The Supermoon and Global Warming: A Taste of Things to Come

[ScienceRocks]

University of Colorado says it is rising currently at 3.4 mm/year
CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado

3.4 x 83 =282.2 mm or 11.1 inches.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Supermoon and Global Warming: A Taste of Things to Come
The Supermoon, Global Warming, and Flooding: A Taste of Things to Come

There is one real thing about the “Supermoon”: It causes flooding. But it needs help in the form of global warming.

I wrote about the so-called “Supermoon” on Monday. The basic idea is that we get a “Suupermoon” when the Moon is full at the same time it’s also at its closest point to Earth in its orbit. According to the lore, the Moon will look bigger and be brighter.

While technically true, these claims tend to be overhyped and breathless, leaving people thinking they’ll see a ginormous Moon in the sky. That’s not the case; as I point out in the article earlier this week the “Supermoon” is only about 10 percent closer than it is when it’s at apogee (the farthest point in its orbit from Earth). You’d never notice the difference in size unless you measure it. It does get brighter, by about 20 - 30 percent, which again is tough to notice on your own.

But there is one thing I didn’t mention in that article, and this is a very real and potentially disastrous effect: Tides.

The Rising Seas

If things were normal, that would be bad enough. Coastal areas prone to flooding see higher tides twice a month due to spring tides, and also higher tides once a month from the proxigean tides. When they line up it’s worse, but generally not catastrophic.

…nature itself will amplify it more and more, year by year. Global warming is making that inevitable.

Unless, that is, a third force comes along. For example, if this happens when there’s a storm, off shore, things can get very bad. Low-pressure systems (like hurricanes or just big storms) draw water toward their centers. If one comes ashore, this can create a storm surge, inundating low-lying areas.

But there’s yet another factor here, and it’s the most pernicious of all: sea level rise.

Global warming is melting ice at the poles (yes, at both poles), and also causing water in the oceans to expand. This is causing the sea levels to rise up over time, by about three millimeters per year. That may not sound like much, but it adds up, year after year. It’s risen 85 mm — over three inches — just since 1993!

Sea level rise measured by satellite since 1993.
NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center

As Tamino points out at the Open Mind blog, this alone is enough to cause flooding in coastal areas like Miami and Boston during a normal high tide.

Proxigean tides aren’t normal; they are extra strong. That’s why the NOAA issued a coastal flood warning not just for Monday but for this whole week up until tonight. It’s not until then that the Moon moves away enough both from the Earth and the Earth/Sun line to weaken tides sufficiently to relent on flooding.

But there was flooding, in Portland, Maine, Charleston, South Carolina, and many other locations. From what I can find it was bad but not devastating. It’s what Tamino calls nuisance flooding, and — pardon the expression — it’s on the rise.

In other words, and to be very clear: Global warming is causing sea level rise, which is causing more flooding all the time, and it will get worse. A lot worse.

Adding a bunch of good science today and news.

Can you help me out with your math... if the sea level is rising by about three millimeters per year (which I agree with BTW) how much will the sea rise by the year 2100?

IF it is linear with no increases in rate, which is extremely unlikely, between the time frame of 2017 to 2100 = 83 years...83 times 3mm per year = 249mm of sea level rise or 9.8" inches globally...

Some areas around the gulf, east coast and western Pacific are rising far faster(2-3 times as fast.) So the local affect of even a linear sea level rise could be very bad for society.

That's right 249 mm. Why do you believe that is unlikely? It's been 3 mm/yr for the last 6000 years. What do you believe the rise/yr will be and why?

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show

Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm.

Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

The warming of our oceans is causing them to expand through thermal expansion and the melting of the Greenland, Antarctic and mountain glaciers are adding to the rate of increase.

Between 1880 and 1930 on the graph above the sea level is clearly slower than the post 1930 increase. Can we agree?

Here is the past 2,000 years based on a study from Kemp(2011)

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sealev2k.jpeg

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp-vs-Kopp-1024x539.jpg

Sea levels were decreasing during the period after 1250 Ad up until the last 200 years.

 

[ding]

The Supermoon and Global Warming: A Taste of Things to Come
The Supermoon, Global Warming, and Flooding: A Taste of Things to Come

There is one real thing about the “Supermoon”: It causes flooding. But it needs help in the form of global warming.

