geothermal energy
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Duality makes it so that consistency must be a variable and not a constant #264: Correcting Math
Next: CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THE AFTERLIFE
From: nuny on 27 Dec 2009 20:21 On Dec 27, 7:14 am, sometimers <sometim...(a)sometime.invalid.net> wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: > > purple wrote: > >> jmfbahciv wrote: > >>> purple wrote: > > >>>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't > >>>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance > >>>> their personal agenda. > > >>> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda. > > >> Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth. > > > Whose truth? > > Now you're just being picky. Seems like a reasonable question to me, in the context of *personal* agendas. Or are you thinking of so-called universal truths? > >>> The key to > >>> getting something useful accomplished is to aim > >>> your people's personal agendas in the same direction > >>> which is, hopefully, getting the work done. > > >>>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are > >>>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that > >>>> word is "Chaos." > > >>>> In short, we can never know. > > >>> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate > >>> the issue with another "scientific" magic word? > > >> I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate. > > > I was trying to find out what you were talking about...delete > > that...now I'm trying to find out if you're worth a nanosecond > > of my time. > > The discussion was worth my time or I wouldn't have bothered > responding. I can't say what's worthy of yours. I'd like to point out that both of you are on the same side of the AGW "debate". > >>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns. > > >> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns. > > > Such as? > > I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning > for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. That > being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos > is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory > originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather > in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns, > you're on your own, and knock yourself out. Um, it *is* about finding patterns in what seems at first blush to be patternless. If it were not, it would be *useless* for predicting weather. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Puppet_Sock on 28 Dec 2009 00:13 On Dec 24, 8:16 am, "Gill Smith" <gill.smith....(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > anyone else not entirely convinced that it is quite the advertised > free-lunch? As others have mentioned, there are issues. But the big one is, it will never produce any significant fraction of our energy needs. The heat flux from inside the Earth is round about 75 kW/km^2. That's an average, and it's not all that precise. Depending on who does the measuring it can be higher or lower. It's not evenly distributed, but concentrates at places where there are things such as volcanoes, subduction zones, and so on. In such places, it is possible to get some local good out of geothermal.If you live near a volcano, or a hot spring, or a geyzer, or some other volcanic type activity, you may be able to get your house heated using it. Iceland does quite well doing this. So does New Zealand. So do a few other spots. But on a global level, it's not going to do much. Most places get only 10 or 20 kW per square km. Or less. And you only get a fraction of that as useful energy (electricity or whatever) so you get maybe 5 kW per square km. So, to replace a 1000 MW electrical power station, you would need 100s of thousands of square km of collector. It seems quite unlikely. Socks
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Dec 2009 07:35 nuny(a)bid.nes wrote: > On Dec 27, 7:14 am, sometimers <sometim...(a)sometime.invalid.net> > wrote: >> jmfbahciv wrote: >>> purple wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>> purple wrote: >>>>>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't >>>>>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance >>>>>> their personal agenda. >>>>> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda. >>>> Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth. >>> Whose truth? >> Now you're just being picky. > > Seems like a reasonable question to me, in the context of *personal* > agendas. Or are you thinking of so-called universal truths? > >>>>> The key to >>>>> getting something useful accomplished is to aim >>>>> your people's personal agendas in the same direction >>>>> which is, hopefully, getting the work done. >>>>>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are >>>>>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that >>>>>> word is "Chaos." >>>>>> In short, we can never know. >>>>> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate >>>>> the issue with another "scientific" magic word? >>>> I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate. >>> I was trying to find out what you were talking about...delete >>> that...now I'm trying to find out if you're worth a nanosecond >>> of my time. >> The discussion was worth my time or I wouldn't have bothered >> responding. I can't say what's worthy of yours. > > I'd like to point out that both of you are on the same side of the > AGW "debate". > >>>>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns. >>>> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns. >>> Such as? >> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning >> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. That >> being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos >> is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory >> originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather >> in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns, >> you're on your own, and knock yourself out. > > Um, it *is* about finding patterns in what seems at first blush to > be patternless. If it were not, it would be *useless* for predicting > weather. > > Thanks :-). /BAH
From: purple on 28 Dec 2009 09:40 jmfbahciv wrote: > nuny(a)bid.nes wrote: >> On Dec 27, 7:14 am, sometimers <sometim...(a)sometime.invalid.net> >> wrote: >>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> purple wrote: >>>>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>>>> purple wrote: >>>>>>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't >>>>>>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance >>>>>>> their personal agenda. >>>>>> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda. >>>>> Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth. >>>> Whose truth? >>> Now you're just being picky. >> >> Seems like a reasonable question to me, in the context of *personal* >> agendas. Or are you thinking of so-called universal truths? >> >>>>>> The key to >>>>>> getting something useful accomplished is to aim >>>>>> your people's personal agendas in the same direction >>>>>> which is, hopefully, getting the work done. >>>>>>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are >>>>>>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that >>>>>>> word is "Chaos." >>>>>>> In short, we can never know. >>>>>> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate >>>>>> the issue with another "scientific" magic word? >>>>> I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate. >>>> I was trying to find out what you were talking about...delete >>>> that...now I'm trying to find out if you're worth a nanosecond >>>> of my time. >>> The discussion was worth my time or I wouldn't have bothered >>> responding. I can't say what's worthy of yours. >> >> I'd like to point out that both of you are on the same side of the >> AGW "debate". >> >>>>>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns. >>>>> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns. >>>> Such as? >>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning >>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. That >>> being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos >>> is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory >>> originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather >>> in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns, >>> you're on your own, and knock yourself out. >> >> Um, it *is* about finding patterns in what seems at first blush to >> be patternless. If it were not, it would be *useless* for predicting >> weather. >> It is useless for predicting the weather. > > Thanks :-). > Thanking him for leading you astray even further? What has this place come to? _ The difference between .506 and .506127 is huge where it comes to chaotic systems. Just ask Lorenz. You can't measure weather conditions to that level of accuracy on an ongoing basis. We're lucky to measure weather to three significant numbers. Lorenz said so, and our state of the art hasn't progressed significantly since his day. Check the predictions for your region against the subsequent reality over the longer term and report back in about a year. Where I live they're maybe about 40% correct. _ Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. Just because the trigonometric functions can create patterns doesn't mean we consider the trig functions to about patterns. We have other uses for them. _ This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own, and knock yourself out. I'm finished.
