1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10169
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:11 pm UTC

QuakeIV wrote:Huh wow, I showed up kindof thinking that most people here would fairly sincerely want to seriously debate, rather than being here for personal entertainment, but the actual mods have the game down better than I ever will.


Eh, there are a number of topics where it just gets to be routine. This. Evolution. Gun control. I'll cheerfully discuss any of them, if someone puts in the effort to familiarize themselves, and get past the basic level of thoughtless, uninformed questions that I've seen a thousand times. I suppose if someone wishes to deal with that, good on them for being helpful, but it's not really much of a debate, so much as it is informing someone who couldn't be bothered to google for themselves.

You can totally question global warming data on various grounds, but if you're going up against research papers, and have a standard of "others should provide my evidence for me", as some in this thread have, or similarly weak levels of effort, there's simply little reason for anyone to take you seriously, and it's deeply unlikely that you'll provide new information to anyone.

QuakeIV
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:12 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby QuakeIV » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:11 pm UTC

Hm, yeah I can see where you are coming from there. I now regret the somewhat trollish nature of my post you are responding to.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10169
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:18 pm UTC

'salright, no real harm done.

In part, it's the nature of the comic-centric threads to create this, because Randall covers a topic again, and the context is lost from last time. So, I usually put more effort into the stuff over in News and Serious Business, because it's less transient.

bob443@mahaska.org
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:45 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby bob443@mahaska.org » Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

Re; by ps.02 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:24 pm Etc/GMT+6

Funny, I posted Josh's retort and they deleted my post.

How cowardly is that.

Josh has absolutely no qualm about his strips being reposted, so I know there was no complaint issued on the matter.

Yet 'they' deleted it.

Can't argue, can't even discuss, can't even show contrary factual evidence or express a contrary opinion. Or they simply delete it.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:13 pm UTC

bob443@mahaska.org wrote:Re; by ps.02 » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:24 pm Etc/GMT+6

Funny, I posted Josh's retort and they deleted my post.

How cowardly is that.

Josh has absolutely no qualm about his strips being reposted, so I know there was no complaint issued on the matter.

Yet 'they' deleted it.

Can't argue, can't even discuss, can't even show contrary factual evidence or express a contrary opinion. Or they simply delete it.


Nope, its still there, mate.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby SDK » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:20 pm UTC

If it felt like it was getting torn down, that's because it was. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:24 am UTC

Who's Josh?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:52 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:Who's Josh?

The person who signed the posted infographic purporting to correct Randall's strip.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:56 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:Who's Josh?

The person who signed the posted infographic purporting to correct Randall's strip.

Oh, that makes sense.

Worth noting that the source for the information is petrophysicist Andy May. So a scientist, yes, but not a scientist who studies climate. A scientist who studies oil sands.

niauropsaka
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby niauropsaka » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:22 am UTC

So, why are Andy May's numbers so different? Is he making things up? Relying on North American data specifically?

And what's with the Christian/astrological reference?

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:59 am UTC

I think the astrological reference just comes part and parcel with the Christian reference, as the Three Kings of the Nativity Story were Persian astrologers who supposedly came to visit baby Jesus because the stars said so.

And the Christian reference is most likely there because climate change denialism and religiosity are both popular right-wing pastimes and likely to be found together in the same people. In fact now that I think about it, I'm half surprised that at 6KBP there's not a data point about "world created over period of six days".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:57 am UTC

I think it's a joke about using solar forcing or maybe galactic ray flux to explain climate change rather than carbon dioxide emissions, hence "looking to the stars".

morriswalters
Posts: 6936
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:57 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:Who's Josh?

The person who signed the posted infographic purporting to correct Randall's strip.

Oh, that makes sense.

Worth noting that the source for the information is petrophysicist Andy May. So a scientist, yes, but not a scientist who studies climate. A scientist who studies oil sands.
There are times when I think the use of the word scientist should be banned. It gives a sense of false equivalence.

commodorejohn
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby commodorejohn » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:07 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:There are times when I think the use of the word scientist should be banned. It gives a sense of false equivalence.

That'll never happen - the false equivalence you note is too useful to too wide a variety of people on too wide a variety of issues.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

MartinM
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:50 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby MartinM » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:58 pm UTC

niauropsaka wrote:So, why are Andy May's numbers so different? Is he making things up? Relying on North American data specifically?