I wrote about the so-called “Supermoon” on Monday. The basic idea is that we get a “Suupermoon” when the Moon is full at the same time it’s also at its closest point to Earth in its orbit. According to the lore, the Moon will look bigger and be brighter.

While technically true, these claims tend to be overhyped and breathless, leaving people thinking they’ll see a ginormous Moon in the sky. That’s not the case; as I point out in the article earlier this week the “Supermoon” is only about 10 percent closer than it is when it’s at apogee (the farthest point in its orbit from Earth). You’d never notice the difference in size unless you measure it. It does get brighter, by about 20 - 30 percent, which again is tough to notice on your own.

But there is one thing I didn’t mention in that article, and this is a very real and potentially disastrous effect: Tides.

The Rising Seas

If things were normal, that would be bad enough. Coastal areas prone to flooding see higher tides twice a month due to spring tides, and also higher tides once a month from the proxigean tides. When they line up it’s worse, but generally not catastrophic.

…nature itself will amplify it more and more, year by year. Global warming is making that inevitable.

Unless, that is, a third force comes along. For example, if this happens when there’s a storm, off shore, things can get very bad. Low-pressure systems (like hurricanes or just big storms) draw water toward their centers. If one comes ashore, this can create a storm surge, inundating low-lying areas.

But there’s yet another factor here, and it’s the most pernicious of all: sea level rise.

Global warming is melting ice at the poles (yes, at both poles), and also causing water in the oceans to expand. This is causing the sea levels to rise up over time, by about three millimeters per year. That may not sound like much, but it adds up, year after year. It’s risen 85 mm — over three inches — just since 1993!

Sea level rise measured by satellite since 1993.
NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center

As Tamino points out at the Open Mind blog, this alone is enough to cause flooding in coastal areas like Miami and Boston during a normal high tide.

Proxigean tides aren’t normal; they are extra strong. That’s why the NOAA issued a coastal flood warning not just for Monday but for this whole week up until tonight. It’s not until then that the Moon moves away enough both from the Earth and the Earth/Sun line to weaken tides sufficiently to relent on flooding.

But there was flooding, in Portland, Maine, Charleston, South Carolina, and many other locations. From what I can find it was bad but not devastating. It’s what Tamino calls nuisance flooding, and — pardon the expression — it’s on the rise.

In other words, and to be very clear: Global warming is causing sea level rise, which is causing more flooding all the time, and it will get worse. A lot worse.

Adding a bunch of good science today and news.

Can you help me out with your math... if the sea level is rising by about three millimeters per year (which I agree with BTW) how much will the sea rise by the year 2100?

IF it is linear with no increases in rate, which is extremely unlikely, between the time frame of 2017 to 2100 = 83 years...83 times 3mm per year = 249mm of sea level rise or 9.8" inches globally...

Some areas around the gulf, east coast and western Pacific are rising far faster(2-3 times as fast.) So the local affect of even a linear sea level rise could be very bad for society.

That's right 249 mm. Why do you believe that is unlikely? It's been 3 mm/yr for the last 6000 years. What do you believe the rise/yr will be and why?

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show

Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm.

Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

The warming of our oceans is causing them to expand through thermal expansion and the melting of the Greenland, Antarctic and mountain glaciers are adding to the rate of increase.

Between 1880 and 1930 on the graph above the sea level is clearly slower than the post 1930 increase. Can we agree?

Here is the past 2,000 years based on a study from Kemp(2011)

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sealev2k.jpeg

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp-vs-Kopp-1024x539.jpg

Sea levels were decreasing during the period after 1250 Ad up until the last 200 years.

Matthew. Sea levels have been rising for the last 22,000 years. About 6,000 years ago they flattened out at about 3mm/yr. Those are some really nice graphics but I am more interested if you have your own opinion what the rise will be and if it is different than the current rise that has been happening for the last 6,000 years and your understanding of why it will change. I'm trying to get a feel if you understand this stuff or if you are just regurgitating things that you know nothing about. Do you have any background in science?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Supermoon and Global Warming: A Taste of Things to Come
The Supermoon, Global Warming, and Flooding: A Taste of Things to Come

There is one real thing about the “Supermoon”: It causes flooding. But it needs help in the form of global warming.

