Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A volcanic eruption may be the result of slow, steady change under the volcano, but above the Earth's crust it is an abrupt event upon world events. It can slow global warming (Mount Pinatubo)... but nobody can predict volcanic eruptions, especially the big ones, reliably.

The sure supervolcano eruption in the Yellowstone caldera puts an abrupt end to global warming and makes it the least of world problems for an extended time. It might not cause human extinction, but it would certainly make life precarious in the extreme for survivors. But we know not when, do we? A thousand years or ten thousand? As the North American continent pivots southwestward, the hot spot will remain in the same place as the continent moves with the hot spot passing through Montana and northwestern North Dakota in a few million years with many catastrophic eruptions.

Fortunately , we do not know when the Yellowstone caldera will erupt. Hopefully this will be long time off. The key value( for me) of the old volcano research is to better understand the atmospheric chemistry today to make better forecasts.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A volcanic eruption may be the result of slow, steady change under the volcano, but above the Earth's crust it is an abrupt event upon world events. It can slow global warming (Mount Pinatubo)... but nobody can predict volcanic eruptions, especially the big ones, reliably.

The sure supervolcano eruption in the Yellowstone caldera puts an abrupt end to global warming and makes it the least of world problems for an extended time. It might not cause human extinction, but it would certainly make life precarious in the extreme for survivors. But we know not when, do we? A thousand years or ten thousand? As the North American continent pivots southwestward, the hot spot will remain in the same place as the continent moves with the hot spot passing through Montana and northwestern North Dakota in a few million years with many catastrophic eruptions.

The supervolcano is very dangerous for our posterity. Eruption could happen at any moment. Research should be done on eventual discoveries on how to mitigate such an explosion. We have no such technology now. But I don't subscribe to notions that what happens in the future means nothing to us now. What we pass on is what is significant.

I doubt that the hot spot stays still while the continent moves. I may be wrong, but I thought that the reason the caldera exists is because the hot stuff is allowed by breaks in the mantle or crust to reach very close to the surface. Conceivably also, if the continent moves, and the "hot spot" does not, the access of the "hot spot" to the surface could eventually be cut off and the threat ended by continental drift. The same thing could happen to other volcanos. Or some other opening could appear in Montana; maybe for another caldera, or just a regular volcano. But I don't know, and I have no time to research this question now.

The thought has occurred to me that using up all our fossil fuels could reduce our ability to mitigate a coming ice age later. If other kinds of pollution they cause could be reduced or eliminated, they might help some centuries from now in heading off an ice age when we need more instead of less global warming. But the deniers want to use them all up now so we have none in coming centuries.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The supervolcano is very dangerous for our posterity. Eruption could happen at any moment.

No, it couldn't. Stop getting your science from entertainment shows.

Research should be done on eventual discoveries on how to mitigate such an explosion. We have no such technology now.

What a complete waste of time and resources. Mitigating the effects of an eruption on the then current society might be useful but trying to mitigate the explosion can only occur to someone who doesn't understand the first thing about the geophysics involved in a supervolcano eruption.

But I don't subscribe to notions that what happens in the future means nothing to us now. What we pass on is what is significant.

I doubt that the hot spot stays still while the continent moves.

Please go learn what Galilean relativity is, so that we don't have to be subjected to such stupid "doubts."

I may be wrong, but I thought that the reason the caldera exists is because the hot stuff is allowed by breaks in the mantle or crust to reach very close to the surface.

Breaks in the mantle? The "hot stuff" is the mantle. The expansion of hotter material underneath the crust creates the "breaks."

Conceivably also, if the continent moves, and the "hot spot" does not, the access of the "hot spot" to the surface could eventually be cut off and the threat ended by continental drift.

Idiotic.

The same thing could happen to other volcanos.

The formation of most other volcanos is due to different processes so your idiotic reasoning is even more idiotic for them.

Or some other opening could appear in Montana; maybe for another caldera, or just a regular volcano.

The Yellowstone hotspot has created both supervolcano calderas and "regular" volcanos over the millions of years of its existence. I used to live literally on top of a basaltic flow from one of those "regular" volcanos. I could see one of the cinder cones by looking out of my living room window. I spent my youth climbing around inside different lava tubes from that "regular" volcano.

But I don't know, and I have no time to research this question now.

Yes. You don't know. That didn't stop you from trying to pretend that you did though!

