Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[Ununionized]

Why don't you have enough education to answer simple questions?

You want to argue about a cold nitrogen bath, being a heater

but there's not a scientific fact that indicates it's possible.

The atmosphere's many degrees colder than Earth

The conduction chilling is as simple as putting a fan on a computer chip.

It's the SAME MATERIAL AS Earth
being CONDUCTION CHILLED
by the SAME fluid.

You don't put a ''heating fan'' on a computer chip.
You put a COOLING fan on a computer chip.

Every place you people turn you're shut-out

so you're reduced to showing pictures of glaciers known to be melting.

The part you don't want to talk about is that a lot of the world's glaciers are growing: Eurasia/India, North America, New Zealand, and most especially

Antarctica

which CONTAINS 90% of the WORLD'S ICE.

2015: Nat Geo, a magazine RUN by fervent magic gassers:
What Antarctica’s Incredible “Growing” Icepack Really Means

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ce-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/

SCIENTISTS: ANTARCTICA'S ICEPACK GROWING since 2005,
mainly up - not out to sea

https://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker.htm

Denmark the country legally responsible for measuring the climate driven elements on Greenland

REPEATEDLY REPORT GAINS in ICE since EARLY 2000s

MEDIA and OTHERS CONTINUALLY CLAIM
Greenland is melting.

https://dailycaller.com/2015/01/13/wrong-again-greenlands-ice-sheet-defies-critics-with-4-year-high/

After DECADES of denial, being ridiculed to shame, being unable to hide from the scam any longer,

N.A.S.A. FINALLY admitted "small gains" in 2017 with an official looking explanation why "it didn't really happen:"

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...s-2017-weigh-suggests-small-increase-ice-mass

NASA and virtually all other so-called academic sources have been lying about Greenland melting for decades.

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/greenland-ice-growth-ahead-of-last-years-record-pace/

The before/after blinking .gifs above are instances of Greenland ice pack in it's retreat/advance conditions near the sea just over a couple of years.

People find places where there isn't any ice in sight
and take a photograph.
========
In WWII 6 planes, P-38s, the planes with the double fuselages,
all in good shape, were being transferred together by pilots.

Bad weather set in regionally and everywhere they turned there was bad weather.

Communications were jammed by a Nazi U-Boat.

A clear hole appeared and below were the almost perfectly flat ice sheets of Greenland. All six landed, and they all walked out.
No one injured.

Flash forward 55 years, these 6 planes are all known to be in pristine shape and are very valuable. Private contractors put together money and went where the planes were set down.

All six planes found, pristine: encased in ice, 260 + feet deep.

"Signtists" reported the ice they were melting into was hundreds of years old. "Hundreds of layers" was the catch phrase of the scandal at the time. Now, evidence of the scandal is difficult to find.

The entire humiliating incident was hushed up as absolutely effectively as possible,

by the world's largest publishing and media-worship group:

So-called "NATURE" ACADEMICS and their hangers-on,

who had their assertions see worldwide ridicule.

The people who found the planes could only afford to extricate one.
They used hot water and created several "pipes" in the ice, through which they reached the plane they extracted.

260+ feet.

Short version of the story in Popular Mechanics:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a18943/glacier-girl-p-38-fighter/

Huge photo trove from the expedition, from the link at the bottom of the story. Mind boggling when you think about it.

https://forum.spirit-modelcar.com/viewtopic.php?f=117&t=1876

-----------
Now: Ever hear any of the stories about the Academics who were claiming to see hundreds and hundreds of layers,
each representing a year
in that ice?

No? Wow... what do ya know about that.

Let's go over to wikipedia,

which is known to be a PRIME ASTROTURFING or

SCIENCE and HISTORY CLEANSING AREA

for A.C.A.D.E.M.I.C.S,

CORPORATIONS,

and other

POLITICAL//ORGANIZATIONAL FRAUDS.

Frauds like the ones who provided all those
SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW STUDIES

about POT BEING LIKE HEROIN.

The GLOBAL ACADEMIC FRAUD to make POT
look like HEROIN and WORSE for you than METHAMPHETAMINE.
========================
"Don't be uh...DuNYiN tha SiGNTS that..

''We all need to get on opioids if we don't want to get on opioids."
========================

Let's see what "Astro-turf-pedia" tells us about this STUNNING scientific story, and recovery expedition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl

ONE sentence. Sure doesn't seem normal, does it?

Matter of fact why isn't there a WHOLE body of Pal REVIEWED PAPERS talking about HOW MUCH EVERYBODY LEARNED
from this 260-something foot SURPRISE

to PSEUDO-SCIENCE?

That's called "ASTRO-TURFING" a subject
when manipulators, EDIT OUT REALITY of what HAPPENED to them
and make it APPEAR everything is fine in their fraud.

SCIENTISTS, 2002 to PRESENT: CALIFORNIA'S MT SHASTA GLACIERS ALL GROWING, SOME nearly DOUBLE in SIZE.

https://www.iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_on_Mt_Shasta.htm
==============================
SCIENTISTS and SNOWPACK SPECIALISTS:

"NEWS of GLACIER RETREAT in HIMALAYAS is FALSE:
THEY'RE GROWING OVERALL, MEDIA REFUSES TO TALK ABOUT IT."

Only about 50 glaciers in the Himalayas,
of more than 9,000 glaciers:

have been STUDIED.

Academics refuse to study others which aren't shrinking, or likely shrinking.

https://www.iceagenow.com/Himalayan_Glaciers_Not_Shrinking.htm

your claims are as bogus as ......astroturf!

 

[Phaeton]

Those pictures are worth a thousand deliberately disingenuous words.

Per the world temperature change map, I live in the light red area of Alaska, I remember back to the 1950's with fair clarity.
The 1940's were cold (per parents and grand parents), the 1950's were cold (per me), as were the the first years of the 1960's.
Late 1960's warmer winters began happening more often, cold spells became shorter.
The 1970's began an accelerated warming, cold winters were fewer with shorter duration of the high pressure ridges that cause inversions, resulting in fewer -60 and colder temperatures.
1989 saw a winter colder than the previous ten years, three weeks of -40. Nothing like the six weeks of -50 seen in the 1950's, but damn cold.

Jump to 2016. After an entire winter of above zero I removed my furnace and heated the house with the lights in the garden.
Not a problem, probably could have removed the furnace in 2013 but I worried about weather, cold winters still can happen, not as cold and not as often, but natural variability says they will happen.

The climate in Alaska has warmed and is continuing to warm faster every year.
Rumor has it this is a part of a worldwide result of climate changing the local weather patterns. I am not everywhere but that is true in Alaska.

 

[St. Phatty]

Those pictures are worth a thousand deliberately disingenuous words.

Rumor has it this is a part of a worldwide result of climate changing the local weather patterns. I am not everywhere but that is true in Alaska.

Are you seeing any Methane emissions ?

I hear about that. I don't know what the concentration is. Can't help but wonder if you ever see methane burning on the ground from the permafrost generating methane.

Seems like a lightning strike on a section of permafrost with methane around might make a little Boom.

 

[trichrider]

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1806/1806.02320.pdf



The Little Ice Age was 1.0-1.5o C cooler than current warm period according to LOD and NAO

 

[igrowone]

it's warm up there

it's warm up there

it is quite a spike of warmth at the greenland sheet, melt is hanging in there
how long will it last? that's what i'd like to know

 

[St. Phatty]

it is quite a spike of warmth at the greenland sheet, melt is hanging in there
how long will it last? that's what i'd like to know

How long will the ice last or how long will the melt last ?

Barring a change in the energy equations that govern the planet (e.g. how much radiation they get from the sun), there are not many normal events that can slow down the heating process that will lead to the ice-caps' eventually being small enough to not be significant as a mechanism for cooling.

When that happens, it will be like that movie Day After Tomorrow, where everything freezes ... except a different version, where it burns with wildfire and Heat.

People are already fighting for that cool place near the coast. It mostly takes place in the form of real estate price appreciation. E.g. in Sonoma County. If you want to live close enough to the ocean to feel that morning & afternoon fog, boy are you going to pay for it.

 

[Teddybrae]

we don't need Methane escaping from Permafrost. we've got Frackers that set fire to coalfields underground. when the fire breaks out of the ground and lights the bush ... the Miners down the road say: oh, no. not us. prove it!

 

[trichrider]

If We’re Lucky, This Innovation Will Nuke Climate Change Scaremongering

The Malthusians are never going to win.

By David Harsanyi June 8, 2018

A team of scientists at Harvard University and a company called Carbon Engineering announced this week that they’ve figured out a low-cost, industrial-scale method of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Needless to say, it sounds like an exciting technology, which would, as The Atlantic’s Robinson Meyer notes, “transform how humanity thinks about the problem of climate change.”
To be fair, though, plenty of humans have argued that innovation, rather than widespread state-compelled behavior modification or top-down economic regimes like the ones the Left has proposed over the years, would eventually deal with climate change. This conviction was based on the historic propensity of those human beings to hatch advances in efficiency and technology when left to their own devices. They always do.
If the industrial-scale de-carbonization stabilizes temperatures — and it now seems inevitable that it’ll be a big part of the solution — the Malthusian notions that dominate the modern Left will once again lose out to capitalistic innovation. This was inevitable when Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon were betting on resource scarcity, Al Gore was producing chilling Oscar-winning science-fiction films, and contemporary Chicken Littles were telling us the human race was doomed.
“This opens up the possibility that we could stabilize the climate for affordable amounts of money without changing the entire energy system or changing everyone’s behavior,” Ken Caldeira, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, told The Atlantic.
That’s fantastic news, because, despite decades of sensational predictions and “education” on the topic, our behavior hasn’t really changed. Americans simply weren’t prepared to surrender their prosperity, freedom, comfort, cars, red meat, travel, air conditioners, etc. to global warming fears, no matter what they told pollsters. Nor would anyone else, for that matter.
It now seems likely that we’re going to be able to reach environmentalists’ carbon-cutting goals at a fraction of the price. The paper claims that companies will be able to remove a metric ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for as little as $94. The cost of averting less than one degree of warming by 2100, according to some, would have cost around $2 trillion every year for a century — which doesn’t include the economic toll it would extract from the world’s economy.
In the near future, in addition to continued gains in efficiency, your community may have a choice between paying for giant, expensive fields of intermittently useful windmills and solar panels or a plant that cleans the air by converting hydrocarbon into liquid fuel. I wonder which one rational people will choose.
For many environmentalists, all this will be welcome news. I doubt it will be for the politically motivated climate warriors, whose aim has always been social engineering in the cause of curbing capitalistic excesses. Even if decarbonization is successful, they will demand we continue to mandate inefficient renewable energies. They will demand tax dollars be used to prop up the clean-energy industry. They will continue to demand we ban fracking. They will continue to propose creating fabricated markets that artificially spike the cost of fossil fuels to pay for supposed negative externalities.
But, as a political matter, it’s going to be a lot more difficult to sell those policies when they can no longer claim the apocalypse is nigh.
After all, we’ve been told for a long time that the Earth was on the precipice of disaster. Every year was our very last chance to save it. It wasn’t enough to merely concede that warming was probably happening, but a person had to adopt whatever policy proposals Democrats were pushing in toto. Tradeoffs didn’t exist in this world. Future innovations didn’t exist. Only the apocalypse beckoned.
The entire climate-change debate had been predicated on the idea that only dramatic intrusions into energy consumption and regulating citizens’ contemporary habits — not only by wealthy nations but also emerging countries whose people were finally benefiting from cheap energy — would stop us from heading towards the abyss. You could be poorer, less free, and do almost nothing to change the trajectory of warming.
We can’t have complete certitude about the future, of course, but you’re not a techno-utopian to trust that humans typically find ways to adapt. You’re not Pollyannaish to point out that, by nearly every quantifiable measure, the state of humanity has improved over the years we were busy panicking about global warming — people are safer, live longer, and are freer. They’ve cut poverty, illiteracy, infant mortality, and so on.
Plenty of those gains rely on the availability of cheap, dependable energy — as does our own growth and wealth. That is why rejecting the climate change panic-mongers might have been one of the smartest things American voters have done over the past two decades.


http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/08/scientific-discovery-will-nuke-climate-change-scaremongering/

 

[trichrider]

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3


A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere



Highlights

• •Detailed engineering and cost analysis for a 1 Mt-CO2/year direct air capture plant
• •Levelized costs of $94 to $232 per ton CO2 from the atmosphere
• •First DAC paper with commercial engineering cost breakdown
• •Full mass and energy balance with pilot plant data for each unit operation

Context & Scale

An industrial process for large-scale capture of atmospheric CO2 (DAC) serves two roles. First, as a source of CO2 for making carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuels, enabling carbon-free energy to be converted into high-energy-density fuels. Solar fuels, for example, may be produced at high-insolation low-cost locations from DAC-CO2 and electrolytic hydrogen using gas-to-liquids technology enabling decarbonization of difficult-to-electrify sectors such as aviation. And second, DAC with CO2 sequestration allows carbon removal.
The feasibility of DAC has been disputed, in part, because publications have not provided sufficient engineering detail to allow independent evaluation of costs. We provide an engineering cost basis for a commercial DAC system for which all major components are either drawn from well-established commercial heritage or described in sufficient detail to allow assessment by third parties. This design reflects roughly 100 person-years of development by Carbon Engineering.


Summary

We describe a process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere in an industrial plant. The design captures ∼1 Mt-CO2/year in a continuous process using an aqueous KOH sorbent coupled to a calcium caustic recovery loop. We describe the design rationale, summarize performance of the major unit operations, and provide a capital cost breakdown developed with an independent consulting engineering firm. We report results from a pilot plant that provides data on performance of the major unit operations. We summarize the energy and material balance computed using an Aspen process simulation. When CO2 is delivered at 15 MPa, the design requires either 8.81 GJ of natural gas, or 5.25 GJ of gas and 366 kWhr of electricity, per ton of CO2 captured. Depending on financial assumptions, energy costs, and the specific choice of inputs and outputs, the levelized cost per ton CO2 captured from the atmosphere ranges from 94 to 232 $/t-CO2.

Introduction

The capture of CO2 from ambient air was commercialized in the 1950s as a pre-treatment for cryogenic air separation. In the 1960s, capture of CO2 from air was considered as a feedstock for production of hydrocarbon fuels using mobile nuclear power plants.1 In the 1990s, Klaus Lackner explored the large-scale capture of CO2 as a tool for managing climate risk,2 now commonly referred to as direct air capture (DAC).
Estimates of the cost of DAC vary widely. Cost estimates based on simple scaling relationships yield results3, 4, 5, 6, 7 from 50 to 1,000 $/tCO2. Uncertainty might be reduced if detailed specifications of individual DAC technologies were available. Yet, despite growing interest in carbon removal as a component of climate strategy, one thorough review,8 many papers on DAC-to-CCS (carbon capture and storage) comparison,9, 10, 11, 12, 13 specific absorbers,14, 15, 16, 17 or components of plausible DAC systems,18 no prior paper provides a design and engineering cost basis for a complete DAC system for which all major components are (1) drawn from well-established commercial engineering heritage, or (2) described in sufficient detail to allow assessment by third parties. This paper aims to fill that gap.
Plausible DAC processes19 use solid sorbents20, 21 or aqueous basic solutions22 as the capture media. Solid sorbents offer the possibility of low energy input, low operating costs, and applicability across a wide range of scales. The challenges of solid sorbent designs are first, the need to build a very large structure at low cost while allowing the entire structure to be periodically sealed from the ambient air during the regeneration step when temperature, pressure, or humidity must be cycled. And second, the inherently conflicting demands of high sorbent performance, low cost, and long economic life in impure ambient air.
Aqueous sorbents offer the advantage that the contactor can operate continuously, can be built using cheap cooling-tower hardware, and the (liquid) surface is continuously renewed allowing very long contactor lifetimes despite dust and atmospheric contaminants. Once captured, CO2 can be easily pumped to a central regeneration facility allowing economies of scale and avoiding the need to cycle conditions in the inherently large air contactor. Disadvantages of aqueous systems include the cost and complexity of the regeneration system and water loss in dry environments.
Carbon Engineering (CE) has been developing an aqueous DAC system since 2009. In 2012, we described our air-liquid contactor,23 the front end of the process. Here, in the next section, we provide an end-to-end overview of our baseline DAC system, proceeding from a high-level description of and heat and mass balance down to descriptions of individual unit operations. The following section provides results from a 1 t-CO2/day pilot plant operated since 2015. CE's capital cost estimating process is described in the section on Process Economics along with the levelized cost of capture under various plant configurations and economic assumptions. Finally, the Discussion provides comparison with prior literature and a discussion of options for improving the technology.

full paper at link above....

 

[G.O. Joe]

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3

OK, a group says they've made expensive CO2 from air with the help of a special air-liquid contact apparatus, all paid for with grants from the American and Canadian governments, if anyone is interested.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/06/08/scientific-discovery-will-nuke-climate-change-scaremongering/

A big picture of some dude's face while he's pissing on mine and telling me it's raining just doesn't get me off like it does for visitors to that site.

What is the value of a carbon credit? What is the price per ton of liquid and solid CO2? This is ancient chemistry, not breaking news. The question isn't how to remove CO2 from air, it's how much that costs (10x more than initially estimated is standard?) and who is paying and what is the fate of the carbon.

OK so you've found yet another person who wants to make his way as a head-burying tool for oil gas and coal, or is just a general rightist spin doctor for hire. Do you know anyone who's interested in facts instead of being part of a treasonous machine subverting the country for financial gain in various sectors?

 

[igrowone]

pulling co2 out of the air, i'll grant you it is a plan of a sort
the simplest and possibly cheapest way to go is the reverse coal mine
low tech all the way
trees are partially burnt to form charcoal
and you put the charcoal in some place where is will stay sequestered
empty coal mines sites are convenient
then it should occur to you, the next logical step is fuck that shit
just stop burning coal

 

[Rubber Chicken]

To the conspiracy theorists....

The simple most logical answer is always usually correct.

If you weigh reasons for and against, why would the overwhelming scientific community all be full of sh*t just for some political stances?

The world argues about everything but all basically take it as science that it is happening and we are a major part of it happening.

It reminds me of my drunk uncle.

 

[therevverend]

There's been a conspiracy about climate change since the 1950s at least. Billions, trillions, of dollars have poured into it to keep the public confused and ignorant. For the last 60 years scientists have been lying their asses off. Falsifying evidence, ignoring facts, telling the public what the corporations and government want them to hear.
The obvious analogy here is tobacco. But the oil companies and politicians are far more powerful then the tobacco companies were. Once they committed the country to a certain infrastructure they've bent the truth as far as they can to protect their profits and sell out their children.
I've never understood the people who think that the scientists are making this up. Why? The money is with the big corporations that use huge amounts of carbon. Why would a scientist in 1985 want to say something oil companies don't want to hear? It's a great way to lose your job. If you could prove climate change is an illusion you'd be very rich.
Now that it's obvious, for anyone over 20 years old you know how much the weather has changed within your lifetime. The only people who are denying it now are doing it for political reasons. Which is callous, selling out everyone's future to be lockstep with the oil companies and the corrupt ignorant politicians that do their bidding.
Being skeptical is a good thing, I'm always on the side of questioning the experts and looking for the holes in their logic. I hate siding with the status quo.
After a certain point with this issue it becomes stubbornness and pride which lose their charm as we get older. No one likes a crank.

 

[armedoldhippy]

There's been a conspiracy about climate change since the 1950s at least. Billions, trillions, of dollars have poured into it to keep the public confused and ignorant. For the last 60 years scientists have been lying their asses off. Falsifying evidence, ignoring facts, telling the public what the corporations and government want them to hear.
The obvious analogy here is tobacco. But the oil companies and politicians are far more powerful then the tobacco companies were. Once they committed the country to a certain infrastructure they've bent the truth as far as they can to protect their profits and sell out their children.
I've never understood the people who think that the scientists are making this up. Why? The money is with the big corporations that use huge amounts of carbon. Why would a scientist in 1985 want to say something oil companies don't want to hear? It's a great way to lose your job. If you could prove climate change is an illusion you'd be very rich.
Now that it's obvious, for anyone over 20 years old you know how much the weather has changed within your lifetime. The only people who are denying it now are doing it for political reasons. Which is callous, selling out everyone's future to be lockstep with the oil companies and the corrupt ignorant politicians that do their bidding.
Being skeptical is a good thing, I'm always on the side of questioning the experts and looking for the holes in their logic. I hate siding with the status quo.
After a certain point with this issue it becomes stubbornness and pride which lose their charm as we get older. No one likes a crank.

i am out of rep, but thank you for this!

 

[Phaeton]

pulling co2 out of the air, i'll grant you it is a plan of a sort
the simplest and possibly cheapest way to go is the reverse coal mine
low tech all the way
trees are partially burnt to form charcoal
and you put the charcoal in some place where is will stay sequestered
empty coal mines sites are convenient
then it should occur to you, the next logical step is fuck that shit
just stop burning coal

Another factoid I find interesting, but with a sample size of a single incident not all will find it relevant.

Past burning of coal and its effects on the planets lifeforms. All should know we have had five 'Great Extinctions', some argue we are in the midpoint of the sixth.
One of those extinctions was caused directly by burning coal.
In Siberia were coal reserves similar to the Appalachian coal area of the USA.
The Deccan Traps, not a regular volcano but more like Yellowstone, a huge fissured area hundreds of miles across reaching into the mantle. The coal caught fire and thousands of square miles of coal seams burned.
The CO2 and caustic rains destroyed land life while hydrogen sulfide invaded the ocean and killed marine life also. This was 'The Big One', overshadowing the other four extinctions.

At this time in history mankind is set to finish burning an equivalent amount of coal. All large mammals are already endangered, information on sea life indicates the same dangers.
It has happened before, it is happening again.
The difference this time?
We get to watch and wring our hands. Man, being the apex life form, will be both the largest mammal and then the last mammal on Earth.

History, don't you love it?

 

[Rubber Chicken]

There's been a conspiracy about climate change since the 1950s at least. Billions, trillions, of dollars have poured into it to keep the public confused and ignorant. For the last 60 years scientists have been lying their asses off. Falsifying evidence, ignoring facts, telling the public what the corporations and government want them to hear.
The obvious analogy here is tobacco. But the oil companies and politicians are far more powerful then the tobacco companies were. Once they committed the country to a certain infrastructure they've bent the truth as far as they can to protect their profits and sell out their children.
I've never understood the people who think that the scientists are making this up. Why? The money is with the big corporations that use huge amounts of carbon. Why would a scientist in 1985 want to say something oil companies don't want to hear? It's a great way to lose your job. If you could prove climate change is an illusion you'd be very rich.
Now that it's obvious, for anyone over 20 years old you know how much the weather has changed within your lifetime. The only people who are denying it now are doing it for political reasons. Which is callous, selling out everyone's future to be lockstep with the oil companies and the corrupt ignorant politicians that do their bidding.
Being skeptical is a good thing, I'm always on the side of questioning the experts and looking for the holes in their logic. I hate siding with the status quo.
After a certain point with this issue it becomes stubbornness and pride which lose their charm as we get older. No one likes a crank.

I understand skepticism very much, we must always have some skepticism about things but.... are you saying that oil companies etc. and their many scientists are the ones claiming that climate change is a hoax?
Because if you are, i agree with that.

The conspiracy theory is that there isn't warming caused by humans, not that there is (which it seems like you are saying?)

I'm a little too high at the moment.... i keep forgetting what i'm reading and forgetting what i'm typing.

I am really a lightweight.

 

[Ununionized]

Oil companies are the ones FINANCING all the faked pseudo-science, so they can transfer the cost of their finding NEW ENERGY to YOU:

the ignorant dupe who starts bobbing your head that "Yes it must be true" that a COLD NITROGEN BATH is a MAGIC HEATER

if the party of the Klan said it's true.

The party that made pot illegal.

The party that started the Civil war to enslave people,

The party that murdered President Lincoln.

It's obvious your handlers have you in so much darkness they call you mushroom.

OIL COMPANIES FINANCED a lot of this FAKE PSEUDO-SCIENCE

claiming a COLD nitrogen bath is a heater.

There's been a conspiracy about climate change since the 1950s at least. Billions, trillions, of dollars have poured into it to keep the public confused and ignorant. For the last 60 years scientists have been lying their asses off. Falsifying evidence, ignoring facts, telling the public what the corporations and government want them to hear.
The obvious analogy here is tobacco. But the oil companies and politicians are far more powerful then the tobacco companies were. Once they committed the country to a certain infrastructure they've bent the truth as far as they can to protect their profits and sell out their children.
I've never understood the people who think that the scientists are making this up. Why? The money is with the big corporations that use huge amounts of carbon. Why would a scientist in 1985 want to say something oil companies don't want to hear? It's a great way to lose your job. If you could prove climate change is an illusion you'd be very rich.
Now that it's obvious, for anyone over 20 years old you know how much the weather has changed within your lifetime. The only people who are denying it now are doing it for political reasons. Which is callous, selling out everyone's future to be lockstep with the oil companies and the corrupt ignorant politicians that do their bidding.
Being skeptical is a good thing, I'm always on the side of questioning the experts and looking for the holes in their logic. I hate siding with the status quo.
After a certain point with this issue it becomes stubbornness and pride which lose their charm as we get older. No one likes a crank.

 

[Ununionized]

Hand waving and fantasizing. There's no "great extinction" going on mankind MULTIPLIES the numbers of animals that live around him.

More fantasies by people who can't name the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperatures of gases and the atmosphere but they're SURE the WHOLE WORLD is missing the fact that
a COLD NITROGEN BATH is now a MAGICAL HEATER.

You DO realize the same people who made POT ILLEGAL

are the ones who told you a cold nitrogen bath is a magic heater.

Right? YOU realize the SAME PEOPLE who MADE POT ILLEGAL so they could ENSLAVE ROB and RUIN American Blacks, and Hispanic immigrants,

PUT you up to spreading the LUNACY that a COLD NITROGEN bath is a MAGIC HEATER.

Some of you should really put on your adult hat and ask yourself to FIND just ONE cold nitrogen bath in ALLLLLLL thermodynamics

THAT'S ACTUALLY a HEATER.

Another factoid I find interesting, but with a sample size of a single incident not all will find it relevant.

Past burning of coal and its effects on the planets lifeforms. All should know we have had five 'Great Extinctions', some argue we are in the midpoint of the sixth.
One of those extinctions was caused directly by burning coal.
In Siberia were coal reserves similar to the Appalachian coal area of the USA.
The Deccan Traps, not a regular volcano but more like Yellowstone, a huge fissured area hundreds of miles across reaching into the mantle. The coal caught fire and thousands of square miles of coal seams burned.
The CO2 and caustic rains destroyed land life while hydrogen sulfide invaded the ocean and killed marine life also. This was 'The Big One', overshadowing the other four extinctions.

At this time in history mankind is set to finish burning an equivalent amount of coal. All large mammals are already endangered, information on sea life indicates the same dangers.
It has happened before, it is happening again.
The difference this time?
We get to watch and wring our hands. Man, being the apex life form, will be both the largest mammal and then the last mammal on Earth.

History, don't you love it?

 

[Ununionized]

The POLITICIANS and OIL COMPANIES are the PEOPLE WHO FLOATED the CLAIM that "WE'RE ALMOST OUTTA OIL, the atmosphere has turned into a giant HEATER!"

They're making you PAY them to FIND THEMSELVES a NEW MARKET SHARE

by telling you - how dumb do you have to be to believe it? That the

COLD ATMOSPHERE
is a
HEATER.

No it's not. The political party that told you "SCIENCE SEZ" that
"White people have souls, black and brown people not so much,"

The politcal party that told you "POT is DEVIL WEED" and "will make you get reefer madness"

is the same party THAT SENT you here. To tell adults that you can't count but you're SURE the COLD NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE is a MAGICAL HEATER.



We KNOW the Oil Companies are paying for it because we know who FINANCES the AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT: the major OIL companies. We know WHERE THEIR GRANTS GO. They go to Magic Gassers squealing the world is ending and we have to "ALL PITCH IN and FINANCE the OIL COMPANIES some NEW MARKET SHARE somewhere."

Do'H! You didn't KNOW that OIL COMPANIES PAY for MUCH of the GRANTS "research" into

"the cold nitrogen bath being a magical heater"

did you?

Obviously not.

You don't even know you're here from the party that founded the Klan and made pot illegal do you? Well - that's who you're here to represent.

The party that founded the Klan - under the guise of "science"

The party that MADE POT ILLEGAL: under the guise of "science."

Now, they have grown adults screaming you think a COLD NITROGEN BATH is a MAGICAL HEATER.

It's really shameful to consider adult human beings don't know they're lobbying for the party that founded the Klan and MADE POT ILLEGAL.

Maybe if YOU knew where YOUR leadership comes from you'd understand why people laugh right in the face of weather scams.

There's been a conspiracy about climate change since the 1950s at least. Billions, trillions, of dollars have poured into it to keep the public confused and ignorant. For the last 60 years scientists have been lying their asses off. Falsifying evidence, ignoring facts, telling the public what the corporations and government want them to hear.
The obvious analogy here is tobacco. But the oil companies and politicians are far more powerful then the tobacco companies were. Once they committed the country to a certain infrastructure they've bent the truth as far as they can to protect their profits and sell out their children.
I've never understood the people who think that the scientists are making this up. Why? The money is with the big corporations that use huge amounts of carbon. Why would a scientist in 1985 want to say something oil companies don't want to hear? It's a great way to lose your job. If you could prove climate change is an illusion you'd be very rich.
Now that it's obvious, for anyone over 20 years old you know how much the weather has changed within your lifetime. The only people who are denying it now are doing it for political reasons. Which is callous, selling out everyone's future to be lockstep with the oil companies and the corrupt ignorant politicians that do their bidding.
Being skeptical is a good thing, I'm always on the side of questioning the experts and looking for the holes in their logic. I hate siding with the status quo.
After a certain point with this issue it becomes stubbornness and pride which lose their charm as we get older. No one likes a crank.

 

[Ununionized]

Somebody went and checked on your "apocalyptic warming" story and guess what!

Alaska was getting COLDER and COLDER all through the 20th Century.

Furthermore it hasn't gotten any warmer SINCE then except in a FEW ISOLATED AREAS.

So much for "grandpa's got a nose for magical gassiness."
===================================
THE ALASKA CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTER:

"The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2014,

however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska

with the exception of Barrow
and a few other locations. "

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
==================
That's called "you just got caught lying about climate change in Alaska."

Those pictures are worth a thousand deliberately disingenuous words.

Per the world temperature change map, I live in the light red area of Alaska, I remember back to the 1950's with fair clarity.
The 1940's were cold (per parents and grand parents), the 1950's were cold (per me), as were the the first years of the 1960's.
Late 1960's warmer winters began happening more often, cold spells became shorter.
The 1970's began an accelerated warming, cold winters were fewer with shorter duration of the high pressure ridges that cause inversions, resulting in fewer -60 and colder temperatures.
1989 saw a winter colder than the previous ten years, three weeks of -40. Nothing like the six weeks of -50 seen in the 1950's, but damn cold.

Jump to 2016. After an entire winter of above zero I removed my furnace and heated the house with the lights in the garden.
Not a problem, probably could have removed the furnace in 2013 but I worried about weather, cold winters still can happen, not as cold and not as often, but natural variability says they will happen.

The climate in Alaska has warmed and is continuing to warm faster every year.
Rumor has it this is a part of a worldwide result of climate changing the local weather patterns. I am not everywhere but that is true in Alaska.