I wrote about the so-called “Supermoon” on Monday. The basic idea is that we get a “Suupermoon” when the Moon is full at the same time it’s also at its closest point to Earth in its orbit. According to the lore, the Moon will look bigger and be brighter.

While technically true, these claims tend to be overhyped and breathless, leaving people thinking they’ll see a ginormous Moon in the sky. That’s not the case; as I point out in the article earlier this week the “Supermoon” is only about 10 percent closer than it is when it’s at apogee (the farthest point in its orbit from Earth). You’d never notice the difference in size unless you measure it. It does get brighter, by about 20 - 30 percent, which again is tough to notice on your own.

But there is one thing I didn’t mention in that article, and this is a very real and potentially disastrous effect: Tides.

The Rising Seas

If things were normal, that would be bad enough. Coastal areas prone to flooding see higher tides twice a month due to spring tides, and also higher tides once a month from the proxigean tides. When they line up it’s worse, but generally not catastrophic.

…nature itself will amplify it more and more, year by year. Global warming is making that inevitable.

Unless, that is, a third force comes along. For example, if this happens when there’s a storm, off shore, things can get very bad. Low-pressure systems (like hurricanes or just big storms) draw water toward their centers. If one comes ashore, this can create a storm surge, inundating low-lying areas.

But there’s yet another factor here, and it’s the most pernicious of all: sea level rise.

Global warming is melting ice at the poles (yes, at both poles), and also causing water in the oceans to expand. This is causing the sea levels to rise up over time, by about three millimeters per year. That may not sound like much, but it adds up, year after year. It’s risen 85 mm — over three inches — just since 1993!

Sea level rise measured by satellite since 1993.
NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center

As Tamino points out at the Open Mind blog, this alone is enough to cause flooding in coastal areas like Miami and Boston during a normal high tide.

Proxigean tides aren’t normal; they are extra strong. That’s why the NOAA issued a coastal flood warning not just for Monday but for this whole week up until tonight. It’s not until then that the Moon moves away enough both from the Earth and the Earth/Sun line to weaken tides sufficiently to relent on flooding.

But there was flooding, in Portland, Maine, Charleston, South Carolina, and many other locations. From what I can find it was bad but not devastating. It’s what Tamino calls nuisance flooding, and — pardon the expression — it’s on the rise.

In other words, and to be very clear: Global warming is causing sea level rise, which is causing more flooding all the time, and it will get worse. A lot worse.

Adding a bunch of good science today and news.

Can you help me out with your math... if the sea level is rising by about three millimeters per year (which I agree with BTW) how much will the sea rise by the year 2100?

IF it is linear with no increases in rate, which is extremely unlikely, between the time frame of 2017 to 2100 = 83 years...83 times 3mm per year = 249mm of sea level rise or 9.8" inches globally...

Some areas around the gulf, east coast and western Pacific are rising far faster(2-3 times as fast.) So the local affect of even a linear sea level rise could be very bad for society.

That's right 249 mm. Why do you believe that is unlikely? It's been 3 mm/yr for the last 6000 years. What do you believe the rise/yr will be and why?

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show

Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm.

Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

The warming of our oceans is causing them to expand through thermal expansion and the melting of the Greenland, Antarctic and mountain glaciers are adding to the rate of increase.

Between 1880 and 1930 on the graph above the sea level is clearly slower than the post 1930 increase. Can we agree?

Here is the past 2,000 years based on a study from Kemp(2011)

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sealev2k.jpeg

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp-vs-Kopp-1024x539.jpg

Sea levels were decreasing during the period after 1250 Ad up until the last 200 years.

How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills to ensure that sea level never changes again?

 

[ScienceRocks]

And so you think real data from research papers are all frauds just like all the rest of the club here. I find that sad as you're saying that our entire institution of science is a fraud and I will not have anything to do with that. Makes me sick.

https://tampaslr.files.wordpress.co...of-mexico-since-the-last-glacial-maximum3.jpg

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp_sealevel_20111.png


Sea level were decreasing after 1500 until the 18th century.

My honest feelings about sea level rise is about 1.25 feet globally by 2100.

 

[ding]

Matthew, maybe this will help you understand where I am coming from. This is a plot of atmospheric CO2.