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No, it couldn't. Stop getting your science from entertainment shows.



What a complete waste of time and resources. Mitigating the effects of an eruption on the then current society might be useful but trying to mitigate the explosion can only occur to someone who doesn't understand the first thing about the geophysics involved in a supervolcano eruption.



Please go learn what Galilean relativity is, so that we don't have to be subjected to such stupid "doubts."



Breaks in the mantle? The "hot stuff" is the mantle. The expansion of hotter material underneath the crust creates the "breaks."



Idiotic.



The formation of most other volcanos is due to different processes so your idiotic reasoning is even more idiotic for them.



The Yellowstone hotspot has created both supervolcano calderas and "regular" volcanos over the millions of years of its existence. I used to live literally on top of a basaltic flow from one of those "regular" volcanos. I could see one of the cinder cones by looking out of my living room window. I spent my youth climbing around inside different lava tubes from that "regular" volcano.



Yes. You don't know. That didn't stop you from trying to pretend that you did though!

I was going to correct him but you beat me to it.

Global temperatures hit new high with no boost from El Niño.

2014 was the hottest year on record

http://www.nature.com/news/2014-was-...TWT_NatureNews

…”Although Pacific temperatures were high in 2014, atmospheric conditions did not allow El Niño to form. “It is surprising to have record heat in a year without strong El Niño,” says Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University in New Jersey. It is a reminder that the Earth is heating up quickly, he adds.

The new high comes after more than a decade during which the rate of temperature rise slowed. This so-called warming hiatus began around 1998, following a particularly strong El Niño that year. Between 1951 and 2012, the average global temperature rose by 0.12°C per decade, compared with just 0.05 °C for the period from 1998 to 2012.”…

Mostly what vandal said is that I'm an idiot. Perhaps he can be more informative and tell us whether, according to him, this statement by brower is correct:

"As the North American continent pivots southwestward, the hot spot will remain in the same place as the continent moves with the hot spot passing through Montana and northwestern North Dakota in a few million years with many catastrophic eruptions."

I may be an idiot, but I can read.

Here is one description of the mantle:

"Earth's mantle is thought to be composed mainly of olivine-rich rock. It has different temperatures at different depths. The temperature is lowest immediately beneath the crust and increases with depth. The highest temperatures occur where the mantle material is in contact with the heat-producing core. This steady increase of temperature with depth is known as the geothermal gradient. The geothermal gradient is responsible for different rock behaviors and the different rock behaviors are used to divide the mantle into two different zones. Rocks in the upper mantle are cool and brittle, while rocks in the lower mantle are hot and soft (but not molten). Rocks in the upper mantle are brittle enough to break under stress and produce earthquakes. However, rocks in the lower mantle are soft and flow when subjected to forces instead of breaking. The lower limit of brittle behavior is the boundary between the upper and lower mantle."

http://geology.com/nsta/earth-internal-structure.shtml

According to this site:
http://www.wsgs.wyo.gov/research/str...n/default.aspx
It takes 2.1 million years for the "hot spot" to move from just west of Yellowstone to where it is now.

"As recently as 2.1 million years ago, the North American plate had moved far enough west for the hot spot to lie directly west of Yellowstone National Park. A huge eruption occurred, sending large volumes of ash into the air and creating a large caldera. This happened again 1.3 million years ago, creating another caldera slightly farther east, and again 0.65 million years ago, creating a caldera centered in the middle of Yellowstone National Park near the western part of Yellowstone Lake."

So, it will take at least several million years before it ever gets to North Dakota, probably more like 10 or 20 million at the rate it's going.

Did the "hot spot" ever erupt before 2.1 million years ago? If not, did it erupt because the crust is thinner in the Snake River Idaho basin/western Wyoming area?

I'm reading another article:
http://www.unmuseum.org/supervol.htm

The scientific consensus is that another such eruption could happen some day, but that right now things are normal.

We don't have the technology now to deal with such an explosion. Much of humanity could be wiped out, much as the explosion 74,000 years ago apparently killed off all but some folks in South Africa from whom we all descend, or so they say.

That does not mean that we couldn't learn to deal with it within the next 50 to 100 thousand years. With all that we have learned to do that seemed impossible just in the last 200, I don't think vandal or anyone else can say that nothing can ever be done.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Mostly what vandal said is that I'm an idiot. Perhaps he can be more informative and tell us whether, according to him, this statement by brower is correct:

"As the North American continent pivots southwestward, the hot spot will remain in the same place as the continent moves with the hot spot passing through Montana and northwestern North Dakota in a few million years with many catastrophic eruptions."

