Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

Riggamortis, what a wonderful summation. Now, try to get that into the heads of a lot of people who actually vote...

I don't know why everyone seems to have their panties in a wad over rising temperatures. All the news says that the poles are about to swap and just the wind from the Earth turning upside down will be more than enough to cool everything off.Plus everyone knows it's cold in Australia when it's hot in the US so the arctic will suddenly go from hot back to cold like it should be.

That's not how heat transfer works. Heat transfer is from high temperature to low temperature and not from a body with lots of energy to a body with less energy. If the ocean and the ice are colder than the surroundings, then they gain even more heat.

Me neither, I just take my panties off when it really gets hot... I've been doing it a lot more often lately.

You would think so. However, we have a lot of influential people in positions of power that use money to pull the levers of government in such a way as to maintain the status quo. More often than not, they would prefer to just keep things as they are for as long as possible. The future be damned.One side bar: part of the issue is the left has done what I think is a piss poor job of conveying things to the general public. Climate Change is an issue, but because they take such an alarmist stance, many on the left start sounding like the crazy person on the street corner with the 'End is Near' sign.Ultimately, to deal with climate change is to have a comprehensive solution for the problem. There are several things that could be sold to the public that would help mitigate the issues with rising temperatures.1. Modernize the grid - The old grid is less efficient and wastes power via obsolete transmission mediums. Get it up to something more modern and we would be using less energy.2. Use renewables intelligently - Solar panels are great in California, Florida, or Arizona. Solar panels in North Dakota? Dumb. So be smart about how you utilize renewables. Don't just implement them for the sake of implementing them.3. Encourage conservation - People at a core level don't have a problem with doing the right thing. So be persuasive, but don't be dictatorial. Tell them to teach their kids to shut the lights off when they leave a room. Provide incentives to use LED bulbs. Make recycling about helping reduce landfill waste.4. Learn to accept Nuclear Power - This is a BIG issue on the left. Many are so against any concept of nuclear power that their heads almost literally explode when the topic is brought up. Yet their aversion to nuclear power stems from a lack of basic understanding and being alarmist about the nuclear accidents that have happened. Like a plane crash, nuclear issues get a huge amount of media attention. But when you look at the usage of nuke power and how many deaths resulted from it versus what coal, oil and fracking have done, it is a pittance. Not to mention that nuclear power has the highest energy density of any energy medium we currently can use with existing technology.Technology is ever advancing and with luck, we will eventually crack nuclear fusion. Once that occurs, our energy problems will be drastically reduced. But until then, we have to make due with what we have. Stop politicizing the issues and start thinking about the long term welfare of the planet.

2 is incorrect. Solar panels work great in northern areas. ND ranks tied for 17th in solar potential. Politics is the only thing holding it back.

quote:

---

While the Southwest region of the United States has some of the best solar resources in the world, almost all areas of the continental United States and Southern Canada have solar resources suitable for solar energy systems. For example, while frequently overcast and rainy Seattle is considered the worst place for solar in the United States (outside of Alaska), it still has a better solar resource potential than Germany which alone accounts for athird of the world's solar energy installations.
In addition, despite receiving less direct sunlight, northern states have the advantage of photovoltaic (PV) systems working more efficiently during cooler temperatures because heat lowers the efficiency at which the panels convert light to electricity. Northern states also have longer days in summer which can contribute to relatively more generation, which depending on when the power is needed, may offset shorter winter days.

---

Environmental & Energy Management Institute | School of Engineering & Applied Science | The George Washington University4 is not as black and white as you make it. Industry and government has not given us reason to accept it. With the drive towards eliminating oversight and regulations nuclear is a tragedy waiting to happen.
The cost of nuclear is prohibitive.
Nuclear Power Cost | Union of Concerned Scientists

My solar panels generate more electricity than I use, so the excess goes towards reducing my carbon footprint from gasoline.I live in Rhode Island.The initial installation cost is irrelevant in the long run, because they are virtually maintenance free so operating costs are virtually nil.Enjoy

A thought occurred to me the other day: If your solar panels are installed on the roof, what happens when your shingles need to be replaced?

Installation cost is relevant if your electricity costs are low. Installation for me would be about $25k, I use about $1300/year in electricity.
Financially it is a stupid move for me.