Relying on data from a single location in Greenland, in fact. The 'correction' cartoon is essentially the GISP2 ice core data grafted (badly) onto the instrumental record.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby ps.02 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:25 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:There are times when I think the use of the word scientist should be banned. It gives a sense of false equivalence.

About 20 years ago someone pointed out to me that, just as a place having City in its name is a strong signal that it's not a real city*, a discipline having Science in its name is a strong signal that it's not a real science. (E.g., exercise science, creation science, computer science.)

* The main exceptions being cities named after states or countries, where City helps to disambiguate: Oklahoma City, Mexico City, New York City. Also, Arkansas City, Kansas is named for the river, not for the state, and is not a real city.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Flumble » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:06 pm UTC

ps.02 wrote:computer science

Hey, you're not supposed to tell! (of course, there's also a part of CS that does do empirical research and knows how to do statistical analysis (and a larger part that does 'formal science', i.e. math), but I presume there's also one or two of such people in exercise science and whatever 'creation science' is.)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Sableagle » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:22 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Yes. There are severe math issues with solar powered ships. Surface area scaling is awful. Wind powered ships exist, of course, but a second age of sail would have a few downsides.

It's been a long time since I did the calculations, but at the time I reckoned that an aircraft carrier rigged up like a clipper ship with solar panels would get about enough power to run one of its in-harbour manoeuvring thrusters.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25815
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:42 pm UTC

A Nimitz-class carrier's two nuclear reactors generate a maximum power of about 190MW.

The 8km2 California Valley Solar Ranch has a nameplate capacity of 250MW:
Image
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

DanD
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby DanD » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:A Nimitz-class carrier's two nuclear reactors generate a maximum power of about 190MW.

The 8km2 California Valley Solar Ranch has a nameplate capacity of 250MW:


It's not a one to one scaling, however, because if you've got lots of space, the key factor is going to be cost per watt. If you've got limited space, it's going to be watts/unit area. Admittedly the multiplying factor is only about 4 at best, which isn't enough to make up for the fact the Nimitz class only has a surface area about 1/40km^2.

Also, I could be wrong, but can't the Nimitz run off a single one of it's reactors? A cargo ship doesn't need that sort of built in redundancy. Which would get us down to a single order of magnitude. Remove most or all of the life support functions, as well as the command and control functions, and you'll shave off another little bit.

That being said, I strongly believe that liquid fueled ships cargo are likely for the foreseeable future, it's just a matter of where the liquid comes from.

morriswalters
Posts: 6936
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby morriswalters » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

DanD wrote:Also, I could be wrong, but can't the Nimitz run off a single one of it's reactors?
Yes. It can also run at night and in the rain and under heavy overcast and in the snow and during icing conditions. Which a cargo ship has to do as well. And foul weather can last days or weeks depending on where you are at. You need a lot of batteries or some redundant, very dirty, diesels.

The Russians currently have one nuclear cargo vessel. The US had one at some point, the USS Savannah.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Sableagle » Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:38 pm UTC

... and the problem with turning your shipping lanes into a giant cable car system with the water taking the weight and the cables only providing the traction has already been covered.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:38 pm UTC

ps.02 wrote:
morriswalters wrote:There are times when I think the use of the word scientist should be banned. It gives a sense of false equivalence.

About 20 years ago someone pointed out to me that, just as a place having City in its name is a strong signal that it's not a real city*, a discipline having Science in its name is a strong signal that it's not a real science. (E.g., exercise science, creation science, computer science.)

* The main exceptions being cities named after states or countries, where City helps to disambiguate: Oklahoma City, Mexico City, New York City. Also, Arkansas City, Kansas is named for the river, not for the state, and is not a real city.

Life science, Earth science, planetary science, atmospheric science, climate science, materials science, environmental science, soil science, neuroscience, surface science, . . . That's a lot of unreal sciences.

Also, Salt Lake City, Carson City, Jersey City, West Valley City, Daly City, Ocean City, Jefferson City, . . . and that's just the U.S. I'm sure there are some big cities in other countries with the word "city" in them.

morriswalters
Posts: 6936
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:06 am UTC

Just to be clear for me, I object to the generic term scientist. Not science.

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby ps.02 » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:30 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Just to be clear for me, I object to the generic term scientist. Not science.