The makeup of the last large eruptions from that particular hotspot indicate that it likely is shutting down for a while. Continental drift will shift the hotspot into Montana and North Dakota in a few million years. The "many catastrophic eruptions" is much less certain.

I may be an idiot, but I can read.

Here is one description of the mantle:

"Earth's mantle is thought to be composed mainly of olivine-rich rock. It has different temperatures at different depths. The temperature is lowest immediately beneath the crust and increases with depth. The highest temperatures occur where the mantle material is in contact with the heat-producing core. This steady increase of temperature with depth is known as the geothermal gradient. The geothermal gradient is responsible for different rock behaviors and the different rock behaviors are used to divide the mantle into two different zones. Rocks in the upper mantle are cool and brittle, while rocks in the lower mantle are hot and soft (but not molten). Rocks in the upper mantle are brittle enough to break under stress and produce earthquakes. However, rocks in the lower mantle are soft and flow when subjected to forces instead of breaking. The lower limit of brittle behavior is the boundary between the upper and lower mantle."

http://geology.com/nsta/earth-internal-structure.shtml

Nice quote. Too bad you don't have enough background knowledge to understand what it means for your claim. Now go learn how a hot spot in the mantle is different from the typical upper mantle.

Edit: I don't teach geology and planetary science on a daily basis so it took a little reflection time for me to recognize some more of your misconceptions.

1- Material from the mantle, upper or lower, is not actually part of any volcanic eruption. There is a reason that the primary mineral constituent of the lower mantle went unnamed for so long.

2- Cracks inside the Earth are not like cracks in pavement. There are no openings between rocks. There is no space for material to fill in a crack in the lower crust or upper mantle.

According to this site:
http://www.wsgs.wyo.gov/research/str...n/default.aspx
It takes 2.1 million years for the "hot spot" to move from just west of Yellowstone to where it is now.

"As recently as 2.1 million years ago, the North American plate had moved far enough west for the hot spot to lie directly west of Yellowstone National Park. A huge eruption occurred, sending large volumes of ash into the air and creating a large caldera. This happened again 1.3 million years ago, creating another caldera slightly farther east, and again 0.65 million years ago, creating a caldera centered in the middle of Yellowstone National Park near the western part of Yellowstone Lake."

So, it will take at least several million years before it ever gets to North Dakota, probably more like 10 or 20 million at the rate it's going.

Nothing here contradicts my criticisms of your idiocy.

Did the "hot spot" ever erupt before 2.1 million years ago?

Yes.

If not, did it erupt because the crust is thinner in the Snake River Idaho basin/western Wyoming area?

No. The hotspot has periodically been going active for at least 15-16 million years.

I'm reading another article:
http://www.unmuseum.org/supervol.htm

The scientific consensus is that another such eruption could happen some day,

"Some day" meaning within the next 4 or 5 million years. Deep time is another concept you seem to not understand very well.

Edit: You couldn't be bothered to actually read what scientists have to say about the hotspot? You instead chose to turn to a site written by someone who just cherry picks from actual science?

but that right now things are normal.

We don't have the technology now to deal with such an explosion. Much of humanity could be wiped out, much as the explosion 74,000 years ago apparently killed off all but some folks in South Africa from whom we all descend, or so they say.

I assume you are vaguely referring to the Lake Toba eruption and resultant genetic bottleneck. You and others should be aware that despite the dramatically romantic image of a small band of hardy survivors of some global cataclysm, there is most certainly not a scientific consensus about the hypothesis. There is a lot of different lines of evidence and alternative explanations that contradict the idea. While not outright debunked, the idea is also not certain.

That does not mean that we couldn't learn to deal with it within the next 50 to 100 thousand years. With all that we have learned to do that seemed impossible just in the last 200, I don't think vandal or anyone else can say that nothing can ever be done.

If you knew anything about physics, energy and math, you might be able to comprehend the quantities of energy involved in an eruption and then translate that quantity into human economic output. However, like most scientific illiterates, you believe the pablum that "anything is possible."

There are things in our universe that are impossible. They are impossible not because we haven't been clever enough yet. They are impossible because of the way our universe actually works.

