when, e.g, people actually went there: 16000 psi.

Even 16000psi would crush your pipe.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Re "clearing the pipe" a possible simple scheme is as follows:
Consider some horizontal segment of the pipe. Initially water-filled. Generate H2 gas while open valves on holes on pipe bottom. Gas fills upper part of pipe, water leaves bottom thru holes. Then close valves. There also are other schemes. Not a problem.

Letting water into the pipe does not drive the water out.
Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night": The Nobel prize is not a proof.
--reply. Well, as I said, there is no need for ME to prove climate models.

You can't prove what you can't define.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Others already did, then awarded Nobel.

Expert worship fallacy. The Nobel prize is not a proof.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Normally, when considering battles between some internet troll afraid even to reveal their name on the one hand --

You are trolling. Calling people names is no way to go through life, dude.
Warren D Smith wrote:
who repeatedly cannot even get simple arithmetic right --

It's right.
Warren D Smith wrote:
versus Nobel prize winners

Nobel prizes are not a proof. Expert worship fallacy (false authority fallacy).
Warren D Smith wrote:
and the entire scientific community,

Science is not a community. You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. Omniscience fallacy.
Warren D Smith wrote:
I do not consider it my responsiblity to "prove" the Nobel prize stuff versus the troll.

The Nobel prize is not a proof. Expert worship fallacy. Insult fallacy.
Warren D Smith wrote:
I consider it the troll's responsibility to ever produce any evidence toward a disproof.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Burden of proof fallacy.
Warren D Smith wrote:
But so far: zero.

Attempted proof by void, a fallacy.
Warren D Smith wrote:
You may not like that truth, but I am sorry to say, that is the situation. You need to,
but perhaps cannot, recognize that.

Attempted proof by dictat, a fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Warren D Smith wrote:
I suggest that "Night" also shut up about "partial pressures." Just take the attitude you do not understand pressures. Since you do not.

Argument of the stone fallacy.

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 07:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Also: "Into The Night" says Hywind Scotland's floating wind turbine collection is
"not only dragging its anchors, the chain it's using is undergoing severe corrosion."

Can anybody provide any evidence for or against either of those claims?

The chains themselves. They've had to be replaced. Go talk to the Hywind project.
Warren D Smith wrote:
"Night" provided none, but presumably if either claim is correct, then evidence exists to back it up.

It does. The chains themselves, which have already been replaced once. Not cheap.
Warren D Smith wrote:
I will say this, though: if it dragged, then in the 4 years it has been there, it did not move far.

It is unknown, since they did not measure it's position accurately in the first place.
Warren D Smith wrote:
Also the first floating wind turbine started running in 2009, so, there has been a fair amount of experience with these things not dragging, or at least clearly never being dragged far even after 12 years.

You are making up numbers. Anchor drag can be a problem, and has been a problem in the past even with things like oil platforms. Metal fatigue is still a major problem with such anchors. The anchors only work in certain sea floors. You still do not take account the properties of dirt. Argument from randU fallacy.
Warren D Smith wrote:
...deleted Holy Link and Quote...

You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference with me. Summarily rejected. I've already explained why.
Warren D Smith wrote:
There are a wide range supplied commercially with various holding forces claimed by their manufacturers on different types of sea floors, etc. For example this "stevpris MK5" general purpose permanent-mooring-anchor product introduced in 1993
http://vryhof.com/products/anchors/stevpris-mk5/
claims to provide at least 50 times its own weight in holding force on any seafloor type
and that there are still 2200 still in use 29 years later. "Its own weight" is available up to 50 tonnes. Their graphical brochure
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3274142/STEVSHARK/Vryhof_Anhor_History.pdf
discusses a wide range of products -- if you know your seafloor type you can pick one designed for that type. This writeup discusses the use of their products with floating wind turbines:
http://vryhof.com/cases/video-installing-north-seas-first-semi-submersible-floating-wind-turbine/
So all in all, looks like a problem that has already been solved.

Sales brochures are not a proof. False authority fallacies.

No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 07:41
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
You're losing it ITN. By your standards this sucks. I mean I think I can do better with wind energy. Today's market is simply overpriced and has no real value. At the same time some people promote tidal energy which is doubtful. When considering the kinetic energy potential of a given mass we both know that wind energy is the better alternative.
I'm here for you, okay? Just keep your head in the game, alright? 1/2mv^2 = ke. We got this, right!!!
12-10-2021 07:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
Warren D Smith wrote:
Dear "James blank": do you actually have any evidence the other posters came from mental institutions?

