There is a variation on this which has huge potential and can be done on a large scale. It requires large construction efforts, but what hydro-power options don't?

Construct a huge vertical cylinder in the ocean. During periods of surplus, pump water OUT of the cylinder. During peak periods, let water back in (and of course turn turbines with it).

I read about this not long ago, and I think (I am not certain) someone is building one right now, or has applied to build one.

This is true of any storage solution. It is hardly unique to pumped storage.

Since you indirectly brought it up, I will say that even though I am generally an honest person, there is one thing I admit to lying about on Slashdot, both overtly and (I flatter myself) rather subtly, and that is my location.

Because there are some real bastards out there. As I say, I am sure you understand.

Stuff happens. Thanks for at least mentioning it.

I don't give out my email address on Slashdot. Nor my location, or phone number. Nothing personal. I am sure you understand.

Yes, as I have already explained in plain English, in response to your question about free markets.

If there is no free market in your industry (or not much of one left, anyway), then you don't get to claim free market forces would correct such imbalances. You're like those people who blame corporatism and "crony capitalism" on the concept of capitalism itself, when both of those things don't represent capitalism, but rather egregious deviations from capitalism.

Adam Smith (i.e., free-market) capitalism requires a robust, responsible, and enforced body of anti-trust law in order to keep people playing within the rules. When that enforcement breaks down (as it has, most notably during the last 2 administrations), then you get the kind of abuses of the system that we see. And the insurance industry, as a whole, has been one of the worst offenders.

So yes, I disagree. Your free-market corrections will only work in a free market. Trying to claim insurance is a free market today is a belly laugh. They are in government pockets (and vice versa) at all levels of government.

OP and TFA, therefore this discussion, are all about Antarctic ice. This whole discussion is about Antarctic ice. I admitted that I accidentally stumbled over a mention of Arctic ice, so where is your problem?

If anything, it was the comments to which I was replying that were off-topic.

You solved part of the problem, under different conditions, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

Let's get this straight: rather than tackling the actual problem you claimed to have refuted, you solved a different problem under different conditions, and called that refutation.

Even if your analysis of that problem were 100% correct, this is the very definition of a straw-man argument.

So why do you refuse to just take Spencer's original challenge, with two non-enclosing plates (i.e., the challenge I originally presented to you), and simply show me where Latour was wrong about it, as you have so often claimed? After 2 years I can only conclude that you are not able to do it. I don't know of a single other plausible reason why you have refused to do this.

That got a minor mention later in his article, is not included in his diagrams, and is NOT the problem I originally presented to you. As I have said many times before, AFTER you refute Latour's calculations regarding Spencer's original challenge, which did not have the passive body enclosing the heat source, I would be happy to move on to the other issue... with no additional stipulations or additions to the problem Spencer describes. But you haven't gotten there yet. Cart before the horse, with a straw-man riding the cart.

That was the challenge I presented you you. For 2 years now, you have been going far out of your way to do everything BUT that, which leads me to believe that is your new custom definition of "rebut". (I would say that last sentence is a jest, but in fact it is only partly so.)

That wasn't my point. I'm not saying we should solve simpler problems before moving on to more complex problems. I'm saying the challenge originally given to you is to be met before moving on to something else and claiming it irrelevant. I only wrote that "in a way" it's not simpler. But again that is beside the point, which you appear to be attempting to sidestep again.

I only claimed Latour was correct "with a reasonable degree of precision". He states himself in his original article that these are working approximations used for engineering, which in practice must have minor adjustments made experimentally for final product (when dealing with things like furnaces, which often have complex internal geometry). It's good enough for real world engineering, according to both Latour and the textbooks. So you don't get a pass on that basis, either.

Why don't you just shut up and do it? Why have you been so mightily struggling, like a fish on a hook, to avoid it?

No, that isn't what I wrote. Try reading more carefully.

You asked me about free markets. I was explaining why it's pretty difficult today to honestly characterize the insurance industry, by and large, as a free market.

The other thing (claiming problems where there might not be any) is a different issue, and it's not valid to paste them together as you just did.