Solar revolution in Africa

Why solar power is spreading so fast in Africa
The Economist explains why solar power is spreading so fast in Africa http://econ.st/1IRHayP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkvbZ0ADmz0

… Africans have been waiting for decades for the mains electricity which the rich world takes for granted. Sub-Saharan Africa’s 910m people consume less electricity each year than the 4.8m people of Alabama. Many more who are on the grid suffer brown-outs and dangerous surges in current. But a solar revolution is afoot.

In 2009 just 1% of sub-Saharan Africans used solar lighting. Now it is nearly 5% or 11m people. The International Energy Agency, a Paris-based government think-tank, reckons that 500m more people will have solar electricity by 2030,"…

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"As the North American continent pivots southwestward, the hot spot will remain in the same place as the continent moves with the hot spot passing through Montana and northwestern North Dakota in a few million years with many catastrophic eruptions."

1. The pivot part is valid.
2. The timing/magnitude of eruptions is just a matter of speculation.

I may be an idiot, but I can read.

Uh. OK.

Here is one description of the mantle:

"Earth's mantle is thought to be composed mainly of olivine-rich rock. It has different temperatures at different depths. The temperature is lowest immediately beneath the crust and increases with depth. The highest temperatures occur where the mantle material is in contact with the heat-producing core. This steady increase of temperature with depth is known as the geothermal gradient. The geothermal gradient is responsible for different rock behaviors and the different rock behaviors are used to divide the mantle into two different zones. Rocks in the upper mantle are cool and brittle, while rocks in the lower mantle are hot and soft (but not molten). Rocks in the upper mantle are brittle enough to break under stress and produce earthquakes. However, rocks in the lower mantle are soft and flow when subjected to forces instead of breaking. The lower limit of brittle behavior is the boundary between the upper and lower mantle."

Uh, no on upper mantle. The plates actually ride on a fairly plastic layer known as the aestehnosphere. If the total upper mantle were rigid, there wouldn't be plate tectonics. Liquid magma rises from the upper mantle into divergent plate boundaries, while , in the main oceanic crustal material dives down into the upper mantle in some convergent boundaries. The big exception is the Indian plate colliding into the Eurasian plate. When 2 continental plate collide the rock is not dense enough to dive down. Instead, it just piles up and you get a structure like the Tibetan plateau. Water is thought to lower the melting point of rock in subduction zones as well. Further, wrt Atlantic, we're starting to see where the Atlantic plate is fixing to dive under the Eurasian plate now. There have been earthquakes off the Portuguese coast where the Atlantic plate is starting to sink. Those earthquakes have nothing to do with brittleness, but rather the fact that the Atlantic plate is getting old and dense such that it will start sinking and eventually start subducting. That's the process. New oceanic plate material is warm and buoyant, like at spreading centers, while it's old and dense in the case of the Atlantic plate at continental plate margins.

http://geology.com/nsta/earth-internal-structure.shtml

According to this site:
http://www.wsgs.wyo.gov/research/str...n/default.aspx
It takes 2.1 million years for the "hot spot" to move from just west of Yellowstone to where it is now.

"As recently as 2.1 million years ago, the North American plate had moved far enough west for the hot spot to lie directly west of Yellowstone National Park. A huge eruption occurred, sending large volumes of ash into the air and creating a large caldera. This happened again 1.3 million years ago, creating another caldera slightly farther east, and again 0.65 million years ago, creating a caldera centered in the middle of Yellowstone National Park near the western part of Yellowstone Lake."

There's lot's of hotspots:

So, it will take at least several million years before it ever gets to North Dakota, probably more like 10 or 20 million at the rate it's going.

There's lot's of variables. Like the above, we really don't know when the Atlantic plate will start diving in earnest under The Eurasian plate. That could alter the N. American plate relative motion, who knows?

Did the "hot spot" ever erupt before 2.1 million years ago? If not, did it erupt because the crust is thinner in the Snake River Idaho basin/western Wyoming area?

They erupt when their magma chambers get too full Eric. They're like drunken college students at a beer bust. You can't time when 1 particular college student will get too full of beer and blow chunks.

I'm reading another article:
http://www.unmuseum.org/supervol.htm

The scientific consensus is that another such eruption could happen some day, but that right now things are normal.

The consensus should be that such eruptions will happen at some point in the future [due to magma chamber fullness], but we don't know when.

