"The North Pole is an insane 36 degrees warmer than normal as winter descends" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=butre;51401687]fyi thermodynamic engineers typically use rankine[/QUOTE] Somehow I strongly doubt this, unless you specifically mean [I]American[/I] thermodynamic engineers which narrows things down greatly.

[QUOTE=butre;51401687]fyi thermodynamic engineers typically use rankine, which is fahrenheit with a start at absolute zero, and other scientists generally use kelvin[/QUOTE] any self respecting scientist will stick to SI units

[QUOTE=Fourier;51400926]does that mean we are fucked even faster than thought previously?[/QUOTE] Yes.

[QUOTE=paul simon;51401744]Somehow I strongly doubt this, unless you specifically mean [I]American[/I] thermodynamic engineers which narrows things down greatly.[/QUOTE] yes I do mean american thermodynamic engineers

So what is actually the best way to fix global warming? from what I hear the most efficient solution is for mankind to spam the shit out of nuclear power plants, but for some reason a lot of environmentalists are opposed to that too. Am I wrong?

[QUOTE=butre;51401874]yes I do mean american thermodynamic engineers[/QUOTE] they seriously teach shitty units like that in schools even today?

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51401919]So what is actually the best way to fix global warming? from what I hear the most efficient solution is for mankind to spam the shit out of nuclear power plants, but for some reason a lot of environmentalists are opposed to that too. Am I wrong?[/QUOTE] That's[I] a[/I] solution for future emissions, but not a solution for the damage already done in the past 80+ years. There's an unsubstantiated fear that every single nuclear plant that is built will inevitably turn into Chernobyl for whatever reason. While nuclear is great, I don't think it's the end-all solution to curbing emissions and if the geographical area permits, regions should opt to use other renewable resources like wind power or tidal power instead just to ease overall costs. But these programs are considered bad to some because they're "not aesthetically appeasing". My state of New Jersey downed a bill a few years ago that would have put windmills all over the coastline to harvest our wonderful oceanic winds, but because it would "damage the view" for the fucking shoobies, it was killed immediately. [editline]20th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Saturn V;51401950]they seriously teach shitty units like that in schools even today?[/QUOTE] When everyone else in the country uses them, why not? It's not as if Americans have to deal with foreigners using metric on a daily basis. And businesses and government agencies that [I]do[/I] work internationally easily go metric anyway.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;51401092]You mistyped Kelvin.[/QUOTE] he said "should use", not "should not use"

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51401919]So what is actually the best way to fix global warming? from what I hear the most efficient solution is for mankind to spam the shit out of nuclear power plants, but for some reason a lot of environmentalists are opposed to that too. Am I wrong?[/QUOTE] The general solution is "stop burning as much oil, coal and natural gas as possible". Whether we replace that with nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, or hydroelectric doesn't matter as long as it gets done. Geothermal and hydroelectric are pretty widely used where they can be, but they can't be used everywhere so they aren't a general-case solution. Tidal also only works in some places, and never seemed to take off for whatever reason. For a long while, nuclear was considered a front-runner for replacing coal/oil/gas because it was cost-competitive with coal/oil/gas with current technology. However, it did get fought by some environmentalists due to nuclear waste storage concerns - while most large environmentalist groups were tepidly for it, every attempt to actually build one got tied up by not-in-my-backyard local groups. Currently, solar and wind are favored, because now that we're producing them at scale, the cost has dropped to near-parity with oil/coal/gas. There are concerns about grid stability once they form the majority of a power system's generating capacity, but so far that hasn't been an issue in practice. That will only replace electric-grid fossil fuel consumption, though, which is about a third of global usage. Another third is used for transportation - cars, but also ships, trains, and aircraft. Cars and trains can be electrified (and thus be as green as the power grid), but ships and especially aircraft so far have resisted moving away from bunker fuel and kerosene, respectively. The last third is direct heating. Residential/commercial building heating, but also industrial heating, things like melting steel or refining oil that require a huge amount of heat. Some of these could feasibly move to electric power, again matching the "greenness" of the power grid, but I'm not sure if all of them can. But if we get the power grid to 100% carbon-free, get 90% of cars, trains, and building heating to be electric, and make a decent dent in naval and industrial use of fossil fuels, we'll probably be at a level of carbon dioxide release that the environment can handle.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;51401950]they seriously teach shitty units like that in schools even today?[/QUOTE] not in mandatory schooling, but when you get to university and start going into a specialized field where it's the standard you start learning the more esoteric units of measurement.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51401919]So what is actually the best way to fix global warming? from what I hear the most efficient solution is for mankind to spam the shit out of nuclear power plants, but for some reason a lot of environmentalists are opposed to that too. Am I wrong?[/QUOTE] Nuclear power can help but the biggest contributor to climate change world wide is probably motor vehicles so electric vehicles need to be normalized fast.

[QUOTE=butre;51402028]not in mandatory schooling, but when you get to university and start going into a specialized field where it's the standard you start learning the more esoteric units of measurement.[/QUOTE] you'd think it's the other way around

[QUOTE=gman003-main;51402025] especially aircraft so far have resisted moving away from bunker fuel and kerosene, respectively. [/QUOTE] [url=http://www.popsci.com/alaska-airlines-just-completed-forest-powered-flight]There is hope for aircraft, at least.[/url] [editline]20th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Saturn V;51402037]you'd think it's the other way around[/QUOTE] The layman in America really has no need for metric because every other layman in America doesn't use it.

