Hottest April Ever Recorded.

[iguanaman]

This is even less likely than the current round of IPCC alarm-ism.

At roughly 42% on the path to the first doubling of CO2, there are many who say we have passed peak oil.
I think we have passed peak easy/cheap oil, but there is a real question if we can ever actually
double the CO2 level. (we are running out of oil, and all that green stuff keeps growing faster and in more places.)

With an already too high ECS of 3 C for each doubling, it would take a CO2 level of 4480 ppm to get
a 12 C increase, there may not be that much hydrocarbon in the ground.

Then we have the fact that the Alberta tar sands contain as much fossil carbon as humans have released to date.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming? - Scientific American

 

[longview]

Then we have the fact that the Alberta tar sands contain as much fossil carbon as humans have released to date.

How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming? - Scientific American

And the tar sands are not easy to extract, and they are difficult to refine.
No, long before we run out of oil, it will price itself out of the fuel market.
There will still be a market for organic oil, just not as fuel.
The current technology places a ceiling price on oil at about $90 a barrel.
at much above that, the refineries can make their own feedstock
from water, atmospheric CO2 and wholesale electricity.
If the electricity is carbon free, the fuel will be carbon neutral.

 

[KLATTU]

So you know for a fact that by the year 2100 there will be no problem for humans surviving on Earth? How do you know this? If all humans are as shortsighted we deserve to become extinct.

Climate change could make half the world uninhabitable - Telegraph

I really don't know if my body could take the amount of alcohol and/or drugs I would need to make stupid enough to believe stupid sh$t like that. lol

 

[polgara]

here in the mid-atlantic region of the US, we have had rain for 16 days in a row

and one of the coolest springs i can ever remember....

by now, usually we are beset by a number of 80 degree perfect spring days

i dont think we have had one of those yet this year....

Greetings, gdgyva. :2wave:

:agree: I'm starting to think I'll have to wait until Summer arrives on June 20 to get a few days of Spring weather! Oddly, the raspberries are loaded with teeny tiny fruits, and it's a month early for them for them to be that far along, but I can't plant my garden because it's dipping down to 36 degrees at night and we're getting frost warnings. No snow at Christmas, but we had snow yesterday! :shock: Weird year in many ways, including politically! :thumbdown:

 

[iguanaman]

I really don't know if my body could take the amount of alcohol and/or drugs I would need to make stupid enough to believe stupid sh$t like that. lol

There are no drugs that can reliably increase intelligence so you are correct. It takes intelligence to understand science and scientific theories..

 

[iguanaman]

And the tar sands are not easy to extract, and they are difficult to refine.
No, long before we run out of oil, it will price itself out of the fuel market.
There will still be a market for organic oil, just not as fuel.
The current technology places a ceiling price on oil at about $90 a barrel.
at much above that, the refineries can make their own feedstock
from water, atmospheric CO2 and wholesale electricity.
If the electricity is carbon free, the fuel will be carbon neutral.

LOL Oil has been nearly double $90 and no one has even thought of cranking up production of non-fossil fuel based fuels. The cost are prohibitive and will remain so in the future. That is why electric cars are the future. Why convert electricity into gasoline and then back into an inefficient combustion engine? The energy losses are ridiculous. We are the last generation to use combustion engines for cars.

Skeptics have long questioned the service's ability to meet that latter goal, which hinges on enticing commercial partners to build production plants to supply the fuel. The alternative fuels pursued by the Air Force are intended to perform identically to ordinary JP-8 jet fuel, which is the kerosene-based fuel most commonly used in Air Force aircraft. The key difference with a synthetic fuel is its source. A vast number of feedstocks--including natural gas, coal, and biomass--can be converted into a usable fuel with a method called the Fischer-Tropsch process. In all its test flights to date, the Air Force has used fuel derived from natural gas. ”We're hoping that our promise to purchase the fuel will be enough for a few companies to find financial backers and build a plant,” says Tim Edwards, the head of fuels technology at the Air Force Research Laboratory, in Dayton, Ohio.

This past January, the Air Force issued a call for companies to build a coal-to-liquid plant on land leased by Malmstrom Air Force Base, in Montana. With a new acting secretary of the Air Force, however, the fate of this plant is up in the air, with no decision expected until the end of the year. Any delay in building a production facility would make it very difficult to meet the 2016 goal, say experts.

U.S. Air Force Synthetic-Fuel Program in Limbo - IEEE Spectrum

 

[Lord of Planar]

Last month was the warmest April ever recorded. Nothing will impress Deniers, however, until the Bubble starts to boil.


Last Month Was The Warmest April Ever Recorded, Continuing 7-Month Hot Streak

And yesterday, I posted this, referring to predicted record temperatures:

Yes it was, and it was scientifically sound to do so. Still had a chance of not occurring.

1) The science said that radiant energy changes take 81 to 120 years to equalize 70% through the delta forcing/ocean/atmospheric coupling.

2) The atmospheric transparency was the lowest ever, blocking a significant part of the sun from reaching the surface.

