• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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

Maybe for a while we would be limited to capturing it from power plants. That would be a great improvement to do that.

Improving a non-existent technology??

Theoretically more feasible, but good luck not clogging up whatever the imaginary mechanism is with contaminants.
 
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.
So I guess Audi, The Naval Research labs, University of Texas and Fraunhofer University, are just making that stuff up.
Perhaps you should write them a strongly worded letter, about how they are wasting their time on technology that does not exists.
Synthetic fuels: Audi e-fuels > Product > Sustainability at Audi > AUDI AG
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
Liquid hydrocarbon fuel created from CO2 and water in breakthrough one-step process
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html

The current claimed efficiency is 70% up from 60% back in 2012, so it does not matter what you think about the inefficiencies.
 
Improving a non-existent technology??

Theoretically more feasible, but good luck not clogging up whatever the imaginary mechanism is with contaminants.
Halt the presses! Internet pessimist Threegoofs claims a validated technology does not exist, so therefore all of the research
groups including the Naval Research labs, Audi, the German Government and several Universities who are actively developing
this technology are wrong!
Audi creates DIESEL from air and water and its already powering a car | Daily Mail Online
 
So I guess Audi, The Naval Research labs, University of Texas and Fraunhofer University, are just making that stuff up.
Perhaps you should write them a strongly worded letter, about how they are wasting their time on technology that does not exists.
Synthetic fuels: Audi e-fuels > Product > Sustainability at Audi > AUDI AG
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
Liquid hydrocarbon fuel created from CO2 and water in breakthrough one-step process
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html

The current claimed efficiency is 70% up from 60% back in 2012, so it does not matter what you think about the inefficiencies.

Workable fusion doesn't exist either, but it's being studied.

And the only one who has a fantasy breakpoint at $90/bbl is not doing a damn bit of research, he's just riding the denier train.
 
Workable fusion doesn't exist either, but it's being studied.

And the only one who has a fantasy breakpoint at $90/bbl is not doing a damn bit of research, he's just riding the denier train.
Except that this as you describe "non existent" technology is currently running one German minister's state car, and flying model planes for the Naval Research Labs.
As for the $90 barrel range, that is simple math and Physics.
A barrel of oil, produces about 35 gallons of usable fuel,
A gallon of gasoline contains about 36.6 Kwh of energy.
Convert kWh to gallon - Conversion of Measurement Units[U.S.]+of+automotive+gasoline
At a 70% efficiency it will take 52.3 Kwh to create 1 gallon of gasoline.
Wholesale electricity sells for $50 per Mwh ($.05 per Kwh)
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/wholesale_markets.cfm
($.05 is a little high, but will work for this exercise.)
$.05per Kwh X 52.3=$2.62. $2.62 X 35 gallons=$91.70.
 
Except that this as you describe "non existent" technology is currently running one German minister's state car, and flying model planes for the Naval Research Labs.
As for the $90 barrel range, that is simple math and Physics.
A barrel of oil, produces about 35 gallons of usable fuel,
A gallon of gasoline contains about 36.6 Kwh of energy.
Convert kWh to gallon - Conversion of Measurement Units[U.S.]+of+automotive+gasoline
At a 70% efficiency it will take 52.3 Kwh to create 1 gallon of gasoline.
Wholesale electricity sells for $50 per Mwh ($.05 per Kwh)
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/wholesale_markets.cfm
($.05 is a little high, but will work for this exercise.)
$.05per Kwh X 52.3=$2.62. $2.62 X 35 gallons=$91.70.

Looks to me that Audi is using biomass conversion, mostly. The others are small scale.

They are also not producing gasoline.

And as amazing as your math skills are, it's a theoretical technology.
 
Looks to me that Audi is using biomass conversion, mostly. The others are small scale.

They are also not producing gasoline.

And as amazing as your math skills are, it's a theoretical technology.
Audi, is making, Gasoline, diesel, as well as e-gas,
The Naval Research Labs are making two types of jet fuel.
Weather you choose to deny it, is not my concern.
 
What's the source of these temperature readings? do they line up with the satellite readings?

If it's Nasa-they are usually usually vastly different.

Screen-Shot-2016-11-16-at-10.17.48-PM.webp
 
Last edited:
Why do you care about temperatures in the upper troposphere?

Can you trust Gavin Schmidt? ( that's rhetorical for you)

For those of us who inherently don't trust liberals, the Climategate and now the Wikileaks dumps pretty much confirm what we thought. The ends justify the means is the operative philosophy. Yeah, we were right.
 
Can you trust Gavin Schmidt? ( that's rhetorical for you)

For those of us who inherently don't trust liberals, the Climategate and now the Wikileaks dumps pretty much confirm what we thought. The ends justify the means is the operative philosophy. Yeah, we were right.