We don't have the technology now to deal with such an explosion. Much of humanity could be wiped out, much as the explosion 74,000 years ago apparently killed off all but some folks in South Africa from whom we all descend, or so they say.

That does not mean that we couldn't learn to deal with it within the next 50 to 100 thousand years. With all that we have learned to do that seemed impossible just in the last 200, I don't think vandal or anyone else can say that nothing can ever be done.

Actually, we don't know that either. The eruption could happen during a neo dark age. I mean look at what ISIS has done. Their territory is already back to the 14th century. After the oil's gone, that place will be back to 100 BC.
Human hubris never ceases to amaze me.

On the Yellowstone Hotspot, I am annoyed by the pop-sci BS telling people that it is "due" for an eruption. We have 3 recorded mega-eruptions with 2 periods between them. That is NOT enough data to say that a mega-eruption happens regularly every 600,000 to 800,000 years.

If it does erupt in my lifetime I'm definitely not going to like trying to dig out of the 10 feet of ash we are expected to get here in Fargo...

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

They erupt when their magma chambers get too full Eric. They're like drunken college students at a beer bust. You can't time when 1 particular college student will get too full of beer and blow chunks.

True, sort of, but note the odds are better for college students to blow on a Friday or Saturday night. While the size of an eruption will vary from week to week, some students are quite predictable. Some volcanoes and hot spots do have periodic histories. While they aren't as regular as the tides or a pendulum, one cannot casually disregard history.

With the caveat that much of the damage to ocean life has nothing to do with global warming (transformation of mangrove swamps into fish farms, collisions between container ships and whales, and overfishing)... marine ecosystems are taking a beating. Acidification of the sea water is linked to global warming.

There are clear signs already that humans are harming the oceans to a remarkable degree, the scientists found. Some ocean species are certainly overharvested, but even greater damage results from large-scale habitat loss, which is likely to accelerate as technology advances the human footprint, the scientists reported.

Coral reefs, for example, have declined by 40 percent worldwide, partly as a result of climate-change-driven warming.

Some fish are migrating to cooler waters already. Black sea bass, once most common off the coast of Virginia, have moved up to New Jersey. Less fortunate species may not be able to find new ranges. At the same time, carbon emissions are altering the chemistry of seawater, making it more acidic.

“If you cranked up the aquarium heater and dumped some acid in the water, your fish would not be very happy,” Dr. Pinsky said. “In effect, that’s what we’re doing to the oceans.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/sc...ean-life.html?

We are globally interconnected.

Emissions from vehicles and coal-powered plants in China could be intensifying US storms

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.4009?utm_source=Physics+Today&utm_medium=emai l&utm_campaign=5229780_Physics+Today%3a+The+week+i n+Physics+12-16+January&utm_content=$LINK_KEYWORD$&dm_i=1Y69,34 3BO,E1PA8Z,B5VQT,1

…”Human health and wellbeing are not scientists’ only concerns regarding the addition of particle pollutants to the atmosphere. Although highly concentrated in China, the significant increase in particle pollutants is grounds for addressing the problem on a global scale. Meteorologists have become interested in high levels particle pollutants, as they could provide an answer to some of the observed changes in the global air circulation, the steady worldwide movement of winds that transports heat and energy to the poles.
Driven by energy from the Sun and the rotation of Earth’s axis, the global air circulation also significantly influences the formation, strength, and longevity of storms. Recent research by Texas A&M University and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has confirmed an initial hypotheses that pollution from China influences global air circulation and, in turn, global weather patterns. The increasing number of particle pollutants in the atmosphere is altering the density of clouds and the amount of precipitation within them.”…
…”Scientists will need to conduct further research to better understand the role particle pollutants have in atmospheric circulation and their impact on weather and climate. One thing is certain: Pollution is a major—and, if left unresolved, an increasingly global—problem.”

The deep ocean sink has mitigated some of the effects of global warming, This may be coming to an end.