Yeah, I dunno. I hardly think scientist is any worse in popular (read: mass media) use than experts or authorities.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:43 am UTC

I think that's morriswalter's point; "scientist", in pop media, means little more than "authority" or "expert", and so anyone who does any kind of science, by being called "scientist", suddenly gains the appearance of an authority or expert on anything they're quoted as talking about, even if it has nothing at all to do with the narrower thing they actually are an expert on.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby omgryebread » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:52 am UTC

Regarding robot ships, I think we are a very long way away from those being practical, much further than cars. You'd save on crew (which costs quite a lot. You have to pay the crew and officers, pay for any visas they need, pay for food, travel expenses for them to meet the ship, etc), but you'd lose way more because of the way maintenance works. With a robot car, you can just take it into a shop or your driveway and have a human maintain it. With a ship, docking is incredibly expensive. It would not be practical for a ship to have all it's maintenance done while it's in port, so a lot of routine tasks are often done when a ship is underway. It's one reason they have multiple engines, so that you can shut some down while you work on others. So not only would a ship need to be computer controlled for navigation, but it would also need to have robots capable of doing maintenance work, which would be a significantly greater challenge.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

morriswalters
Posts: 6936
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby morriswalters » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:02 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I think that's morriswalter's point; "scientist", in pop media, means little more than "authority" or "expert", and so anyone who does any kind of science, by being called "scientist", suddenly gains the appearance of an authority or expert on anything they're quoted as talking about, even if it has nothing at all to do with the narrower thing they actually are an expert on.
Precisely!

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:11 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I think that's morriswalter's point; "scientist", in pop media, means little more than "authority" or "expert", and so anyone who does any kind of science, by being called "scientist", suddenly gains the appearance of an authority or expert on anything they're quoted as talking about, even if it has nothing at all to do with the narrower thing they actually are an expert on.
Precisely!

Whatever happened to the good old boffin, though?

Mikeski
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Mikeski » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:43 am UTC

DanD wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:A Nimitz-class carrier's two nuclear reactors generate a maximum power of about 190MW.

The 8km2 California Valley Solar Ranch has a nameplate capacity of 250MW:

Also, I could be wrong, but can't the Nimitz run off a single one of it's reactors? A cargo ship doesn't need that sort of built in redundancy. Which would get us down to a single order of magnitude.

A single order of magnitude. So unless current solar cells have only single-digit efficiency, you have an impossible engineering problem, right? (They don't, and you do.) To get your ship to work, you'll need to turn up the sun by a few hundred percent.

And cargo ships have this issue with people piling stuff on them. Solar cells with boxes piled on top are ... less efficient. Aircraft carriers, too. And cruise ships. About the only ship this "works" for is a tanker; the one kind you don't need anymore once you've solved the problem you're trying to solve.

That being said, I strongly believe that liquid fueled ships cargo are likely for the foreseeable future, it's just a matter of where the liquid comes from.

"Belief" is not required, if the alternative is solar. Nukes, maybe.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Fri Sep 23, 2016 6:48 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:olar cells have only single-digit efficiency, you have an impossible engineering problem, right? (They don't, and you do.) To get your ship to work, you'll need to turn up the sun by a few hundred percent.

A hell of a lot more than that, unless Nimitz-class carriers have surfaces eight square kilometers in area. (Above all cargo. Tilted toward the Sun. Only running during the day. Cloudy days excluded.)

Consider an example of a large container ship, one on the boundary between Post-Panamax and New Panamax, 10,000 TEU. Ships of that class have about 18,000 m2 area to work with, so let's say one is very efficiently designed and uses 90% of this area for solar panels (the containers are stored under them somehow), giving about 16,000 m2 for panels. Maximum solar irradiance is around 1 kW/m2, giving an ideal production of 8 MW during the day. That sounds like a lot!

Presently, a ship of that size uses around 250 tons of diesel per day to achieve a constant speed of 24 knots. Diesel has a specific energy of 48 MJ/kg, so that amounts to 120 TJ per day, or a constant consumption of around 140 MW. But if we slow down to just 17 knots, we're only looking at around 100 tons per day, or 56 MW, day and night. At that speed, you are losing a lot of money, but hey, we're getting closer.