And so you think real data from research papers are all frauds just like all the rest of the club here. I find that sad as you're saying that our entire institution of science is a fraud and I will not have anything to do with that. Makes me sick.

https://tampaslr.files.wordpress.co...of-mexico-since-the-last-glacial-maximum3.jpg

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp_sealevel_20111.png


Sea level were decreasing after 1500 until the 18th century.

My honest feelings about sea level rise is about 1.25 feet globally by 2100.

Thank you. 1.25 ft sounds a little higher than what the established trend would project, but it's probably not that far off. I'm just glad you didn't say it would be a meter. Then I would have known you have no understanding of the underlying data. I can work with 1.25 ft.

So what do you think the atmospheric CO2 will be by 2100 and why? You don't have to throw up any graphs I'm just looking to see if you have any understanding behind the drivers, ok?

 

[Old Rocks]

From the experts.

 

[ScienceRocks]

From the experts.

They're to be defunded and shunned the loserterian will scream! Allah Akbar,,,noo'sss not that, God is great the dumb bastards scream as our nation becomes a third world shit hole of idiocy.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Supermoon and Global Warming: A Taste of Things to Come
The Supermoon, Global Warming, and Flooding: A Taste of Things to Come
The Rising Seas

Sea level rise measured by satellite since 1993.
NASA / Goddard Space Flight Center
Adding a bunch of good science today and news.

Can you help me out with your math... if the sea level is rising by about three millimeters per year (which I agree with BTW) how much will the sea rise by the year 2100?

IF it is linear with no increases in rate, which is extremely unlikely, between the time frame of 2017 to 2100 = 83 years...83 times 3mm per year = 249mm of sea level rise or 9.8" inches globally...

Some areas around the gulf, east coast and western Pacific are rising far faster(2-3 times as fast.) So the local affect of even a linear sea level rise could be very bad for society.

That's right 249 mm. Why do you believe that is unlikely? It's been 3 mm/yr for the last 6000 years. What do you believe the rise/yr will be and why?

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show

Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm.

Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

The warming of our oceans is causing them to expand through thermal expansion and the melting of the Greenland, Antarctic and mountain glaciers are adding to the rate of increase.

Between 1880 and 1930 on the graph above the sea level is clearly slower than the post 1930 increase. Can we agree?

Here is the past 2,000 years based on a study from Kemp(2011)

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sealev2k.jpeg

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp-vs-Kopp-1024x539.jpg

Sea levels were decreasing during the period after 1250 Ad up until the last 200 years.

How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills to ensure that sea level never changes again?

Since they produce electricity for less than the nukes, and have no dangerous wastes to deal with, we, the people of the world, will, indeed, spend trillions on windmills and solar. And be better off for it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Can you help me out with your math... if the sea level is rising by about three millimeters per year (which I agree with BTW) how much will the sea rise by the year 2100?

IF it is linear with no increases in rate, which is extremely unlikely, between the time frame of 2017 to 2100 = 83 years...83 times 3mm per year = 249mm of sea level rise or 9.8" inches globally...

Some areas around the gulf, east coast and western Pacific are rising far faster(2-3 times as fast.) So the local affect of even a linear sea level rise could be very bad for society.

That's right 249 mm. Why do you believe that is unlikely? It's been 3 mm/yr for the last 6000 years. What do you believe the rise/yr will be and why?

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show

Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm.

Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

The warming of our oceans is causing them to expand through thermal expansion and the melting of the Greenland, Antarctic and mountain glaciers are adding to the rate of increase.

Between 1880 and 1930 on the graph above the sea level is clearly slower than the post 1930 increase. Can we agree?

Here is the past 2,000 years based on a study from Kemp(2011)

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sealev2k.jpeg

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp-vs-Kopp-1024x539.jpg

Sea levels were decreasing during the period after 1250 Ad up until the last 200 years.

How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills to ensure that sea level never changes again?

Since they produce electricity for less than the nukes, and have no dangerous wastes to deal with, we, the people of the world, will, indeed, spend trillions on windmills and solar. And be better off for it.

...............yeah but only 179 people think that.

Again........somehow progressives missed the memo in life that costs matter. Only members of the religion think societies will be fine with having only a poor class and an elite class based upon a theory. OK......that should work out real well with the masses. As the Trump annihilation displayed, we have tens of millions of people that get it.......that you run like fuck from these hair brained progressive idea's that promote trickle-up poverty.........like investing in renewable energy.