Upwelling in the Southern Ocean


http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/68/1/10.1063/PT.3.2654?utm_source=Physics+Today&utm_medium=emai l&utm_campaign=5229780_Physics+Today%3a+The+week+i n+Physics+12-16+January&utm_content=$LINK_KEYWORD$&dm_i=1Y69,34 3BO,E1PA8Z,B5VQT,1


“Because deep water in the Southern Ocean is cold, centuries old, and rich in nutrients, its circulation exerts an outsized influence on Earth’s heat balance, the carbon cycle, and much of ocean biology.”…

…”As a result of the increased radiative trapping of greenhouse gases in recent decades, Earth is no longer in radiative equilibrium; more energy enters the top of the atmosphere than is emitted back to space. (See the article by Raymond Pierrehumbert, Physics Today, January 2011, page 33.) Of the excess energy that has been absorbed by the climate system over the past 50 years, more than 90% has gone into warming the world’s oceans. 6 Historical observations of Southern Ocean temperature are scarce, which makes it difficult to estimate the distribution of anthropogenic heat the ocean has absorbed. Results from climate-model simulations, though, suggest that the Southern Ocean dominates the global oceanic heat uptake, 7 with up to three quarters of the additional heat flux occurring south of 30° S. Although the heat uptake has been crucial in limiting atmospheric warming, it has also been, through thermal expansion, the major contributor to sea-level rise.
It is the upwelling of cold, deep waters in the Southern Ocean and their exposure to the now warmer atmosphere that has led to the rapid heat uptake there (see figure 2 b). 8 The strongest warming is concentrated in the upper 1 km and penetrates much deeper than elsewhere in the global ocean. 7 Greater wind speeds have also likely contributed to the anomalously large heat uptake. The westerly winds have increased by some 10–20% in recent decades due to the combined effects of the Antarctic ozone hole—see the article by Anne Douglass, Paul Newman, and Susan Solomon, Physics Today, July 2014, page 42—and greenhouse gas warming. And although it is impossible to directly measure the strength of the upwelling, changes in the distribution of chlorofluorocarbons in the ocean suggest that upwelling may have increased in response to the wind increase. 9
In addition to those changes in the upper ocean, Antarctic bottom water—the deepest water mass in the Southern Ocean—has also warmed rapidly in recent decades. 10 It’s not clear what’s causing the abyssal warming, which is strongest in the south and concentrated along the northward pathways. But possible causes include a reduced rate at which dense water forms, due to a freshening of the surface water as the Antarctic ice sheet melts, or an enhanced mixing between Antarctic bottom water and the overlying warmer water masses.”…
…”The ocean is able to act like a sponge for anthropogenic CO 2 because of the high concentration of carbonate ions, which react with excess CO 2 to form bicarbonate. That process keeps the oceanic CO 2 concentration low, and thus allows for more uptake. But as the ocean takes up more carbon, the carbonate ions are reduced, which reduces the ocean’s ability to absorb CO 2. As ocean surface temperature increases in the future, the solubility of CO 2 will decrease, which will, in turn, increase the oceanic partial pressure of CO2 and decrease the rate of ocean carbon uptake. In short, those two processes lead to a positive feedback on global warming: As the ocean warms, it removes less CO 2 from the atmosphere, which leads to increased warming.”…

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

With the caveat that much of the damage to ocean life has nothing to do with global warming (transformation of mangrove swamps into fish farms, collisions between container ships and whales, and overfishing)... marine ecosystems are taking a beating. Acidification of the sea water is linked to global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/sc...ean-life.html?

I've mentioned this before, the book The Sixth Extinction, Kolbert, that contains a lot of good, documented science about some things that are truly spooky.

For heavens sake, though, don't read it unless you're ready to dip into a depression about our chances as a species. Or, perhaps, as in my case, I'm kind of happy about the prospects for the Earth and it's remaining life once we do ourselves in. It's just a shame about the many hundreds of thousands of species that will be pulled down with us.

Old reference article on Renewable Sustainable Energy

Development and evaluation of a prototype concentrating solar collector with thermocline based thermal energy storage for residential thermal usage

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...81?track=tweet

…”Many previous studies have focused mainly on solar electric power generation, and the use of CSP technology has shown outstanding results for the energy production in power plants. Nowadays, CSP technologies are at the beginning of their commercial state, it is arriving to market after a long period of research and demonstration. CSP could produce according to recent estimations (Richter et al., 2009 ) the 7% of the total electricity needed projected by the world by 2030 and a 25% by year 2050 ( Izquerdo et al., 2010 ). Several other solar energy-to-thermal energy conversion techniques have also been looked ( Alagao, 1996 ; Belem, et al.2003 ; and Busquestes, et al., 2012 ). Concentrating solar techniques, however, is expected to provide better efficiency in the solar-to-thermal-energy conversion process..”…

Originally Posted by TnT

I've mentioned this before, the book The Sixth Extinction, Kolbert, that contains a lot of good, documented science about some things that are truly spooky.