So to make this ship move slowly, you only need your solar cells to be 700% efficient, right? Wrong. After all, the sun is not out at night, and during the day it is almost never at maximum irradiance. Even with no atmosphere, the mean irradiance over time and latitude would be only one quarter the maximum, or 25 kW/m2, so the panels have to be 2800% efficient. Worse still, we do have an atmosphere, which is not always clear. On clear days, attenuation is pretty small if I remember correctly, but on hazy, foggy, cloudy, or rainy days, it is substantial. It is so great in fact that the ship would not even really be able to move in such conditions, even with 2800% efficient solar panels, let alone reach the (still very slow) rate of 17 knots.


So it would seem that in any circumstance, solar powered container ships are a pipe dream.
Last edited by Eebster the Great on Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:13 am UTC, edited 4 times in total.

Mikeski
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Mikeski » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:09 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Mikeski wrote:olar cells have only single-digit efficiency, you have an impossible engineering problem, right? (They don't, and you do.) To get your ship to work, you'll need to turn up the sun by a few hundred percent.

A hell of a lot more than that, unless Nimitz-class carriers have surfaces eight square kilometers in area. (Above all cargo. Tilted toward the Sun. Only running during the day. Cloudy days excluded.)

Well yeah, that too. :mrgreen: (morriswalters said some of those things, and I didn't want to be too redundant.) Keeping all those solar cells clean while at sea would also be interesting.

(And if we can adjust solar output, we don't need to worry too much about global climate control, so we can go back to dinosaur-powered ships.)

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4793
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby HES » Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:12 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:So not only would a ship need to be computer controlled for navigation[...]

Much like they already are?
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby omgryebread » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:59 pm UTC

HES wrote:
omgryebread wrote:So not only would a ship need to be computer controlled for navigation[...]

Much like they already are?
Yeah, my point is that is the easiest part of automating a ship. We aren't even quite there yet, though a lot of the functions of the actual navigator could be done remotely.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

reval
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:56 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby reval » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:33 pm UTC

Transportation is about 1/3 of overall energy usage (the other thirds are, approximately, the electricity grid and home heating). Stored energy density is certainly what drives transportation towards liquid fuels. Zero carbon probably does mean you have to get by with a lot less transportation, but it doesn't drive you to zero transportation. Friction losses are very much nonlinear. You can dramatically reduce your energy costs by slowing down.

A solar-powered container-ship might not be practical, but a wind-powered one certainly is. You're not talking 24 knots, or even 17 knots, you're probably talking 6 knots or thereabouts. You would need four ships at 6 knots to carry the same cargo as one freighter at 24 knots, but that's just part of the deal. In fact, it's probably a larger multiplicative factor, because the cargo capacity of the steel-hulled four-mast clipper ships last built in the 1920's was really really small. They were last used in the 1950 to transport high-value cargoes like phosphates and guano.

But that's what you have to do if you want to get zero carbon. And getting to zero carbon is a big deal.

reval
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:56 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby reval » Fri Sep 23, 2016 4:43 pm UTC

On the subject of liquid fuel for transportation, I forgot to mention that the Mars 2020 rover is now supposed to include a one-cubic-foot demonstration that will break Martian CO2 into O2 and carbon monoxide. It'll analyze the O2 for purity before venting it back to the atmosphere.

Of course, the best thing would have been to bring along a small bottle of H2 and use the carbon monoxide and H2 to make methane. Then burn the methane and oxygen to demonstrate the local production of rocket fuel. It's what a sample return mission will need. As well as any kind of mission with people. I realize I'm being impatient, but - well - I'm impatient! I hope the demonstration wasn't limited to O2 just because of some calculation about risk due to the bottle of hydrogen.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:16 am UTC

reval wrote:Transportation is about 1/3 of overall energy usage (the other thirds are, approximately, the electricity grid and home heating). Stored energy density is certainly what drives transportation towards liquid fuels. Zero carbon probably does mean you have to get by with a lot less transportation, but it doesn't drive you to zero transportation. Friction losses are very much nonlinear. You can dramatically reduce your energy costs by slowing down.

A solar-powered container-ship might not be practical, but a wind-powered one certainly is. You're not talking 24 knots, or even 17 knots, you're probably talking 6 knots or thereabouts. You would need four ships at 6 knots to carry the same cargo as one freighter at 24 knots, but that's just part of the deal. In fact, it's probably a larger multiplicative factor, because the cargo capacity of the steel-hulled four-mast clipper ships last built in the 1920's was really really small. They were last used in the 1950 to transport high-value cargoes like phosphates and guano.

