Tidal heights changes caused by 18.61 years cycle of lunar 'wobbles'

[Chiara’s slave]

The heat pump concept is just the same as the idea that solar panels could influence global warming. Apart from in their manufacture and disposal that is.

 

[Beneteau381]

The heat pump concept is just the same as the idea that solar panels could influence global warming. Apart from in their manufacture and disposal that is.

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.” (Albert Einstein).

So what was that energy that was "in the wind" doing before and is doing now? Terra watts of it.

"There's none so blind as those who will not see"

 

[webcraft]

The heat pump concept is just the same as the idea that solar panels could influence global warming. Apart from in their manufacture and disposal that is.

I did say it was a scifi story.

I also think it is fair to point out that geoengineering solutions such as orbital mirrors and cloud seeding are far more likely to introduce unforseen consequences than the deployment of renewable energy.

Meanwhile, what about all the wind energy our boats are extracting from the system? Not to mention the effect of their displacement on rising sea levels!

- W

 

[ProDave]

I remember being amused by a SciFi story of an Earth where heat pumps were the prevalent energy source. The planet had become an arctic wasteland, with the crisis point being when CO2 began to precipitate.

Seems mass adoption of heat pump technology might be the answer. . .

- W

I have a heat pump so I am now a saviour helping to cool the planet, just a little.

 

[webcraft]

I have a heat pump so I am now a saviour helping to cool the planet, just a little.

My hero!

Interesting to see who is NOT watching HM's funeral this morning, preferring to post nonsense on here ?

- W

 

[Beneteau381]

I have a heat pump so I am now a saviour helping to cool the planet, just a little.

I am told that the electricity to operate air heat pumps costs more than using the electricity direct. They are basically fridges working in reverse.

 

[Beneteau381]

My hero!

Interesting to see who is NOT watching HM's funeral this morning, preferring to post nonsense on here ?

- W

My Iphone is on, squirting the service in to my right ear, Im multitasking, chatting to you lot and editing footage from yesterdays Regatta in Albufeira. (PS excellent Queen tribute band on last night all for free here)

 

[Chiara’s slave]

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.” (Albert Einstein).

So what was that energy that was "in the wind" doing before and is doing now? Terra watts of it.

"There's none so blind as those who will not see"

It arrived on Earth as solar radiation, and a very very small part of it kinetic energy from the earth's rotation. Obviously the solar was coming our way regardless, and using it in any way, it still ends up as heat, here on earth. The teensy bit of polar rotational energy it has, it would take anyway, regardless again of what we do with it. Fossil fuels are solar energy stored from millions of years ago, we are releasing all that, at the same time as more is arriving, and what's far more significant, we are changing the makeup of the atmosphere.

Air source Heat pumps, they use about 33% of their heating capacity in electricity. ie a 10Kw heat pump can be run off a 13 amp plug, just. Ground source pumps are noticeably more efficient.

 

[Beneteau381]

My hero!

Interesting to see who is NOT watching HM's funeral this morning, preferring to post nonsense on here ?

- W

Waiting for the two minutes silence shortly

 

[savageseadog]

I've noticed a very curious weather pattern right now, in the NW of England, Merseyside and Cheshire. The wind is light WNW, there is a streak of rain and drizzle extending from a few miles offshore N Wales, SE towards Staffordshire. The only rain on this part of the country. Seriously it looks like the rain is starting in the offshore wind farms in N Wales and Liverpool Bay!
I haven't got a picture hosting site at the moment.

 

[Beneteau381]

It arrived on Earth as solar radiation, and a very very small part of it kinetic energy from the earth's rotation. Obviously the solar was coming our way regardless, and using it in any way, it still ends up as heat, here on earth. The teensy bit of polar rotational energy it has, it would take anyway, regardless again of what we do with it. Fossil fuels are solar energy stored from millions of years ago, we are releasing all that, at the same time as more is arriving, and what's far more significant, we are changing the makeup of the atmosphere.

Air source Heat pumps, they use about 33% of their heating capacity in electricity. ie a 10Kw heat pump can be run off a 13 amp plug, just. Ground source pumps are noticeably more efficient.

Your knee jerk reaction to my original ask to discuss, fails to see my point. What did the wind do before we captured the energy from it in the Irish Sea et al? Cool Holland? Create a "pressure" system to the east of us? A serious question begging civilised debate, not nasty snidy comments.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Your knee jerk reaction to my original ask to discuss, fails to see my point. What did the wind do before we captured the energy from it in the Irish Sea et al? Cool Holland? Create a "pressure" system to the east of us? A serious question begging civilised debate, not nasty snidy comments.

Since ‘wind’ is simply a slightly co ordinated movement of air molecules, as a sailor you know how chaotic is is, flaws, gusts, direction changes etc, it’s not a question that has a definitive answer. The only certainty is entropy. It finishes up as heat, whatever it does in the interim. If we capture it as electricity, that doesn't change, nor does it get any greater. Eventually it will be heat. In your light bulbs, in the wiring, both local and distribution, in your old Mum's fan heater, whatever. It can be delayed, but not prevented. If we don’t capture it, guess what? It finishes up as heat, by friction with itself and the ground. You can convert thatvheat into whatever you like, with varying degrees of efficiency, and it will find it’s way back to being heat, somehow, somewhere.