Can't answer question, goes on rant about libruls.

Good stuff.
 
Greenland ice sheet
[h=1]Oh, darn. Study: Most meltwater in Greenland fjords likely comes from icebergs, not glaciers[/h]From the AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION Most meltwater in Greenland fjords likely comes from icebergs, not glaciers WASHINGTON, DC — Icebergs contribute more meltwater to Greenland’s fjords than previously thought, losing up to half of their volume as they move through the narrow inlets, according to new research. Greenland, the world’s largest island, is almost entirely…
 
The great Phil Plait (a fantastic science writer and more of a scientist than any of the denier jokers at DP) has a really good article about the Arctic warmth, and discusses the causes and implications.

Worth a read.

Arctic sea ice is declining when it should be growing.

What the Heck Is Going on at the North Pole?

By Phil Plait


I’ve written quite a bit over the past few years about the death spiral of sea ice at the North Pole. Every year the amount of ice goes up and down with the seasons, growing in winter and declining in summer. But, on top of that there has been a trend downward, such that year by year we see less ice all the time.

Because of that we tend to see records set nearly every year. For example, this year in March the Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent,* but it was the lowest maximum extent ever seen since satellite records began in 1979.


Starting in September every year the ice begins to reform, growing to a maximum. It reached that point on Sept. 10 this year, when it had the second lowest extent on record. After that day, though, it started to grow again.

Except … it didn’t. It started to, but then in early October the growth just stopped. A couple of weeks later it started to rise again, but stalled a second time in late October. In the weeks since then the amount of ice has actually fallen a bit. We are now at record low ice for this time of year, and have been for weeks.

Mind you, it’s winter up there. The Sun shines at most a few hours a day at the southern edge of the Arctic Circle right now. Yet temperatures in the Arctic are soaring; in mid-November it was an average of a staggering 22° Celsius, or 40° Fahrenheit, above normal.

Holy cripes. What the hell is going on?

The obvious answer is: global warming. Like I said, as time goes on, average temperatures go up, and amount of ice decreases.

But there’s a less obvious but more important answer, too. And that is: global warming.

That’s not a typo. The proximate cause of the temperature spike has been a weak jet stream. That blows around the pole, and generally keeps the cold air up there and the warm from the south away. But the jet steam has been weak lately, and warm air has been able to push up into the Arctic and keep temperatures up.
 
Greenland ice sheet
[h=1]Oh, darn. Study: Most meltwater in Greenland fjords likely comes from icebergs, not glaciers[/h]From the AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION Most meltwater in Greenland fjords likely comes from icebergs, not glaciers WASHINGTON, DC — Icebergs contribute more meltwater to Greenland’s fjords than previously thought, losing up to half of their volume as they move through the narrow inlets, according to new research. Greenland, the world’s largest island, is almost entirely…

You know that icebergs come from glaciers, right?
 
You know that icebergs come from glaciers, right?

There you go, mixing science and politics again.

Damn progressives.

“What I see now is that iceberg melting is huge, and so if you don’t take that into account you’re going to come up with some crazy high estimates for glacier melting that might not be representative,” Enderlin said.
 
Greenland ice sheet
[h=1]Oh, darn. Study: Most meltwater in Greenland fjords likely comes from icebergs, not glaciers[/h]From the AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION Most meltwater in Greenland fjords likely comes from icebergs, not glaciers WASHINGTON, DC — Icebergs contribute more meltwater to Greenland’s fjords than previously thought, losing up to half of their volume as they move through the narrow inlets, according to new research. Greenland, the world’s largest island, is almost entirely…

The change in the oceanic conveyor belt was discussed in the 1970s literature. It seems it happened in the Middle Ages and brought about a small ice age.
 
“What I see now is that iceberg melting is huge, and so if you don’t take that into account you’re going to come up with some crazy high estimates for glacier melting that might not be representative,” Enderlin said.

So i guess that means you dont know icebergs come from glaciers?
 
That means I know the question the researchers were trying to answer. In that context, your post was just know-nothingism.

And that question was...where do icebergs come from? Or if a piece of a glacier falls in the water and melts, do we get to pretend glaciers aren't melting?
 
And that question was...where do icebergs come from? Or if a piece of a glacier falls in the water and melts, do we get to pretend glaciers aren't melting?

No, that was not the researchers' question. You should read first, then post.
 
Guess you can't state it either.

If the explanation in #93 was not clear enough then perhaps this excerpt from the abstract will help.

To predict potential ice sheet-ocean-climate feedbacks, we must know the partitioning of freshwater fluxes from Greenland, including the conversion of icebergs to liquid (i.e., meltwater) fluxes within glacial fjords.
 
Back
Top Bottom