You guys officially have to endure the knobby for awhile.......deal with it!! We did.

 

[ding]

Can you help me out with your math... if the sea level is rising by about three millimeters per year (which I agree with BTW) how much will the sea rise by the year 2100?

IF it is linear with no increases in rate, which is extremely unlikely, between the time frame of 2017 to 2100 = 83 years...83 times 3mm per year = 249mm of sea level rise or 9.8" inches globally...

Some areas around the gulf, east coast and western Pacific are rising far faster(2-3 times as fast.) So the local affect of even a linear sea level rise could be very bad for society.

That's right 249 mm. Why do you believe that is unlikely? It's been 3 mm/yr for the last 6000 years. What do you believe the rise/yr will be and why?

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show

Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm.

Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

The warming of our oceans is causing them to expand through thermal expansion and the melting of the Greenland, Antarctic and mountain glaciers are adding to the rate of increase.

Between 1880 and 1930 on the graph above the sea level is clearly slower than the post 1930 increase. Can we agree?

Here is the past 2,000 years based on a study from Kemp(2011)

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sealev2k.jpeg

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp-vs-Kopp-1024x539.jpg

Sea levels were decreasing during the period after 1250 Ad up until the last 200 years.

How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills to ensure that sea level never changes again?

Since they produce electricity for less than the nukes, and have no dangerous wastes to deal with, we, the people of the world, will, indeed, spend trillions on windmills and solar. And be better off for it.

Even though we are not the problem?

 

[ding]

From the experts.

They're to be defunded and shunned the loserterian will scream! Allah Akbar,,,noo'sss not that, God is great the dumb bastards scream as our nation becomes a third world shit hole of idiocy.

So what do you think the atmospheric CO2 will be by 2100 and why? You don't have to throw up any graphs I'm just looking to see if you have any understanding behind the drivers, ok?

 

[skookerasbil]

Yep........we'll spend trillion on windmills..............

Poll: 91% Of Americans Aren’t Worried About Global Warming


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Laughing%20gif.gif.html][/URL]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From the experts.

They're to be defunded and shunned the loserterian will scream! Allah Akbar,,,noo'sss not that, God is great the dumb bastards scream as our nation becomes a third world shit hole of idiocy.

If we don't waste enough money on windmills, we'll become a third world shit hole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can you help me out with your math... if the sea level is rising by about three millimeters per year (which I agree with BTW) how much will the sea rise by the year 2100?

IF it is linear with no increases in rate, which is extremely unlikely, between the time frame of 2017 to 2100 = 83 years...83 times 3mm per year = 249mm of sea level rise or 9.8" inches globally...

Some areas around the gulf, east coast and western Pacific are rising far faster(2-3 times as fast.) So the local affect of even a linear sea level rise could be very bad for society.

That's right 249 mm. Why do you believe that is unlikely? It's been 3 mm/yr for the last 6000 years. What do you believe the rise/yr will be and why?

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show

Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm.

Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

The warming of our oceans is causing them to expand through thermal expansion and the melting of the Greenland, Antarctic and mountain glaciers are adding to the rate of increase.

Between 1880 and 1930 on the graph above the sea level is clearly slower than the post 1930 increase. Can we agree?

Here is the past 2,000 years based on a study from Kemp(2011)

https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/sealev2k.jpeg

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Kemp-vs-Kopp-1024x539.jpg

Sea levels were decreasing during the period after 1250 Ad up until the last 200 years.

How many trillions do we have to spend on windmills to ensure that sea level never changes again?

Since they produce electricity for less than the nukes, and have no dangerous wastes to deal with, we, the people of the world, will, indeed, spend trillions on windmills and solar. And be better off for it.

Since they produce electricity for less than the nukes,

Sure, for the 30% of the time they're working.
If you ignore the downtime, and the need for fossil fuel backup, windmills are free.
DERP!

 

[miketx]

So, global warming is causing the moon to be closer.