I think 'great' may be a bit of an overstatement. The issue with solar panels in northern climates are not just related to the amount of available sunlight. They also have to do with the maintenance costs due to snow, ice, drops in battery efficiency, etc. I am not saying they can't work, I am saying they are not as practical a solution as they are in more moderate climates with more ambient sunlight. No offense, but you are citing an article that is from a website that leans towards wanting to only focus on renewables and demonizes nuclear power at the same time.I can cite this article: Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association But rather than a long winded back and forth, this is the crux of the problem that exists now. We have several solutions at our disposal as a society and not everything is perfect. Renewables are not a panacea and nuclear is not without risks. But the point is, we need BOTH if we want to reduce the current demands on fossil fuels. Solar/wind/hydro are good, but lack the energy density necessary to meet current demands. Nuclear could shore up the difference and allow us to eliminate the coal and natural gas burning that exists now. To me, that is a far better stop gap than continuing to push only for a solution that we know cannot meet our energy demands.Might I point out that ultra liberal France gets about 75% of its power from nukes. And unlike Germany, they didn't perform a knee jerk reaction to Fukishima and shut down all their nuke plants. The end result of that decision required them to import huge amounts of natural gas from Russia, giving a despot dictator like Putin more influence. Not a great thing.

This is what I am talking about with nuclear and its issues.
'Nuclear Industry in France in Crisis,' 20 Reactors Shut Down - EcoWatch
If a fossil fuel plant has bad parts or safety oversight it shuts down. If it's solar it stops producing. If a nuclear plant has bad parts and safety over sight we have chernobyl and fukashima. But time and time again these have been shown to have negligible effect on solar panels. Drops in battery efficiency is a red herring. Most installations do not even have batteries, excess electricity is fed to the grid. Also, gel and agm batteries which are a much better choice can be stored indoors.Edited by Theodoric, : forgot link

First, I had my roof inspected first to ensure this would not be a problem in the near future.Second, the panels that cover the roof area actually protect the shingles under them, extending their life, so I could re-shingle around them if the rest of the roof needs it.Third, removing them and reinstalling them is labor, not materials, and I expect that roofing companies will either acquire the skills or have a contractor on hand, because so many people around here have them.Fourth, I may not be here ... Enjoy

What do you get for $25k? Batteries and everything? It's only 6k-ish to have a 5kw system fully installed here(no batteries). I don't know how much it would be without govt subsidies though.Edited by Riggamortis, : Clarity

I said any new energy. The atmosphere warms up in the morning because the sun shines again. This happens everyday. Its not new. When a co2 molecule transfers its energy to the n2 and o2, the total energy in the atmosphere remains the same. The only way you could possibly say this is added energy is by saying the default position is the release of energy into space from the co2 molecule. If that is what really happens then the atmosphere would be warmer as the co2 would absorb infrared then pass it onto the n2 and o2 who would hold onto it for a very long time, whereas your scenario would only hold infrared for a microsecond before being released into space.In your scenario, the more co2 is added, the more the infrared is held up before being released. This scenario is the only way for global warming alarmism to work. The problem though.....is it the correct scenario?My scenario is a warmer atmosphere than yours initially with low co2. Higher amounts of co2 do not warm the atmosphere in my scenario. They appreciably warm the atmosphere in your scenario.You havent proven your scenario is reality and i havent proven my scenario is reality. Therefore, you cannot say the atmosphere would be warmer today under my scenario. What we can say is that the atmosphere would be much colder today if co2 were the only thing keeping radiation from automatically exiting into space. There just isnt enough co2 to hold the heat in long enough to maintain our current temperature. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

You are determined to miss the point.Without co2 and other greenhouse gasses, IR reflected from earth has a relatively direct path back into space. No greenhouse gasses thus means a lessened amount of heating of the atmosphere.With co2 (and CH4 and water vapor), some IR that would have gone straight into space instead is instead absorbed. Yes, some of that energy is transferred to the atmosphere, some of it is re-radiated back into space and some is radiated back towards the ground. Your silly posts acknowledge that there is resultant heating of N2 and O2, but then you try to claim that is all carried away by conduction/convection etc. I'll take care later to address that point.Now that heat which is transferred to the atmosphere is partly transferred to space via convection and conduction, but a temperature gradient is required to drive all types of heat transfer including convection, conduction, and radiation. That means that that extra heat added to the atmosphere requires a higher temperature differential in order to flow away from earth just to maintain an equilibrium. Accordingly, the result is a higher air temperature at low elevations due to the presence of IR absorbing gasses. There is also an exchange of energy between the air, and the sea and the ground both through conduction and convection. So those things can heat up too all because of the increased air temperature created by co2 and others.And of course that equilibrium must account for the fact that some heat is re-radiated towards earth so that an even larger temperature gradient is required to drive the extra heat (in cal/hr) back to space.I don't know if your curriculum included basic coursework in thermodynamics, but your posts here do not display any knowledge of the subject whatsoever. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.