From: alien8er on 29 Dec 2009 04:32
On Dec 28, 6:40 am, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: > > n...(a)bid.nes wrote: > >> On Dec 27, 7:14 am, sometimers <sometim...(a)sometime.invalid.net> > >> wrote: > >>> jmfbahciv wrote: > >>>> purple wrote: > >>>>> jmfbahciv wrote: > >>>>>> purple wrote: > >>>>>>> You can never convince a person whose motivation isn't > >>>>>>> truth, but misuses information in order to advance > >>>>>>> their personal agenda. > >>>>>> Honey, everybody has a personal agenda. > >>>>> Of course we do. Often that agenda is the search for truth. > >>>> Whose truth? > >>> Now you're just being picky. > > >> Seems like a reasonable question to me, in the context of *personal* > >> agendas. Or are you thinking of so-called universal truths? > > >>>>>> The key to > >>>>>> getting something useful accomplished is to aim > >>>>>> your people's personal agendas in the same direction > >>>>>> which is, hopefully, getting the work done. > >>>>>>> There's a one word cure for thoughts that humans are > >>>>>>> exclusively responsible for climate change, and that > >>>>>>> word is "Chaos." > >>>>>>> In short, we can never know. > >>>>>> Since you capitalized Chaos, are you trying to obfusicate > >>>>>> the issue with another "scientific" magic word? > >>>>> I assume that's a tongue in cheek obfuscate. > >>>> I was trying to find out what you were talking about...delete > >>>> that...now I'm trying to find out if you're worth a nanosecond > >>>> of my time. > >>> The discussion was worth my time or I wouldn't have bothered > >>> responding. I can't say what's worthy of yours. > > >> I'd like to point out that both of you are on the same side of the > >> AGW "debate". > > >>>>>> Chaos theory is a math technique to create patterns. > >>>>> There's much more to Chaos theory than creating patterns. > >>>> Such as? I note no actual response to this question. > >>> I'm a little shocked that you've apparently taken to gunning > >>> for people when usenet is about an exchange of ideas. Nobody is "gunning for" you. A question was asked; why you would take that as a personal attack is nonobvious. > >>> That > >>> being said, I'll give you the keystone concept anyway. Chaos > >>> is the study of complex nonlinear dynamic systems. The theory > >>> originated during an attempt to more accurately predict weather > >>> in the longer term. If you want to think it is about patterns, > >>> you're on your own, and knock yourself out. What do you think Lorenz attractors *are*? They are diagrams of the future states a system can evolve into. > >> Um, it *is* about finding patterns in what seems at first blush to > >> be patternless. If it were not, it would be *useless* for predicting > >> weather. > > It is useless for predicting the weather. Nonsense. It's useless for predicting long-term changes (climate), but it's becoming more and more useful for shorter periods (weather). It makes much longer-range predictions than the previous linear models. What it's completely useless for is retrodicting proof to support the claim that human activities are a significant factor in long-term climate change. > > Thanks :-). Didn't mean to interrupt, but it does seem that an argument that didn't need to exist was erupting. > Thanking him for leading you astray even further? What has > this place come to? I have no idea what your "understanding" of chaos theory may be, but I am leading no-one astray. And for your information, you need not worry about /BAH being gullible. > The difference between .506 and .506127 is huge where it > comes to chaotic systems. Just ask Lorenz. You can't measure > weather conditions to that level of accuracy on an ongoing > basis. We're lucky to measure weather to three significant > numbers. That is quite correct, but does not support your contention that it's "useless" for predicting weather. > Lorenz said so, and our state of the art hasn't > progressed significantly since his day. Check the predictions > for your region against the subsequent reality over the longer > term and report back in about a year. Where I live they're > maybe about 40% correct. The existence of attractors in chaos theory are what makes it useful for making predictions. A complex system like the Earth's atmosphere can exist in many states, but not infinitely many. Which states it can transition to from a given state are _limited_ by chaos theory. Trying to predict the future behavior of the entire atmosphere is futile. Small pieces of it are somewhat easier. Forty years ago in Southern California the temperature couldn't be predicted for three days out to within five degrees, and the probability of precipitation was a complete crapshoot. Currently the reliable range is about a week. Is it perfect? No. Is it useful? Yes. > Chaos isn't about patterns. It is is the study of complex > nonlinear dynamic systems. Chaos theory is exactly about patterns. I ask you again; what do you think Lorenz attractors *are*? > This topic is now more than adequately explained. But if you > want to think Chaos is about patterns, you're on your own, > and knock yourself out. I'm finished. You certainly are, if that's what you know of chaos theory. Mark L. Fergerson |