 

[Old Rocks]

• Home
• >>
• Renewable Energy
• >>
• Wind farms in Texas, N.D., N.Y. move forward

Wind farms in Texas, N.D., N.Y. move forward
08/29/2016

By Barry Cassell
Chief Analyst, TransmissionHub

August saw development steps for several wind projects around the United States, including two companion projects (149 MW apiece) in North Dakota of NextEra Energy.

Project highlights during the month, as reported by GenerationHub, included:

Brady Interconnection on Aug. 25 filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a shared facilities agreement between Brady Interconnection, Brady Wind and Brady Wind II. Brady Wind and Brady Wind II are each developing wind power facilities of about 149 MW. Brady Wind and Brady Wind II each have an application for market-based rates pending in front of the commission.

They are part of NextEra Energy Resources, a unit of NextEra Energy. Brady Interconnection will own an about 19-mile, 230 kV generation tie line serving the Brady Wind and Brady Wind II projects in Stark County, North Dakota. The point of interconnection is at the Daglum Substation owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative. The Brady Wind facility may start producing test energy as early as Oct. 25, 2016. The Brady Wind II facility may start producing test energy as early as Nov. 15, 2016.

Filed with the Texas Public Utility Commission were interconnect deals for two wind projects of Lincoln Clean Energy that would have staggered commercial operation dates but the same interconnection point. Oncor Electric Delivery Co. filed with the commission on Aug. 19 a Standard Generation Interconnection Agreement with Dermott Wind for a 253 MW project that is due in commercial operation on Aug. 30, 2017. The project's Point of Interconnection is in Scurry County, Texas, at the Dermott Switching Station.

This project to be made up of 110 General Electric wind turbines sized at 2.3 MW each. Oncor filed at the commission a similar agreement with Coyote Wind for a project that is due in commercial operation on Aug. 30, 2018. The agreement covers a 242.5 MW wind farm that will be composed of 97 GE wind turbines of 2.5 MW each. The project's Point of Interconnection will also be at the Dermott Switching Station.

FERC approved the filing by the New York Independent System Operator and interconnecting transmission owner the New York Power Authority of an executed Large Generator Interconnection Agreement for the in-construction, 77.7 MW project of Jericho Rise Wind Farm. This wind farm is in Franklin County, New York. It will consist of 37 Gamesa G114 2.1 MW turbines.

The project will interconnect to transmission facilities of NYPA at the existing 115 kV Willis Substation. The project's commercial operation target date under this LGIA is in November of this year. A listed project contact is with EDP Renewables North America.

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced in the Aug. 18 Federal Register that it has gotten an unsolicited application for wind area leasing from Trident Winds for a 765 MW wind project to be located offshore of the retired Morro Bay power plant in California. The bureau will now seek any competing offers for the tract.

http://www.elp.com/articles/2016/08/wind-farms-in-texas-n-d-n-y-move-forward.html

As grid level storage comes online, the wind farms will be increasingly lucrative investments. Trump, or no Trump.

 

[skookerasbil]

Next time, what will it be?

The Super-sized Supermoon!!! What will we do then s0ns?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Next time, what will it be?

The Super-sized Supermoon!!! What will we do then s0ns?

I hope you don't live close to the ocean.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Supermoon Floods Warn of Crisis Facing Trump, U.S.

• Published: November 17th, 2016

Share Share
By John Upton

President-elect Donald Trump is preparing to lead America during a perilous period for the 130 million residents of its coastal counties. High tides linked to the full moon since the weekend caused minor flooding from Florida to New England, underscoring the need for improved coastal infrastructure at a time of faster rising seas.

“We do see some pretty high tides, even without the full moon,” said JB Workman, a golf course employee who moved into an increasingly flood-prone neighborhood in Brunswick, Ga., several years ago. “This past weekend the flooding was like I've never seen during my time here — way worse, and dangerous.”

High tide flooding Sunday at the intersection of Prince and Lanier streets in Brunswick, Ga
Credit: JB Workman

Globally, in recent years, America has been playing an outsized role in efforts to slow global warming, which would ease future sea level rise, though nothing could completely halt the problem now. That leading role could now be in jeopardy as Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and said during the campaign that he would withdraw America from efforts at the United Nations to address climate change.

Domestically, the federal government plays key roles in protecting coastal communities from floods, a job made more challenging as seas rise. That role may also be jeopardized, given promises by Trump and Republicans in Congress to slash federal spending.