Also, it'd kind of be nice if anybody reading/commenting on my paper here, actually had a real name. Not "parrot killer," but an actual name and possibly even professional/educational qualifications. I mean, this place bills itself as foremost climate www-forum in world, but the only posters I have encountered are trolls with fake names. I was hoping for something just a teeny bit better. Am I using it wrong?


Attempt to solicit personal information. This will get you banned on most forums, as it's against the law in some jurisdictions. Watch it.

If you want to trade personal information, use private messaging.

Credentials mean nothing on blind forums. You have already denied the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have already denied mathematics by way of multiple base rate errors. You are continually turning to buzzwords and void arguments, and attempting circular argument fallacies, which is the same as fundamentalism.

You also deny science, since you are already equating it to prizes, consensus, and attempting to speak for others. Science is not a community, a prize, any scientist or any group of scientists. It is not a government institution, university, research, study, license, degree, certification, or any other sanctification. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

I don't believe your claimed credentials. Denying math, engineering, and science as you are doing tells me you're simply a strong believer in the Church of Global Warming, a fundamentalist style religion.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-10-2021 07:58
James___
★★★★★
(5099)
Into the Night wrote:
Warren D Smith wrote:
Dear "James blank": do you actually have any evidence the other posters came from mental institutions?

Also, it'd kind of be nice if anybody reading/commenting on my paper here, actually had a real name. Not "parrot killer," but an actual name and possibly even professional/educational qualifications. I mean, this place bills itself as foremost climate www-forum in world, but the only posters I have encountered are trolls with fake names. I was hoping for something just a teeny bit better. Am I using it wrong?


Attempt to solicit personal information. This will get you banned on most forums, as it's against the law in some jurisdictions. Watch it.

If you want to trade personal information, use private messaging.

Credentials mean nothing on blind forums. You have already denied the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have already denied mathematics by way of multiple base rate errors. You are continually turning to buzzwords and void arguments, and attempting circular argument fallacies, which is the same as fundamentalism.

You also deny science, since you are already equating it to prizes, consensus, and attempting to speak for others. Science is not a community, a prize, any scientist or any group of scientists. It is not a government institution, university, research, study, license, degree, certification, or any other sanctification. Science isn't even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

I don't believe your claimed credentials. Denying math, engineering, and science as you are doing tells me you're simply a strong believer in the Church of Global Warming, a fundamentalist style religion.



ITN,
This is a complete inversion fallacy. There simply are no laws of thermodynamics. And now will say we have no quorum. You need to step up your game. Only a quorum can allow for a forum which discusses your theorem.
At least give them a chance to get to know you, okay?
Edited on 12-10-2021 07:59
12-10-2021 08:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10007)
Warren D Smith wrote:Also, it'd kind of be nice if anybody reading/commenting on my paper here, actually had a real name.

Are you new to the internet? Apparently you have not yet learned about anonymous fora and how they work.

An anonymous forum is excellent for focusing on ideas because that is all there are. Credentials are irrelevant; either the ideas presented stand on their own merit or they do not.

However, in your case, your ideas do not stand on their own merit so you have become desperate to shift the focus of discussion to one of credentials ... on an anonymous forum no less. I know I shouldn't laugh at you because you simply don't know any better, but your little blunder is rather humorous.

Focus on the ideas and answer the questions presented to you in your own words rather than hide behind the phrase "the paper discusses that." The paper cannot answer any questions. If you are saying that neither can you, well then you certainly deserve to be mocked, no?

Warren D Smith wrote: Am I using it wrong?

Absolutely. Yes.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2021 08:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
IBdaMann wrote:
[Harvey-friendly non-animation]


Into the Night wrote:Heh. FORTRAN, while still used on rare occasions, has mostly been replaced by C/C++. Most anyone writing in a compiler language these days is using C/C++ (with some assembly for turnkey, driver, or highly optimized code use).

There is a lot of C++ out there because it is pretty dug-in, but the tide is moving towards a Java/Javascript/Python takeover, mostly due to the countlessly proliferating embedded applications and the development tools available for them such as NetBeans, MATLAB, Maven, JUnit, etc... Don't forget Java's virtual machine locking down Java as a platform-independent standard. Java can only grow in ubiquity. Python is this generation's C++; it's what all the millennial engineers are learning and what they use whenever they need to whip up an application.

Java isn't a platform independent standard. It's only sold that way. Python actually achieves a much better approach at this. Both languages run as condensers, not compilers. As a result, they will never achieve the speed and power of a compiled language.
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't see C++ going away anytime soon, but I do see it slowly being overtaken and replaced.

By what? Python??? No. C/C++ is compiled, and has that major advantage over Python, Java, Ruby, Perl, or any other condenser language.