3) We had a plan to clear the skies, and it would take decades for these regulation changes to not only fully kick in, decades more for the aerosols to fully clear out of the skies.

4) Radiance from the sun peaked in 1958, though they had no way of knowing this at the time.

These factors come to mind at the moment, I'm sure I'm missing something less significant. In the 70's the EPA implemented policies to clear the skies. Other industrialized nations followed.

5) As the skies clear, more radiant energy reaches the surface of the land and oceans, and we see the earth getting warmer again.

6) More than 75% on radiant energy changes are at a wavelength absorbed down to 100 meters and deeper into the ocean. This energy largely stays in the ocean and takes decades to fully equalize with the atmosphere.

7) though the solar peak in 1958 may be small compared to atmospheric transparency changes, it alone doesn't equalize to 70% of its change until around 2058.
​

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...and-denial-post1065868115.html#post1065868115

 

[Manc Skipper]

Hottest January, hottest February, hottest March, hottest April... is this a trend developing?

 

[RetiredUSN]

Last month was the warmest April ever recorded. Nothing will impress Deniers, however, until the Bubble starts to boil.


Last Month Was The Warmest April Ever Recorded, Continuing 7-Month Hot Streak

Coolest May in 121 years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Hottest January, hottest February, hottest March, hottest April... is this a trend developing?

Hard to say with as many times as the temperature records have been altered corrected.

 

[JackA]

Coolest May in 121 years.

So far a zero temperature for every day from the 17th to the 31st.

 

[JackA]

And yesterday, I posted this, referring to predicted record temperatures:

Yes it was, and it was scientifically sound to do so. Still had a chance of not occurring.

1) The science said that radiant energy changes take 81 to 120 years to equalize 70% through the delta forcing/ocean/atmospheric coupling.

2) The atmospheric transparency was the lowest ever, blocking a significant part of the sun from reaching the surface.

3) We had a plan to clear the skies, and it would take decades for these regulation changes to not only fully kick in, decades more for the aerosols to fully clear out of the skies.

4) Radiance from the sun peaked in 1958, though they had no way of knowing this at the time.

These factors come to mind at the moment, I'm sure I'm missing something less significant. In the 70's the EPA implemented policies to clear the skies. Other industrialized nations followed.

5) As the skies clear, more radiant energy reaches the surface of the land and oceans, and we see the earth getting warmer again.

6) More than 75% on radiant energy changes are at a wavelength absorbed down to 100 meters and deeper into the ocean. This energy largely stays in the ocean and takes decades to fully equalize with the atmosphere.

7) though the solar peak in 1958 may be small compared to atmospheric transparency changes, it alone doesn't equalize to 70% of its change until around 2058.
​

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...and-denial-post1065868115.html#post1065868115

Interesting, and great if it's that simple. At least there's acknowledgement of warming instead of the annual, "been no global warming in "X" years", harkening back to the fake benchmark year of 1998. What is NASA's view of this explanation.

 

[Threegoofs]

It is only four months in and we can be almost certainly assured that 2016 will become the new hottest year on record. If that does hold true, then we will have had three consecutive years with a new title each year of the hottest year on record.

Seriously, **** deniers.

But the scientists never predict anything right!

I know because WUWT said so.

 

[Threegoofs]

Seriously?

You do realize that at one time this world was a hell of a lot hotter and all the little flowers and plants survived, in fact thrived. We have hard evidence of cultivated grape vines in Newfoundland and northern Germany. These longer summers have significant lengthened the northern growing season and farmers on the Canadian prairies are growing varieties of crops they could not ten years ago.

It's time to stop whining and playing chicken little so some obscure scientists can get more funding and accept what is in front of us and, in true human form, adapt to the new reality.

All these years the Al Gore crowd has been spewing end-of-the-world fear when we should be looking at how to adapt and protect ourselves. "Global Warming" is the most studied topic in the history of mankind and typical of left wing thinItking, can't do any more than study and re-study other people's work for money.

It's time for academia to sit down and shut up.

Are you under the impression that rowing grapes in Newfoundland is some sort of evidence for something?

Wines of Newfoundland

I'm pretty sure the scientists who study this aren't 'obscure'....they pretty much are composed of a wide variety of disciplines and virtually every major scientific organization on the planet agrees it's a looming problem.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Interesting, and great if it's that simple. At least there's acknowledgement of warming instead of the annual, "been no global warming in "X" years", harkening back to the fake benchmark year of 1998. What is NASA's view of this explanation.

NASA doesn't really have such studies of their own, and their climate sections are just pundits that are not experts in the field.

I have challenged people to find a study as to where one quantifies the way the atmospheric aerosols modulate the solar energy hitting the earth. They simply don't exist since the 60's, that I have found, but the swing of past studies is +/- 2%. This amounts to a range of 6.8 W/m^2 of changing direct solar energy striking the surface.

This is exceptionally significant, and far more than CO2 changes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

But the scientists never predict anything right!

I know because WUWT said so.

Direction, yes. Magnitude, no!

 

[Threegoofs]

Direction, yes. Magnitude, no!

You mean hottest ever recorded?

Yeah. They got that right.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You mean hottest ever recorded?

Yeah. They got that right.

Why don't you just remain silent until you have something useful to say?

 

[longview]

LOL Oil has been nearly double $90 and no one has even thought of cranking up production of non-fossil fuel based fuels. The cost are prohibitive and will remain so in the future. That is why electric cars are the future. Why convert electricity into gasoline and then back into an inefficient combustion engine? The energy losses are ridiculous. We are the last generation to use combustion engines for cars.



U.S. Air Force Synthetic-Fuel Program in Limbo - IEEE Spectrum

The technology and the infrastructure were not and still are not all the way in place.
The cost at today's efficiencies is about 55 Kwh per gallon of gasoline.
Cars That Run on Air and Water? Audi Rolls Out E-Diesel

Audi says the efficiency of the overall process is “very high”—about 70 percent.

You speak of the inefficiencies of storing electricity as liquid fuel to be burned in inefficient combustion engine.
This is true, except the energy would be wasted, if not stored.
In addition, we all do not drive electric cars, and the power grid could not support everyone driving electric cars.
The vast majority of vehicles are the liquid fuel variety, and the existing energy distribution system for transport,is for liquid fuels.
As far as synthetic fuels the Naval research labs have a good one,
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
I think they have hit a flight certification roadblock for the fuel.
I suspect the contractor who provides jet fuel to carriers, likely would not like them to stop buying.

 

[DA60]

I have said it many times...if global warming is true then we are all probably intercoursed because the ignorant masses are SO ignorant that they do not believe anything unless it is staring them in the face. And since by the time 'it' is staring them in the face, it will be too late to do much about it (if the reports are true).

I assume the planet is warming but I have no idea at what rate. It might be no huge deal or it could be doomsday coming..not sure.

I don't really care that much either way.

If it ends humanity - then humanity got what it deserved. I don't see any great contributions to the universe from humanity so far. And if it doesn't, then so what?

Either way, I won't be around when the end happens anyway (worst case scenario).

But I am doing my part now because I believe in karma. But I ain't going nuts about it.

 

[longview]

Hottest January, hottest February, hottest March, hottest April... is this a trend developing?

The trend is a weather event known as a El Nino!
Could there be an AGW component sure, those months are normally
the highest anomaly moths of the year(at least in the northern hemisphere)!

 

[longview]

I have said it many times...if global warming is true then we are all probably intercoursed because the ignorant masses are SO ignorant that they do not believe anything unless it is staring them in the face. And since by the time 'it' is staring them in the face, it will be too late to do much about it (if the reports are true).

I assume the planet is warming but I have no idea at what rate. It might be no huge deal or it could be doomsday coming..not sure.

I don't really care that much either way.

If it ends humanity - then humanity got what it deserved. I don't see any great contributions to the universe from humanity so far. And if it doesn't, then so what?

Either way, I won't be around when the end happens anyway (worst case scenario).

But I am doing my part now because I believe in karma. But I ain't going nuts about it.

You are right about one thing, most people will not use something, unless it is the lowest cost path for them to choose.
When the environmentally safe fuels and products are the least expensive one, people will select them.
They have to actually be lower cost, not the lowest because taxes drove the other choices higher.

 

[JackA]

NASA doesn't really have such studies of their own, and their climate sections are just pundits that are not experts in the field.

This is exactly backwards. The "climate section" at NASA is composed of accredited scientists who study climate, as compared to the vast Denier world which, with precious few exceptions, is composed of rank amateurs.

People like me who believe climate change probably is happening don't believe it because we have read some articles and sat down at the kitchen table to work out our own, pathetic calculations. We believe climate change is real the way we believe there are solar systems. We trust the integrity of the professions of science.

 

[DA60]

You are right about one thing, most people will not use something, unless it is the lowest cost path for them to choose.
When the environmentally safe fuels and products are the least expensive one, people will select them.
They have to actually be lower cost, not the lowest because taxes drove the other choices higher.

I disagree.

If the masses really thought global warming (in it's worst case scenario) was true, they would do what is necessary to fix it. They are ignorant but they are not completely clueless...and they want to survive and they want their children/grandchildren to survive.
If helping humanity survive cost them a few bucks extra...they would (imo) gladly spend it.

Education is the key imo.

Not that I am saying global warming is as bad as advertised...I simply do not know.

 

[longview]

I disagree.

If the masses really thought global warming (in it's worst case scenario) was true, they would do what is necessary to fix it. They are ignorant but they are not completely clueless...and they want to survive and they want their children/grandchildren to survive.
If helping humanity survive cost them a few bucks extra...they would (imo) gladly spend it.

Education is the key imo.

Not that I am saying global warming is as bad as advertised...I simply do not know.

I am advocating using technology to drive the cost of environmental solutions lower than the alternatives.
when it is the lowest cost solution, people will pick it regardless of what t hey believe.