Every year nationwide, sea level rise caused by global warming is directly responsible for hundreds of high tide floods like those in Workman’s neighborhood. Coastal planners are grappling with the worsening problem, which is most pronounced along the East and Gulf coasts, where sea level rise has been fastest and where land is sinking and eroding away.

A large full moon called a “supermoon” pulled tides higher from Sunday until Wednesday, triggering the latest episode of sweeping coastal flooding. Such floods are most common in the spring and the fall. As high tides in the spring and fall have been causing worsening floods, people have taken to calling them “king tides.”

Out of 15 floods caused by high tides at locations monitored with tide gauges, a Climate Central analysis of federal data found 12 were driven by the effects of greenhouse gas pollution on sea levels.



As sea level rise has accelerated during the last half century, high tide flooding has become routine in some places and will continue to get worse. Climate change pushed high tide waters above local flood levels for three-quarters of the thousands of tidal floods in America from 2005 to 2014, analysis by Climate Central in February showed. That was up from less than half in the 1950s.

High tide floods are rarely deadly unless they coincide with a powerful storm. These minor floods block roads, including the only freeway connecting Tybee Island in Georgia from the mainland. They can swamp basements and storefronts, which occurs regularly in Annapolis, Md. And the salt they bring can kill forests and affect farmland.

Economic impacts of these floods can be difficult to assess. They include costs to retailers that can’t open their doors on some days and damage caused by floods to cars and buildings. Fixes are expensive: infrastructure improvements needed to ease regular flooding in Norfolk, Va., have been estimated $1 billion.

Aside from nuisance flooding, sea level rise causes property damage and jeopardizes lives by pushing storm surges higher — including the deadly pulse of water wrought by Hurricane Sandy. Global warming also means bigger storms and heavier rain.

Dangers of rising seas are felt worldwide, from Bangladesh to India, Russia, Canada and the U.K. Leaders from China and Brazil have implored Trump to abandon his apparent resistance to a global climate treaty. After the election, a French politician suggested Europe prepare to launch a trade war over the climate policies Trump espoused on the campaign trail.

Seas rose about half a foot during the 20th century, mostly because of global warming, and they’re rising at an accelerating rate. “We know it will rise; we know it will accelerate,” said Rutgers University professor Ben Horton. “The exact magnitude is unknown.”

If the goals of the new climate treaty are met, a rapid global transition from fossil fuel energy to clean alternatives and a quick halt to deforestation would limit sea level rise this century to another foot or two — worsening and triggering floods the world over. Failing to address global warming could see seas rise more than twice that quickly. (Seas would rise far faster than that if ice sheets at the north and south poles collapse.)

That difference is “stark,” Horton said, with some coastal regions that could potentially be adapted to rising seas becoming “non-adaptable” if global warming is not urgently addressed.

The potential costs of higher sea levels are staggering — in terms of jeopardized property and infrastructure, the costs of adapting to the changes underway and human lives and suffering.

New Orleans flooded in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina caused levees to fail.
Credit: Jocelyn Augustino/FEMA

Research published in 2014 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences projected that global damages from sea level rise could reach $19 trillion a year by 2100 — which would be more than America’s GDP last year.

As sea level rise accelerates, “we see more impacts along our shorelines,” said Jessica Grannis, who researches climate adaptation at the Georgetown Climate Center. “The level of effort is going to have to increase as well, to make sure that we don’t have people and property in harm’s way.”

Adapting to rising seas can involve abandoning some infrastructure and neighborhoods. It can involve figuring out how to live with regular floods, such as by raising houses on stilts, or by building ground floors that can withstand water damage. It can also involve building wetlands and concrete walls to keep water away from buildings and roads.

The role of federal agencies in helping local communities adapt to sea level rise is “not primary,” Grannis said — but it is “huge.”

“They provide a lot of the data and technical analysis that the state and local governments are relying on,” Grannis said. “They provide a lot of the tools they’re using. They provide a lot of the funding that they’re relying on to not only plan but also to implement projects.”

That federal support is already falling behind the needs of America’s coastlines, and there are fears that it will fall further still under Republican control of the White House and Congress.

Even using your bogus data that's a THREE INCH RISE, dufus.
Call me when the shoreline reaches South Dakota again.