In the cloud, lambdas are typically coded in a condenser such as Java, Python, Go, or some others. For high speed work, VM's are constructed (ec2 in Amazon Web Services) that run C/C++. They can be expensive, however, so they are usually avoided when possible.

For local work, C/C++ apps are still going strong today. Linux, AppleOS, and Windows all use C/C++ as their system development language as well. You will find the same is true on all gaming consoles, and in pretty much any turnkey device of any complexity.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I have used FORTRAN, Pascal, ALGOL, RPG, PL/1, and even COBOL (I rarely admit using COBOL) in my travels.

I learned a lot of math on FORTRAN, i.e. analysis of algorithms, numerical analysis, etc ... I learned programming, data structures and software design using Pascal. Much of the rest used 8088 assembly. Wow.

Blast from the past! Feeling nostalgia yet?

IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Today, Java is the modern COBOL. It is just as bulky, and just as a mess to code in. It has also become a proprietary language.

You are confusing Java with something else. Java is much better than C++, it is definitely not "bulky" and is a platform-independent open-source standard "OpenJDK." Try taking another look at it. Maybe you are thinking of Ada or something similar.

Nope. I specifically mentioned Java. I meant Java. It is bulky. It is not quite platform independent. I have to look at this piece of shit language all the time, usually to clean up someone else's idea of 'clean code'. I usually just rewrite the thing in Python3. Such is the price of putting stuff in the cloud. You get a lot of moron programmers out there that couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The oldest language in common use today is Lisp.

Funny story: LISP is based on symbolic expressions. The professor from whom I learned LISP wanted everyone to remember the rules so his term for a symbolic expression was "SEX." e.g. "SEX is arbitrarily determined and will be as long as you want", "All of LISP revolves around SEX", "Every parenthesis must have its mate for the SEX to be done correctly", etc...

Heh. Sounds like an interesting way to present it!


Many programmers dislike lisp, mostly because they don't know how to format it so that it's readable. They get buried in parenthesis, and it doesn't act like a procedural language, which they learned in school. It's a cool language though. You just got to kind of rewire your brain on how to write a program using a bottom up approach in an object language.
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:My advice (it's free!) is to limit the use of GIFs as signets, and concentrate on creating better memes. I wouldn't use one as a signet, especially a large one.

The glaring problem with the animations is obviously the size, but I swear that they looked so much smaller when I made them.

Heh. It's amazing how it looks different when you actually post it!

IBdaMann wrote:
Static JPEGs are compressed and don't take up much memory.

It's not so much about the memory, it's about the size on the page, and especially about the distracting animation when used as a signet.
IBdaMann wrote:
Animations, however, are many frames deep and that turns them from a puddle into Loch Ness. The main issue is that I made each animation for the purpose of learning something specific, or better worded, because I had a realization "I bet that would totally work!" So the learning was the priority.

And learn you did! Your learning is paying off too. You have produced some excellent memes. And of course the learning never stops!
IBdaMann wrote:
Once I made them, by God I was going to use them. After all, animations take a lot of work if they are made by hand. The internet is full of animations that are computer-generated but mine are all made by me ... so I'm going to get my effort's worth.

Every one of them is made by someone. I fully understand the pride you have for your own work, but there is a place and time for it. Like I said, you are gaining the ability to make some excellent memes, and you have already made some. As a signet, large jpgs and animations are very distracting.
IBdaMann wrote:
Nonetheless, fear not. For a while now I have been mulling over design ideas for a really small yet totally awesome animation. I'm somewhat busy at the moment but I'll be getting to it soon. I had been putting it off but Harvey's reminder that he uses dial-up has prompted me to apply greater urgency.

I'll look forward to seeing it!
IBdaMann wrote:
I know, I should make my new animation coincide with my 10,000th post. Fair enough. I'll get on it.
[Harvey-friendly non-animation]


Hey, works for me! It might even work for Harvey.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate "Likely Feasible Solution to World Energy & Carbon Crises" by Warren D Smith:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CREATING METHANE FROM CAPTURED CARBON DIOXIDE AND THE FUTURE OF CARBON CAPTURE210-10-2021 07:04
problem solution essays108-10-2021 16:21
The Most Powerful Individual Evolution Opportunity & Special Online Secret Society Opening122-09-2021 05:27
If You Want To Fully Understand The Secret Of Life & Increase Your Longevity, You Must Evolve207-09-2021 03:10
Humanity Must Evolve Because The Connection Mechanism Between Human Body & COVID Is Similar To Comput105-09-2021 06:14
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact