• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arctic temps up to 26 degrees above normal - despite winter's onset

I don't think we will ever do anything about AGW (absent some unforeseen major technological revolution). I think at this point we are just going to have to accept the world is going to get a good bit warmer.

My problem is with those that deny the problem even exists. You can recognize that the world is warming, that its largely due to human activity, and that in some areas the ecological consequences could very well be catastophic. You could recognize that reality and still argue that there is not much of a chance of us reasonably doing anything on a global scale in the near future to mitigate that warming. That position in my opinion is perfectly reasonable. What is ridiculous is the denial of the problem.
 
[h=1]Study: UHI in Hong Kong accounts for most ‘warming’ since 1970[/h]From the INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES How much warmer has Hong Kong’s urban area become during the past 4 decades? Characterizing the urban temperature trend using seasonal unit root analysis: Hong Kong from 1970 to 2015 Scientists from Macao Polytechnic Institute are pioneers in exploring urban temperature in Hong Kong using…
Continue reading →
 
Threegoofs said:
The dramatic warming of the Arctic continues - right now, despite little sunlight, the temperatures are up to 36 degrees above normal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-as-winter-descends/?utm_term=.ab242e0749df


And sea ice is at a record low - with the usual recovery from the low very sluggish.

Just another datapoint.

Wonder if this is setting up the arctic to be ice free in the summer soon? Remember how the deniers laughed and laughed at that prediction that it could happen by 2020?

But then again, deniers in this section have assured us all that its just soot - and since CO2 is 'well mixed', it clearly isnt causing any of this because Antarctica is still cold. Hopefully the experts and scientists who study this stuff for a living will come here and read their posts so they can learn how much armchair scientists can teach us. :roll:
Click to expand...

Weather. Big deal.:coffeepap:bright:
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Study: UHI in Hong Kong accounts for most ‘warming’ since 1970[/h]From the INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES How much warmer has Hong Kong’s urban area become during the past 4 decades? Characterizing the urban temperature trend using seasonal unit root analysis: Hong Kong from 1970 to 2015 Scientists from Macao Polytechnic Institute are pioneers in exploring urban temperature in Hong Kong using…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Imagine that, a city that has experienced a greater degree of urbanization, and at a higher density, than perhaps any other city on earth, would have more warming due to the heat island effect than it would due to AGW. Those geniues over at wattsupwiththat.com really are on to something here....:roll:

What does this have to do with anything? Who would have argued that Hong Kong would not have had a huge increase in the UHI effect over the last 40 years? Have you ever been to Hong Kong? There is enough steel and concrete there to preserve its locally tropical climate even during an ice age.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Study: UHI in Hong Kong accounts for most ‘warming’ since 1970[/h]From the INSTITUTE OF ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES How much warmer has Hong Kong’s urban area become during the past 4 decades? Characterizing the urban temperature trend using seasonal unit root analysis: Hong Kong from 1970 to 2015 Scientists from Macao Polytechnic Institute are pioneers in exploring urban temperature in Hong Kong using…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

While the increase in warming is probably correct, I noted that the researchers failed to mention the fact that the population of Hong Kong has increased, along with "increased domestic product, urban land use and energy use." More people living in any area on earth is bound to make a difference in temperature, as was pointed out in the Comments Section of the article, together with the realization that AGW skeptics are finally going to be able to ask questions without being ridiculed or demonized - they hope! :mrgreen:

It's been that kind of a year! :shock:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Imagine that, a city that has experienced a greater degree of urbanization, and at a higher density, than perhaps any other city on earth, would have more warming due to the heat island effect than it would due to AGW. Those geniues over at wattsupwiththat.com really are on to something here....:roll:

What does this have to do with anything? Who would have argued that Hong Kong would not have had a huge increase in the UHI effect over the last 40 years? Have you ever been to Hong Kong? There is enough steel and concrete there to preserve its locally tropical climate even during an ice age.
Click to expand...

The geniuses are from Macao.

Characterizing the urban temperature trend using seasonal unit root analysis: Hong Kong from 1970 to 2015
Scientists from Macao Polytechnic Institute are pioneers in exploring urban temperature in Hong Kong using seasonal econometric models. In particular, the characterization of the urban temperature trend was investigated using a seasonal unit root analysis of monthly mean air temperature data over the period of January 1970 to December 2013.
“The seasonal unit root test makes it possible to determine the stochastic trend of monthly temperatures using an autoregressive model,” says Prof. Wai Ming To. “We found that Hong Kong’s urban mean air temperature has increased by 0.169°C per 10 years over the past four decades using monthly temperature data, or 0.174°C per 10 years using annual temperature data, and the trend is likely to persist.”. . .
 
Threegoofs said:
Not at all. You dont have to eliminate fossil fuel usage you just need to reduce it. Air travel is going to be fossil fueled for the forseeable future.

Of course, if we dont actually act on the other stuff (thanks to deniers like yourself), we will end up being forced into a position of having to curtail things like air travel, since incremental warming will be harder to mitigate the longer we pretend 'feedstocks for oil companies will be created out of CO2 when the price goes to $95/barrel" or whatever crap you've decided to stake your denial claim on today.
Click to expand...
Hydrocarbon fuels would not be created out of CO2, but rather, would extract the carbon from atmospheric CO2, and combine the carbon with hydrogen from water.
Several groups are publicly working on the processes.
Synthetic fuels: Audi e-fuels > Product > Sustainability at Audi > AUDI AG
Liquid hydrocarbon fuel created from CO2 and water in breakthrough one-step process
Synthesizing Jet Fuel from Sea Water - disinformation
 
late said:
That I can believe.

Making the shift to an economy not based on petroleum is a big, hairy deal.

If we don't start now, we will have to do it in a hurry, at enormous cost. We will also not have the time to plan things out and do it right.
The economy would get absolutely hammered, making things even tougher.

All of which is kind of obvious, if you had looked into the matter.
Click to expand...
Why would we need to shift the economy, when we can continue to use petroleum based fuels,
in a carbon neutral format?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't think we will ever do anything about AGW (absent some unforeseen major technological revolution). I think at this point we are just going to have to accept the world is going to get a good bit warmer.

My problem is with those that deny the problem even exists. You can recognize that the world is warming, that its largely due to human activity, and that in some areas the ecological consequences could very well be catastophic. You could recognize that reality and still argue that there is not much of a chance of us reasonably doing anything on a global scale in the near future to mitigate that warming. That position in my opinion is perfectly reasonable. What is ridiculous is the denial of the problem.
Click to expand...
I have stated before that the way to get people to accept alternative energy, is for it to be presented in a naturally lowest cost format.
This will happen on it's own without Government involvement, as the price of oil rises.
The problem I have is the Pro AGW types why have stated that any solution without a carbon tax is BS.
It is a very limited viewpoint, to exclude solutions that do not include a TAX.
 
longview said:
Hydrocarbon fuels would not be created out of CO2, but rather, would extract the carbon from atmospheric CO2, and combine the carbon with hydrogen from water.
Several groups are publicly working on the processes.
Synthetic fuels: Audi e-fuels > Product > Sustainability at Audi > AUDI AG
Liquid hydrocarbon fuel created from CO2 and water in breakthrough one-step process
Synthesizing Jet Fuel from Sea Water - disinformation
Click to expand...

Yes. And none are currently commercially feasible, no matter what the oil price is.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't think we will ever do anything about AGW (absent some unforeseen major technological revolution). I think at this point we are just going to have to accept the world is going to get a good bit warmer.

My problem is with those that deny the problem even exists. You can recognize that the world is warming, that its largely due to human activity, and that in some areas the ecological consequences could very well be catastophic. You could recognize that reality and still argue that there is not much of a chance of us reasonably doing anything on a global scale in the near future to mitigate that warming. That position in my opinion is perfectly reasonable. What is ridiculous is the denial of the problem.
Click to expand...

And while the deniers twiddle their thumbs, stories such as these are going to start happening: King Tide flooding brings octopus into Miami Beach parking garage | Miami Herald
 
Casper said:
Hey, over here :2wave:

The topic is global warming, thanks.
Click to expand...

That would be a shrewd remark, if the consequences were a clear and present danger to the living today. But, of course, global warming is only a problem to people mostly not yet born. As those can be aborted, their say in our living standards are not very highly prioritized. If you can abort a child because the girl can't afford it, then why reduce everyone's living conditions to benefit it? These things are only two sides of one coin, which is why justifying climate gas reduction with a cost benefit analysis by IPCC is so lackluster. Unless you value future generations' utility higher (either implicitly or explicitly) than today's, the cost benefit of CO2 reduction is hard to argue. As we value the progeny of the aborted kids at zero, it is hard to justify great expense for their lifestyle.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. And none are currently commercially feasible, no matter what the oil price is.
Click to expand...
The commercial feasibility, is strictly related to the price of oil.
At wholesale electricity rates of $.05 per Kwh, the profit boundary is about $90 a barrel.
I.E. If oil goes above that commercial feasibility will become commercial reality.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Good, good... My plan to submerge the Fortress of Solitude is working marvelously. PREPARE TO BE MODERATELY INCONVENIENCED, SUPERMAN!
Click to expand...

