Ready for the next Ice Age? Winter is coming.

[FluffyMcDeath]

 

[ilwrath]

Am I the only one confused in this video why when talking about carbon dioxide created by energy production, he keeps showing the stacks from nuclear plants, which produce some of the least CO2 footprint per lifetime energy unit? Wind and nuclear are pretty close to tied for least carbon footprint per energy unit. I think hydro may actually be even a bit less, but there aren't that many areas that have the geology for hydro... And I'm not finding good figures for that. But the CO2 created by making solar cells, combined with the solar's lifetime limit, make them markedly worse at CO2 than nuclear and wind. (Still not as bad as coal or natural gas, but worse.)

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Am I the only one confused in this video why when talking about carbon dioxide created by energy production, he keeps showing the stacks from nuclear plants,

If you are talking about the cooling towers, they are a common way to dump waste heat in many industrial processes - including power stations. No matter how they produce heat, they all work by boiling water, passing it through turbines and then cooling the steam. Not all industrial processes that need to dump heat will have cooling towers, especially if they have access to cooling like a large body of water or a river.

 

[ilwrath]

If you are talking about the cooling towers, they are a common way to dump waste heat in many industrial processes - including power stations. No matter how they produce heat, they all work by boiling water, passing it through turbines and then cooling the steam. Not all industrial processes that need to dump heat will have cooling towers, especially if they have access to cooling like a large body of water or a river.

Huh. I guess it's my midwestern US speaking out of turn, there. Personally, I've never seen a hyperboloid stack like that that wasn't on a nuclear plant. Though a quick google search turned up a few pictures of them in other countries. And again, most large coal and natural gas plants have access to water around here. So that hyperboloid shape is pretty symbolic of nuclear here. I guess not everywhere...?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

So that hyperboloid shape is pretty symbolic of nuclear here. I guess not everywhere...?

Growing up in the UK I remember them being pretty common (and nuclear wasn't - still isn't). I don't know how many of them remain these days. They take up a lot of space.

 

[redrumloa]

If you are talking about the cooling towers, they are a common way to dump waste heat in many industrial processes - including power stations. No matter how they produce heat, they all work by boiling water, passing it through turbines and then cooling the steam. Not all industrial processes that need to dump heat will have cooling towers, especially if they have access to cooling like a large body of water or a river.

Conservation of energy. ... This law means that energy can neither be created nordestroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.

 

[redrumloa]

This winter will be 'colder than normal,' forecasters say

Winter is coming.

 

[redrumloa]

 

[redrumloa]

Global Warming is NOT a science, it is a religion that you are supposed to believe based on faith alone.

Climate Change Alarmists Refuse to Debate Skeptics

You would think the lefty alarmists, who claim to have science on their side, would have no problem making their case in a debate.

You’d be wrong:

Dozens of politicians, environmentalists, scientists and other global warming activists signed a letter announcing their refusal to take part in public debates with people critical of their global warming claims — in the name of science, of course.

“We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic,” reads the letter signed by 60 self-described “campaigners.”​

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

You would think the lefty alarmists, who claim to have science on their side, would have no problem making their case in a debate.

You'd think that evolution would have no trouble in a debate against creationism since evolution has mounds of evidence on its side. However, people tend to glaze over when there are mounds of evidence and prefer to cling to their happy fantasies. After all, what does the past really matter when we can ignore it and pretend we will all live happily forever in bliss.

 

[redrumloa]

You'd think that evolution would have no trouble in a debate against creationism since evolution has mounds of evidence on its side. However, people tend to glaze over when there are mounds of evidence and prefer to cling to their happy fantasies. After all, what does the past really matter when we can ignore it and pretend we will all live happily forever in bliss.

I've not heard of wacky creationists refusing to debate, if they did they would be just as bad as the congregation of AGW.

A better example would be Flat Earthers. They are just like the AGW nutters.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I've not heard of wacky creationists refusing to debate, if they did they would be just as bad as the congregation of AGW.

A better example would be Flat Earthers. They are just like the AGW nutters.

It's usually the creationists challenging the scientists to debate and when the scientists decline to waste their time the creationists claim victory.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

 

[Robert]

I just watched that yesterday. The usual mixture of science and common sense from Potholer54.

 

[redrumloa]

LOL!!! Come on people! When are you going to realize you were punked? A tennis played lost a tennis match, because muh Global Warming!!!

NYT: Federer’s Loss at U.S. Open Makes Him Poster Boy for Climate Change Dangers

To some, the comments by Federer, 37, may sound like sour grapes. But they also underscore a growing problem: increasing nighttime temperatures.

Under climate change, overall temperatures are rising — 2018 is on track to be the fourth-warmest year on record — but the warming is not happening evenly. Summer nights have warmed at nearly twice the rate of summer days. Average overnight low temperatures in the United States have increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit per century since 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

While daytime temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32 degrees Celsius) have been a persistent problem at this U.S. Open, forcing officials to offer players heat breaks and suspend junior matches, conditions Monday night were not much cooler. Temperatures hovered in the mid-80s, with the humidity for much of the match above 70 percent.

LOL!!!!!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

LOL!!! Come on people! When are you going to realize you were punked? A tennis played lost a tennis match, because muh Global Warming!!!!

When are you going to realise that when you reach for these straws they just turn out to be a trick of the light. Even the large quote of the Times story provided in the Breibart piece is enough to see that the story itself is being straw-manned. The story isn't about global warming defeating Federer, it's just uses the Federer anecdote to introduce the topic of warmer nights and more humid climate - and that's troubling because it's the humidity that is most likely to kill you.

The ridiculous thing is you think making fun of journalism has equal evidentiary weight to a hundred years of thermodynamics.

 

[metalman]

 

[Robert]

Build walls on seafloor to stop glaciers melting, scientists say
Barriers could halt slide of undersea glaciers and hold back sea level rises predicted to result from global warming

Thwaites glacier in western Antarctica.

Though the notion may sound far-fetched, the design would be relatively straightforward. “We are imagining very simple structures, simply piles of gravel or sand on the ocean floor,” said Michael Wolovick, a researcher at the department of geosciences at Princeton University in the US who described the plans as “within the order of magnitude of plausible human achievements”.

 

[metalman]

[quote ="metalman"]
The Earth has been warming since the end of the Quaternary glaciation period which ended 11,700 years ago, marked by a rapid sea level rise of 350ft +/- (120m +/-)

The sea level was higher during both the Roman warm period and the Midieval warm period, sea level dropped during the little ice age, and is still rising from that event
In the last 8k years sea level has risen about 2 meters max, in the last 2k years it has oscillated +/- 0.5m correlating with warm and cool periods

[/quote]

Saw this already. Not very helpful - the scales are wrong to show what you want to show.

Citation? Show me the maths.
Yes, if we are looking back through pre-human times - but don't forget that the sun was also less bright back then. Up until about a hundred years ago we were in the ball-park of historicallyt low, but we are now at about 400ppm which hasn't been seen in at least 800,000 years - quite a long time before modern humans appeared. As a species we have never experienced this much CO2 in the global atmosphere.

Beer-Lambert Law

Emissivity of carbon dioxide
Hottel’s curves and Leckner curvers
Hottel developed a method of calculating the impact of CO2 on radiant heat transfer in the atmosphere. Leckner greatly improved on the method. Both take into account all of the “fudge factors” that relate to absorbance

Discussion: Effect of doubling CO2 - why logarithmic and not linear?

Rule of thumb:
each doubling of the CO2 concentration adds 1 deg C to greenhouse effect

 

[redrumloa]