So you´ve just jumped from "anthropogenic incluence in CC is not proven", to "anthropogenic influence in CC might be good because it´s delaying next ice age"?
I´m not going to comment as your argumentation speaks volumes
So you´ve just jumped from "anthropogenic incluence in CC is not proven", to "anthropogenic influence in CC might be good because it´s delaying next ice age"?
Interesting. My priors are; this is a 3D printing company that has pivoted to batteries and now makes an "equal or better" claim to get some shareholder value. I don't think this one will amount to much.Zynerji wrote: ↑23 Aug 2021, 18:30Solid state (3d printed) batteries are coming, and lets hope they can surpass the current Li-Ion type for density and safety.
https://www.techspot.com/news/90878-sak ... -boon.html
They must have something to be ramping up to sell them in 2022....nzjrs wrote: ↑23 Aug 2021, 20:32Interesting. My priors are; this is a 3D printing company that has pivoted to batteries and now makes an "equal or better" claim to get some shareholder value. I don't think this one will amount to much.Zynerji wrote: ↑23 Aug 2021, 18:30Solid state (3d printed) batteries are coming, and lets hope they can surpass the current Li-Ion type for density and safety.
https://www.techspot.com/news/90878-sak ... -boon.html
But as a general rule, yes we are definately still in the optimisation phase of li-ions
Well then, this might help:nzjrs wrote: ↑23 Aug 2021, 12:12Whoa. Literally no idea what the underlying ideas, connecting hypothesis, or consistent intellectual principles you are trying to express here is.J.A.W. wrote: ↑23 Aug 2021, 09:47
Hardly, since anthropogenic influence appears to be delaying a probably overdue slide back into
the regular-recent geo-status of the Earth as being in 'ice-age' climate, ironic really, esp' since while
superconductors might do well in the cold, batteries & renewables, generally don't.
The nuclear testing done ~60 years ago in near space - excited the van Allen belts 'all to hell',
when what was expected/'modelled' was a 'clearance' so Apollo space-farers could transit safely,
yet even if 'its all done & dusted' long since - no humans in 1/2 a century have gone there,
& why is that so?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-27/ ... e/12588828
Models are good/bad? small perturbation can/can-not move a large system? physical processes low order effects do / do-not dominate? it's simple/complicated so we can/can-never know anything?
Those are great news, at least if they prove to be true, specially...Zynerji wrote: ↑23 Aug 2021, 18:30Solid state (3d printed) batteries are coming, and lets hope they can surpass the current Li-Ion type for density and safety.
https://www.techspot.com/news/90878-sak ... -boon.html
The process is relatively slow, but the results are batteries that are half the size and one-third the weight of their lithium-ion counterparts
Bla bla basically. I was expecting something better.
The main message was that the total energy balance of the earth still needs to be satisfied, and that that is not affected by 'chaos' (which impacts distribution, not total amount). Remember, the topic at hand was whether 'wind energy taking energy out of the atmosphere' would affect climate; the counterpoint is no, because first off the amount of energy 'used' is minute compared to the total, and second, it doesn't disappear, and that this is not affected by chaos because it has to do with the total amount of energy. It was not a discussion on climate change in general; why you tried to make that out of it, by involving all kinds of mechanisms unrelated to the matter at hand, is beyond me.J.A.W. wrote: ↑21 Aug 2021, 13:53
Actually, its seems you've fallen in to the 'smoothing' trap that so many 'models' rely on, since the
complexities of solar/upper-atmosphere thermo/radiation frequency reactions - are still poorly
understood (& thereby ignored/dismissed), so to claim that "balance" exists sans "chaos" - is 'bogus'.
& I note you've managed to studiously ignore the cited/linked matter, too...
What will Moscovium bring to the party?
No... Your reductionistic mindset is far too simplistic (along with so much 'modelling'), & whereas theDChemTech wrote: ↑24 Aug 2021, 09:19The main message was that the total energy balance of the earth still needs to be satisfied, and that that is not affected by 'chaos' (which impacts distribution, not total amount). Remember, the topic at hand was whether 'wind energy taking energy out of the atmosphere' would affect climate; the counterpoint is no, because first off the amount of energy 'used' is minute compared to the total, and second, it doesn't disappear, and that this is not affected by chaos because it has to do with the total amount of energy. It was not a discussion on climate change in general; why you tried to make that out of it, by involving all kinds of mechanisms unrelated to the matter at hand, is beyond me.J.A.W. wrote: ↑21 Aug 2021, 13:53
Actually, its seems you've fallen in to the 'smoothing' trap that so many 'models' rely on, since the
complexities of solar/upper-atmosphere thermo/radiation frequency reactions - are still poorly
understood (& thereby ignored/dismissed), so to claim that "balance" exists sans "chaos" - is 'bogus'.
& I note you've managed to studiously ignore the cited/linked matter, too...
And that's also the reason I didn't respond to your link; it was on a totally different topic, that I had no intention of discussing. Don't try to fabricate some narrative of me 'studiously avoiding' stuff when there is a much simpler reason.
Entropy can be overridden by work/order/complexity, thus is civilisation.
No problemo with this post from my side. Was a good word play.J.A.W. wrote: ↑24 Aug 2021, 09:54
Ok, "...dont let a couple of bla blas be a distraction." A couple of bla blas, eh?
So.. that'd be you & your new acolyte Andres 3000? Or did you mean - Dutch chem - as your 2nd?
(Nothing to worry about mods - its only a bit of 'jolly banter' - too, right*..)
*Edit: Well that is, apart from the emotive-piqued (& off-topic) down-votes, L.O.L...