And I'm going to repeat this, just one more time, in the (probably vain) effort to get you to get it straight:

Take Spencer's original experiment, with two separated, non-enclosing plates, and show SPECIFICALLY where Latour was wrong in his calculations. THEN, if you like, you can move on to the enclosed-source situation.

I'm not buying anything else. No straw-man, no moved goalposts, no new introduced factors like "thermal superconductors".

How long has it been since the insurance industry in the United States actually represented a free market?

Corporate lobbying, government subsidies, "market capture" (which is another way of saying oligopoly)... all these things have been common for decades.

We both know that's not going to happen, for the reason I explained to you in my last comment, and just now here. So that doesn't prove anything.

I should have read more carefully. Certainly that was my mistake. But I think it was forgivable considering that it was a comment about Arctic ice in the middle of a discussion about Antarctic ice.

We have never disagreed on this. The problem is that there is no such thing as a thermal superconductor of this kind, and you aren't seeing that it leads to contradictions. The only way it could exist would be if it had NO thermal effect on its surroundings whatever. So it's the ultimate straw-man argument. There is no way it can be legitimately used to demonstrate anything.

No, they didn't, because it's a different problem, being given a theoretical treatment. You keep doing that, but I'm not buying. Two infinite plates, neither of which is heated, is not even remotely the same situation, and it's also theoretical only. They're not taking into account certain real-world factors pertaining to Spencer's experiment. Latour does. Not that they're doing anything wrong... given the context of their situation: infinite non-heated grey bodies. This is not Spencer's experiment.

No, you didn't. You did not point to a calculation he performed on Spencer's situation and prove it wrong. You took what you incorrectly called an analogous situation and called that wrong. Which has been my whole point here. You keep claiming something else represents Spencer's experiment, but you won't tackle Spencer's actual, original experiment. You have consistently refused, for over 2 years.

You can toss around equations all you like, but if you're not applying them to the experiment actually under discussion (and you haven't been), you're still not proving anything. You're just moving the goalposts.

And that's why I've said I'm out of here. You continue to refuse to actually do what you said you'd done: refute Latour's treatment of Spencer's challenge. You can keep prevaricating and beating around the bush and straw-manning and moving the goalposts, and I'll just keep telling you why you're wrong. Or rather, no I won't. I've done that too many times already.

That's dirt simple. If they can claim it's a problem, they can charge higher rates. So whenever they find something that they can even remotely get away with claiming to be a problem, they claim it is a problem. Whether it's true or not.

This is hardly a genius-level concept.

Not according to Zwally, et al. (abstract, pdf)

Melting has always occurred around Antarctica. That doesn't mean it's losing ice.

[emphasis mine]

Funny how these contrary studies have never seemed to make the headlines on Slashdot.

Sure, but as I say, I don't work in an office and there aren't lots of people using my network. Only one or two. So a 4-core machine is usually fine, but faster is still better. It would be great to have $2000-$3000 for an 8-core Haswell-E with motherboard and all the associated components, but it's not in the budget right now. Maybe next year. Besides, clock speed should be up again by then.

You're not thinking.

We're talking about the context of SPENCER'S experiment. The only heat transfer in or out is radiation. It order for it to actually superconduct all the heat absorbed, it has to dispose of that heat somehow. The only way it has to do that is to super-radiate as well (emissivity very close to 1). This is the only logical conclusion. Otherwise it could not be a thermal superconductor; it would build up heat and HAVE TO conduct it away more slowly, like any other material. And there is a similar argument for absorptivity.

You keep wanting to have things both ways but that isn't going to work.

I am aware that the only thing that has an emissivity and absorptivity of 1 is a black body. I'm not stupid. But your hypothetical thermal superconductor could not store heat like a black body and remain a superconductor. That's a contradiction. So it's a different creature, from your imagination. This is why I say: leave it out. There is no way you can try to demonstrate anything else with it, either, without leading to a contradiction. And it's not part of the original experiment anyway; it's nothing but misdirection.