 

[savageseadog]

From thermodynamics, the abstraction of energy from the air mass will reduce its temperature. Might explain the current precipitation, the air temp is surrently about 16deg and dew point only a degree less, possibly ebough for clouds to form.

 

[dunedin]

I find them really confusing as I then need to go and look up the highest spring tide for that location.

When you are faced with a 9 metre range I find it more comfortable to know the predicted height of tide in metres.

But for people who don't sail in shallow waters, but ones with fast flowing tides, height of tide is not necessarily the main interest.
And knowing it is, say, a 4m high tide in some place gives no immediate indication of whether it is a moderate neap or wild spring tide, without reference to the usual tide ranges for that place.
Knowing it is a 50% vs a 110% coefficient tide would give a good rapid indication of how fierce the tidal flows are likely to be.

 

[lustyd]

The heat pump concept is just the same as the idea that solar panels could influence global warming. Apart from in their manufacture and disposal that is.

Not really. Ground source heat pumps pull heat from the ground, and will have to gradually get deeper to get at that heat. The atmosphere loses heat through radiation to space, and so this heat will be lost more rapidly if pulled out of the earth proactively. The science isn't up for debate, only the magnitude of the consequences of the various options.

The idea that air source heat pumps have no effect is demonstrably ridiculous. Air conditioning has made many cities unbearable through the additional energy needs and the heat being concentrated by their action. ASHP is just this in reverse. Cooling outdoors will simply mean more energy is required overall to warm the house as the heat gradient is made steeper (assuming adoption rises beyind the initial gullible test crowd). This can be demonstrated with the thought exercise of why don't they put the heat pump on the roof to re-capture the heat lost from the house. Colder roof, faster heat loss, more energy needed.

Every action has a consequence. Ignoring science and assuming the planet is large enough that we can't have an impact has never, ever worked. The solution is for people who understand the science to research and guide the masses. We're not seeing that right now, we're seeing eco-loonies getting all the grant money for projects that look easy and achievable to the uneducated. This is how, despite all the evidence, wind and solar are more popular than nuclear.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Any energy, however its used, if its from renewable sources is no different to leaving nature to it. You’re not making energy, only transforming it from one form to another. And any actual heat produced by non renewables is fairly negligible, it’s greenhouse gases we are concerned about, or should be. As I said above.

just to add, why heat production is irrelevant, 10 000 times more solar energy hits the earth than is used as power. Thatks per day, or per year, or however you want to cut it. Greenhouse gases trap that solar energy, causing climate change, far more than 1 in 10000. More like 1 in 50 or so. We have cut heat emission back into space by about 2%, given the temperature rise, and rate of change.

 

[savageseadog]

My hero!

Interesting to see who is NOT watching HM's funeral this morning, preferring to post nonsense on here ?

- W

I've been listing my library of Andrew Morton Diana books on eBay as well.

 

[lustyd]

Any energy, however its used, if its from renewable sources is no different to leaving nature to it.

Your entire perspective is broken by this statement. This is the same sort of thing climate change deniers have been saying for decades and it's simply not the case. We dig up coal and burn it, it absolutely has an irreversible affect on the planet. There's no going back with coal, and there's no going back with geothermal or tidal either, it's just less obvious.
If we take solar energy from the desert, the desert will cool and will cease producing strong thermals pushing air high into the atmosphere. If we take that power using UHVDC and consume it in the polar regions for heating, we'll melt the poles in short order, diluting the sea's salinity and likely stopping the gulf stream. It's absurd to suggest the planet will remain unchanged through this drastic shift in global energy movements. Why then, is it such a challenge to accept that smaller versions of this will also have an impact?
As I said before, the science is not under debate, these actions have consequences and those consequences are well understood by those who study the subject regardless of whether you wish to deny that science or argue against sensible precautions. The debate is how far we can/should push things, and whether it's worthwhile to do so in the long term. We're certainly rushing headlong into the next crisis, the main question is when the majority will realise.

 

[webcraft]

Your entire perspective is broken by this statement. This is the same sort of thing climate change deniers have been saying for decades and it's simply not the case. We dig up coal and burn it, it absolutely has an irreversible affect on the planet. There's no going back with coal, and there's no going back with geothermal or tidal either, it's just less obvious.
If we take solar energy from the desert, the desert will cool and will cease producing strong thermals pushing air high into the atmosphere. If we take that power using UHVDC and consume it in the polar regions for heating, we'll melt the poles in short order, diluting the sea's salinity and likely stopping the gulf stream. It's absurd to suggest the planet will remain unchanged through this drastic shift in global energy movements. Why then, is it such a challenge to accept that smaller versions of this will also have an impact?
As I said before, the science is not under debate, these actions have consequences and those consequences are well understood by those who study the subject regardless of whether you wish to deny that science or argue against sensible precautions. The debate is how far we can/should push things, and whether it's worthwhile to do so in the long term. We're certainly rushing headlong into the next crisis, the main question is when the majority will realise.

So if the citizens of Fairbanks, Alaska heat their homes using energy transmitted from solar panels in the Sahara it will melt the surrounding ice faster than heating their homes with electricity derived from local fossil fuel power stations?

Sorry, but that is completely illogical.

As is the idea that the Sahara would cool drastically.

Solar panels covering a surface of around 335km2 would actually be enough to power the world – this would cover just 1.2% of the Sahara Desert.


- W

 

[lustyd]

No, that's not what I said. But you probably knew that.