But that's what you have to do if you want to get zero carbon. And getting to zero carbon is a big deal.

Well the largest container ships are more than ten times the size of the largest sailing ships, so you're really looking at more like 40 wind-powered container ships for every 1 gas-powered one. That's a forty-fold increase in transportation cost. And that assumes not only a 6 kn average speed for 19,000 GRT ships but also ignores the unpredictable nature of the actual speed for any particular voyage, increasing costs even further.

Do you have any idea what impact that would have on global trade?

niauropsaka
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:50 pm UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby niauropsaka » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:09 pm UTC

I think I did eventually figure out what was going on with the Andy May chart. The designer was signalling that he was a Christian, not like that dirty atheist Randall Munroe. I was puzzled as to why a geologist would do that, because he didn't appear to be (explicitly) Young-Earth Creationist.

After sleeping on it, I considered this: It's a way of indicating that May believes in a benign God who would not harm his beloved children. He's not worried, because he thinks divine intervention will prevent any serious problems. That's horrifying.

I admit that it is sort of Christian in a way. What other religion would be so mad?
And he said unto his disciples, ‘Because of this, to you I say, Be not anxious for your life, what ye may eat; nor for the body, what ye may put on; the life is more than the nourishment, and the body than the clothing. ‘Consider the ravens, that they sow not, nor reap, to which there is no barn nor storehouse, and God doth nourish them; how much better are ye than the fowls? and who of you, being anxious, is able to add to his age one cubit? If, then, ye are not able for the least — why for the rest are ye anxious? ‘Consider the lilies, how do they grow? they labour not, nor do they spin, and I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these; and if the herbage in the field, that to-day is, and to-morrow into an oven is cast, God doth so clothe, how much more you — ye of little faith?
Luke 12:22-28, Young's Literal Translation

Of course, the same chapter says,
sell your goods, and give alms, make to yourselves bags that become not old, a treasure unfailing in the heavens, where thief doth not come near, nor moth destroy; for where your treasure is, there also your heart will be.

That's not entirely optimistic about earthly prosperity.

And the rest of the Christian Bible? Well, that's not quite so optimistic. Lamentations describes a city starving during a siege. St. John's Apocalypse speaks of land being lost to the sea (perhaps frighteningly apt today).

And history is even less optimistic. God has declined to save his creatures before, whether moa or auks or even Christians in Anatolia a century ago. Smug optimism is not warranted. Historical fact offers no confidence in God's interest in the viability of either human civilisation or the natural world.
It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’
Matthew 4:7, New International Version

morriswalters
Posts: 6936
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby morriswalters » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:46 pm UTC

niauropsaka wrote:After sleeping on it, I considered this: It's a way of indicating that May believes in a benign God who would not harm his beloved children. He's not worried, because he thinks divine intervention will prevent any serious problems. That's horrifying.
And what would you expect a Christian to believe? If you believe in magic, why not? The wicked will die and the faithful will live.

Eebster the Great wrote:Do you have any idea what impact that would have on global trade?
80 dollar polyester tee shirts? The economies of scale were based on the energy densities of oil.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 2769
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Re: 1732: "Earth Temperature Timeline"

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:02 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:Do you have any idea what impact that would have on global trade?
80 dollar polyester tee shirts? The economies of scale were based on the energy densities of oil.

Do you really think tee shirts were the only commodity shipped over seas? Or that shipping only amounted to a few percent of the cost of most items currently? Or that spending hundreds of dollars per article of clothing would be some trivial inconvenience?

Very few people can afford to pay $80 for a tee shirt; instead, the shirts would be manufactured locally. Which seems great until you realize that everything else would be made locally too. Not just here, but everywhere. And not just manufactured locally, but grown locally. And quarried locally. And harvested locally. And hunted locally. And you end up with an isolationist economy reminiscent of the nineteenth century. Everything would be more expensive for everybody, and while some wealthier countries might see job growth, the vast majority of the world would see widespread poverty on a scale not seen in decades. Meanwhile, foreign aid costs rise even faster. Surely you see the problem.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha and 37 guests