For heavens sake, though, don't read it unless you're ready to dip into a depression about our chances as a species. Or, perhaps, as in my case, I'm kind of happy about the prospects for the Earth and it's remaining life once we do ourselves in. It's just a shame about the many hundreds of thousands of species that will be pulled down with us.

I guess you don't have kids or grandkids?

This may not fit here, but I thought that it was interesting.

Sunlight, nanoparticles break down pollutants

http://www.photonicsspectra-digital....HqmglEbmd#pg90
A class of pollutants that negatively affects hormones can be broken down
using nanoparticles and sunlight. The method, developed at the Center for Advanced Materials at the Indian
Association for the Cultivation of Science in Kolkata, India, neutralizes bisphenol
A (BPA) and other endocrine disruptors.”…
… "The researchers used a reduced graphene oxide composite with silver
nanoparticles (rGO-Ag), which can act as an efficient photocatalyst to degrade these pollutants”…

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I guess you don't have kids or grandkids?

Actually, I do. Two adult Xer children and four Millenial grandchildren.

One can't help but wonder, however, the kind of world that our children and grandchildren will have to "live" in as it all goes down the crapper, if indeed we can't find some way to keep from driving these multitudes of species into extinction.

At my age I guess I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot of things worse than death.

signed, ​The Cynic

Good review and update on energy.

Will Falling Oil Prices Kill Wind and Solar Power?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...medium=twitter

… "Right now renewable electricity is roughly 13 percent of total electricity generated in the U.S. Half is hydropower and the other half is mostly wind energy, with some solar, biomass and geothermal. Renewable energy costs have come down significantly. Even if natural gas, which is the cheapest form of electricity generation today, stays at $4 per million Btus [British thermal units], wind without subsidy is almost as inexpensive.

Electrical generation in the sunnier parts of the U.S. is also approaching equality with a new natural gas power plant. The cost of wind and solar is anticipated to decline for at least a decade or two. Perhaps in a decade, renewables will be competitive with any new form of energy in many parts of the U.S.”…


… "China also is moving—it has now set goals to cap carbon emissions and coal use, and be 20 percent renewable by 2030 or earlier. It is a very good sign when a developing country like China says that clean energy is an important goal, regardless of whether there’s a U.N. agreement or not.”…

… "For the next half century I would like to see nuclear as part of the electricity mix to have a diversified supply of electricity.
Disposing of the waste is an issue because many people do not want it in their backyard. But that’s mostly where it is a political issue rather than a scientific one. There are geological sites that are very stable, and where nuclear waste can be stored safely. For example, in the U.S. we have large salt deposits that have been stable (no water intrusion) for millions of years, and would provide safe geological confinement of spent fuel.”…

… "The climate is changing and there is very strong evidence much of the change is due to humans. While there are large uncertainties as to what will happen in the future, there are huge risks unless we greatly decrease carbon emissions. The proper political debate would be how to deal with these risks,”…

Nice article, but the editors gave it an odd title. The grand majority of oil in the US is used for transportation. Wind and solar aren't going to be able to help out much there, especially in the present.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Nice article, but the editors gave it an odd title. The grand majority of oil in the US is used for transportation. Wind and solar aren't going to be able to help out much there, especially in the present.

We do still need oil for a while. Solar will eventually be available in sufficient quantity to replace much of the oil. I also would like to see growth in nuclear power until solar is ready. We could do much better if the politicians would negotiate and not grandstand.

Originally Posted by Odin

I was going to correct him but you beat me to it.

That's unfortunate. Eric makes a lot of mistakes when it comes to science, but correcting him is one thing and being an obnoxious, socially-dysfunctional ass about it is another. I have Vandal on ignore, and after reading the quote of that post from yours, he's staying there.

Realclimate has an article up on global temperatures. 2014 did indeed set a new record as the warmest year. The skeptic talking point about a "pause" in the warming is now less valid, doubly so as the prior record year was set at the peak of a solar cycle with a monster el nino, while 2014 has only a somewhat smaller solar peak and no el nino.

They go on a bit about records should mean less than trends, but that laymen seem to get more excited by records. Perhaps scientists just trust the statistical methods used to derive a trend more.