It's not even winter yet, it's still fall for another month.
 
Jack Hays said:
The geniuses are from Macao.

Characterizing the urban temperature trend using seasonal unit root analysis: Hong Kong from 1970 to 2015
Scientists from Macao Polytechnic Institute are pioneers in exploring urban temperature in Hong Kong using seasonal econometric models. In particular, the characterization of the urban temperature trend was investigated using a seasonal unit root analysis of monthly mean air temperature data over the period of January 1970 to December 2013.


“The seasonal unit root test makes it possible to determine the stochastic trend of monthly temperatures using an autoregressive model,” says Prof. Wai Ming To. “We found that Hong Kong’s urban mean air temperature has increased by 0.169°C per 10 years over the past four decades using monthly temperature data, or 0.174°C per 10 years using annual temperature data, and the trend is likely to persist.”. . .
Click to expand...

The point is, it has nothing to do with anything in regards to global climate. They were studying the UHI effect in a very, very dense and rapidly developing area.
 
joG said:
That would be a shrewd remark, if the consequences were a clear and present danger to the living today. But, of course, global warming is only a problem to people mostly not yet born. As those can be aborted, their say in our living standards are not very highly prioritized. If you can abort a child because the girl can't afford it, then why reduce everyone's living conditions to benefit it? These things are only two sides of one coin, which is why justifying climate gas reduction with a cost benefit analysis by IPCC is so lackluster. Unless you value future generations' utility higher (either Implicitly or explicitly) than today's, the cost benefit of CO2 reduction is hard to argue. As we value the progeny of the aborted kids at zero, it is hard to justify great expense for their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
Ok, Off We Go.
While I believe in a woman's to chose I prefer if it were a rarity instead of the too often norm. Do I actually believe that? Well how about this: I live out in the country and one of our neighbors daughters got pregnant and all her friends said get an abortion, we knew she did not really want to and talked out of doing it and not only that but because of the crazy family conditions we let her move into a second home I have on my property and we paid all her expenses while she was pregnant. And to make matters even more interesting a young couple that she knew had been kicked out of their home due to an issue with the Stepfather, police were involved, and since the girl was also pregnant we let them move in with the other girl. Since then they have both had their healthy young babies and the first girl has moved back home where things have gotten slightly better and the second couple is still with us and doing great and enrolled in community college to better their future and that of their child. So when you talk about saving children with me do not try taking too high a road, because as I have said more than once, Actions speak louder than Words. Want to save the world, great, the best way is for you to do that is to do what you can for those around you and in need of assistance, if some did not face a bleak future one of the main reasons for having an abortion drifts away there are better ways to resolve the issue than more LAWS and dictates.
Now back to saving the Planet so that those children and their children might actually have a nice place to grow up.
 
longview said:
The commercial feasibility, is strictly related to the price of oil.
At wholesale electricity rates of $.05 per Kwh, the profit boundary is about $90 a barrel.
I.E. If oil goes above that commercial feasibility will become commercial reality.
Click to expand...

Oil was above $90/BBL from 2011-2014. In 08, it went to $147/bbl.

Cling to your fantasy.
 
late said:
Because neutral won't be good enough.
Click to expand...
Please elaborate why you think halting all future carbon emissions, would not be good enough?
 
Threegoofs said:
Oil was above $90/BBL from 2011-2014. In 08, it went to $147/bbl.

Cling to your fantasy.
Click to expand...
The technology is new! There was a point in time where aluminum was more expensive than gold, things change.
What stays the same is the motive for profit.
When the refineries can produce their finished product at lower costs and greater profit, by making their own feedstock, they will.
The company executives have a responsibility to the shareholders, to maximize profits.
 
Threegoofs said:
Oil was above $90/BBL from 2011-2014. In 08, it went to $147/bbl.

Cling to your fantasy.
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious he means it has to stay above the $90?

Do you have any critical thinking skills, or are your skills just being critical about others?
 
longview said:
The technology is new! There was a point in time where aluminum was more expensive than gold, things change.
What stays the same is the motive for profit.
When the refineries can produce their finished product at lower costs and greater profit, by making their own feedstock, they will.
The company executives have a responsibility to the shareholders, to maximize profits.
Click to expand...

No. the technology doesn't exist.

And gathering a trace gas in large quantities to make hydrocarbons is going to be an incredibly inefficient process.
 
Threegoofs said:
No. the technology doesn't exist.

And gathering a trace gas in large quantities to make hydrocarbons is going to be an incredibly inefficient process.
Click to expand...

Maybe for a while we would be limited to capturing it from power plants. That would be a great improvement to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom