New hybrid system design could cut coal-plant emissions in half

Rana said:
http://climate.yale.edu/videos/yale...-flaw-global-models-implications-are-not-good
Click to expand...

It has always baffled me why so many people, who have little or no grounding in science, are so ready to accept apocalyptic prognostications of imminent doom? It seems that unless they are constantly being told that they are going to fry soon they are just not happy, most odd. I wouldn't mind so much if Rana had even tangentially addressed the subject of this thread but no she just used her old friend Google to get a few links to something totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 
Milagro said:
When did the term climate change suddenly start to mean anthropogenic climate change only? Even Michael 'Hockey Stick' Mann accepts the existence of the Pause which is fairly earth shattering!!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/28/study-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-real/
Click to expand...

Please don’t misrepresent our recent Nature Climate Change commentary. Our study does NOT support the notion of a ‘pause’ in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/smith-still-wrong-about-warming-halt/
 
Rana said:
Please don’t misrepresent our recent Nature Climate Change commentary. Our study does NOT support the notion of a ‘pause’ in global warming, only a *temporary slowdown*, which was due to natural factors, and has now ended.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/smith-still-wrong-about-warming-halt/
Click to expand...

Yes a "temporary slowdown" which has lasted for nearly twenty years. There has been a temperature increase recorded by both RSS and UAH satellite data record recently due to El Niño, which is now being followed by the inevitable La Niña.
 
Milagro said:
Yes a temporary slowdown which has lasted for nearly twenty years. There has been a temperature increase recorded by both RSS and UAH satellite data record recently due to El Nino, which is now ending followed by the inevitable La Niña.
Click to expand...
You called it a pause and you also misrepresented or Breitbart did and you ran with it, what the study has stated. Michael Mann still believes the globe is warming and that humans cause it.
So, you can't really use him to deny climate change, you have to find another bad source, like you always do and my sources will knock yours out, as they always do
 
Rana said:
You called it a pause and you also misrepresented or Breitbart did and you ran with it, what the study has stated. Michael Mann still believes the globe is warming and that humans cause it.
So, you can't really use him to deny climate change, you have to find another bad source, like you always do and my sources will knock yours out, as they always do
Click to expand...

But I have never denied climate change, I have said that many times but you seem to have the memory of a goldfish. Pretty much all sceptics accept that CO2 has a radiative forcing effect. If you were more scientifically inclined then I'd discuss the science with you but it is hard to deal with somebody who just employs the Deash debating method of posting the first thing she finds with Google.

There have been several periods in the 19th and 20th centuries of warming and cooling, one warming phase was between 1920 and 1940 which resulted in melting sea ice and glaciers equal or even exceeding what happened in the 90s. Many people have called it a pause/hiatus/halt that you choose to jump on that tells me much about how little you know on the subject. I would stick to the bullshit emanating from Hot Whopper and Skeptical Science, they love people like you.

Instead, and much more indisputable, we propose here that the warming was caused by the steadily increasing transport of warm water into the Barents Sea driven by increasing south westerly to westerly winds between Spitsbergen and the northernmost Norwegian coast. Between 1920 and 1940 the observed pressure gradient increased by some 8 mb corresponding to an average geostrophic wind anomaly of 6 ms-1. This lead to increased transport of warm water into the Barents Sea, with a major reduction of sea ice in this region, where the largest atmospheric temperature anomalies also occur. As we will further demonstrate using model simulations, the reduced sea ice coverage is the main reason for the increased Arctic temperature. A close link between observed sea ice and temperature variability has also been established by century long sea ice analysis (Johannessen et al., 2003, Zakharov, 1997), supporting the model simulations.
<...>
The Arctic 1920-1940 warming is one of the most puzzling climate anomalies of the 20th century. Over a period of some fifteen years the Arctic warmed by 1.7 °C and remained warm for more than a decade. This is a warming in the region comparable in magnitude what is to be expected as a consequence of anthropogenic climate change in the next several decades. A gradual cooling commenced in the late 1940s bringing the temperature back to much lower values although not as cold as before the warming started. Here, we have shown that this warming was associated and presumably initiated by a major increase in the westerly to south-westerly wind north of Norway leading to enhanced atmospheric and ocean heat transport from the comparatively warm North Atlantic Current through the passage between northern Norway and Spitsbergen into the Barents Sea. It should be stressed that the increased winds were not related to the NAO, which in fact weakened during the 1920s and remained weak for the whole period of the warm Arctic anomaly. We have shown that the process behind the warming was most likely reduced sea ice cover, mainly in the Barents Sea. This is not an unexpected finding because of the climate effect of sea ice compared to that of an open sea, but intriguing since previously available sea ice data (Chapman and Walsh, 1993) did not indicate a reduced sea ice cover in the 1930s and 1940s. However, as we have shown here recent sea ice data sets (Johannessen et al., 2003 for a detailed presentation) actually showed a retreat in this period. Experiments with an atmospheric model forced with different sea ice data sets as well examination of a coupled model integration are in quantitative agreement with the observational data, broadly suggesting a 1°C warming for a reduction of the Arctic sea ice with 1Mkm2.

An evaluation of the coupled model suggests that a major part of the warming is caused by transport of warm ocean water, in the upper most 125 m of the ocean model, into the Barents Sea, driven by stronger than the normal surface winds.
Click to expand...

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_345.pdf
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
But I have never denied climate change, I have said that many times but you seem to have the memory of a goldfish. Pretty much all sceptics accept that CO2 has a radiative forcing effect. If you were more scientifically inclined then I'd discuss the science with you but it is hard to deal with somebody who just employs the Deash debating method of posting the first thing she finds with Google.

There have been several periods in the 19th and 20th centuries of warming and cooling, one warming phase was between 1920 and 1940 which resulted in melting sea ice and glaciers equal or even exceeding what happened in the 90s. Many people have called it a pause/hiatus/halt that you choose to jump on that tells me much about how little you know on the subject. I would stick to the bullshit emanating from Hot Whopper and Skeptical Science, they love people like you.



http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_345.pdf
Click to expand...
I crack up because you accuse people of doing the very thing that you do, Tom, even posting an article from Breitbart, lol

I have no idea what you support Tom, other than the fact you post charlatan's papers to back up your claims.
 
Rana said:
I crack up because you accuse people of doing the very thing that you do, Tom, even posting an article from Breitbart, lol

I have no idea what you support Tom, other than the fact you post charlatan's papers to back up your claims.
Click to expand...

You didn't mind oil when it was paying for your toxic titty treatments did you hypocrite?
 
I Love America said:
You didn't mind oil when it was paying for your toxic titty treatments did you hypocrite?
Click to expand...
I think once you identify a problem that you need to take measures to protect our planet. I have never said oil is evil. I think it is foolish on humanities part that once we understood the planet is warming that we don't start looking at ways to help the communities that are being impacted by it.
 
Rana said:
I crack up because you accuse people of doing the very thing that you do, Tom, even posting an article from Breitbart, lol

I have no idea what you support Tom, other than the fact you post charlatan's papers to back up your claims.
Click to expand...

I have already said that I'd discuss the science with you, or indeed anybody, but that's never going to happen because you just don't have the intellectual props quite frankly. I posted that Breitbart article because it was written by James Delinpole who used to write for the Daily Telegraph.
 
Rana said:
I think once you identify a problem that you need to take measures to protect our planet. I have never said oil is evil. I think it is foolish on humanities part that once we understood the planet is warming that we don't start looking at ways to help the communities that are being impacted by it.
Click to expand...

God help us, you are just so incredibly dozy at times, I have already posted the work being done by companies like Bill Gate's Terrapower that wants to build 4th generation nuclear power plants. Indeed this thread is about research to clean up coal drastically yet all you can post is bullshit by Mr. Hockey Stick!!

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...Evidence-is-Overwhelming&highlight=terrapower
 
Rana said:
I crack up because you accuse people of doing the very thing that you do, Tom, even posting an article from Breitbart, lol

I have no idea what you support Tom, other than the fact you post charlatan's papers to back up your claims.
Click to expand...

I have told you many times but you are frankly as thick as two short planks on this subject at least. Let me post one more time what Richard Lindzen said on the subject, meanwhile you can dig up some old shit from Skeptical Science or Hot Whopper about him. This article was written by James Delinpole when he used to write for the Telegraph before moving to Breitbart!!

Professor Richard Lindzen is one of the world's greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest. What he doesn't know about the science behind climate change probably isn't worth knowing. But even if you weren't aware of all this, even if you'd come to the talk he gave in the House of Commons this week without prejudice or expectation, I can pretty much guarantee you would have been blown away by his elegant dismissal of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Dick Lindzen does not need to raise his voice. He does not use hyperbole. In a tone somewhere between weariness and withering disdain, he lets the facts speak for themselves. And the facts, as he understands them, are devastating. Here is how he began his speech, which was organised on behalf of the Campaign To Repeal the Climate Change Act:
.
Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
.
​
Click to expand...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100139297/lindzen-totally-pwns-the-alarmists/
 
Damocles said:
Doesn't matter, Obama has already tried to pretty much kill the coal industry in the US regardless of amount of emissions.
Click to expand...

But we're in the age of rule by executive order so it can just as easily be resurrected.

I'm voting for whoever the Republican is.
 
because you love shrinking wages, crumbling infrastraucture, Wars built on FUCKING LIES, world wide economic crashes and house speakers who fuck 14 year olds


the founders would spit on you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top