[QUOTE=genpung;51402029]Nuclear power can help but the biggest contributor to climate change world wide is probably motor vehicles so electric vehicles need to be normalized fast.[/QUOTE] I think stopping deforestation is probably the best solution. forests are a massive carbon sink and we just don't have them in the same quantity that we used to.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51402049][url=http://www.popsci.com/alaska-airlines-just-completed-forest-powered-flight]There is hope for aircraft, at least.[/url][/QUOTE] Well that's interesting. I knew about solar-powered aircraft but those were clearly just stunts, not practical for actual use. There just isn't enough solar energy per unit area for most vehicles of all sorts to use it, particularly not aircraft. Biofuels would solve that problem, though. Wonder if the cost can be brought down - air transport runs on ridiculously thin margins already, they won't switch unless we bring biofuels down to fossil-fuel prices, either by making them cheaper or by taxing the everloving fuck out of jet fuel.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51402049]The layman in America really has no need for metric because every other layman in America doesn't use it.[/QUOTE] except specialists are not laymen and they should by all means use si units

[QUOTE=Saturn V;51402133]except specialists are not laymen and they should by all means use si units[/QUOTE] What a surprise that an American newspaper for an American audience used American units of measure :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51402141]What a surprise that an American newspaper for an American audience used American units of measure :v:[/QUOTE] it wasn't invented in the united states

[QUOTE=gman003-main;51402093]Well that's interesting. I knew about solar-powered aircraft but those were clearly just stunts, not practical for actual use. There just isn't enough solar energy per unit area for most vehicles of all sorts to use it, particularly not aircraft. Biofuels would solve that problem, though. Wonder if the cost can be brought down - air transport runs on ridiculously thin margins already, they won't switch unless we bring biofuels down to fossil-fuel prices, either by making them cheaper or by taxing the everloving fuck out of jet fuel.[/QUOTE] With Congress in the pockets of corporations, I don't think taxing dirty pollutants are really that effective, if it ever was to begin with. The best we can do, I think, is to fight 'dirty' corporations by having cheaper, and consumer-approved 'clean' corporations provide better service and prices, which I think will be inevitable as we run out of fossil fuels sometime in the near or far future. [editline]20th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Saturn V;51402147]it wasn't invented in the united states[/QUOTE] No shit?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51402155]No shit?[/QUOTE] why call it american then

what's that in fahrenheit the thread vol. 1

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51400949]So about those crackpot theories climate change deniers have that all the researchers formed a cabal dedicated to falsifying or exaggerating reports about climate change, I'm prepared to bet those people are still going to stick their fingers in their ears and say that all of this is patently false and completely made up.[/QUOTE] Just as scary are those who think it is real, but we are in no way contributing to it.

[QUOTE=Saturn V;51402171]why call it american then[/QUOTE] Because we're the only major country left that uses it? It's an adjective, not a pronoun.

if anyone is interested in the details i'd recommend this forum [URL]https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/[/URL] these threads in particular: data: [URL]https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.1050.html[/URL] freezing season: [URL]https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1611.850.html[/URL] what is happening right now is really really bad. it really seems like a phase transition where something in the climate system has just fundamentally changed this year..

I've heard a lot of "2016 is the hottest year on record" for temperatures they've been recording since the early 1800s. I do wonder if this is a contributing factor to above normal temperatures in the winter - the earth just is too hot to cool down normally anymore.

it's a multitude of things,that affects all sorts of systems that in turn domino other ones. you've got hot air coming in from the atlantic side, greenland and the barents. you've got ice shelves & plains that have melted faster than usual that would usually cool the air down. you've got the insane temp of the ocean in general just makes everything warmer, and all the 'cooling systems' out of wack. what is happening right now is far out of the realm of any predictions or models that have been made, the temp rising by 4C+ really seems like an understatement.. also while the arctic sea ice melting isn't going to raise the sea level by a huge amount due to what it's made out of, it's a good indicator of the general health of the planet, and it's all really bad. it's genuinely really worrying. 2016 is a game changer... quite sad really 8( it will hopefully calm down in the next few days but there's nothing stopping it from happening again and more often, a sign of things to come.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51402183]Because we're the only major country left that uses it? It's an adjective, not a pronoun.[/QUOTE] sneaky putting left in there. nice try

[QUOTE=gukki;51402255]sneaky putting left in there. nice try[/QUOTE] What? As far as I'm aware, the US is the only nation on the planet that uses this system anymore.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51402264]What? As far as I'm aware, the US is the only nation on the planet that uses this system anymore.[/QUOTE] USA is one of three - them, Liberia and Myanmar

[QUOTE=benzi2k7;51402232]it's a multitude of things,that affects all sorts of systems that in turn domino other ones. you've got hot air coming in from the atlantic side, greenland and the barents. you've got ice shelves & plains that have melted faster than usual that would usually cool the air down. you've got the insane temp of the ocean in general just makes everything warmer, and all the 'cooling systems' out of wack. what is happening right now is far out of the realm of any predictions or models that have been made, [B]the temp rising by 4C+ really seems like an understatement..[/B] also while the arctic sea ice melting isn't going to raise the sea level by a huge amount due to what it's made out of, it's a good indicator of the general health of the planet, and it's all really bad. it's genuinely really worrying. 2016 is a game changer... quite sad really 8( it will hopefully calm down in the next few days but there's nothing stopping it from happening again and more often, a sign of things to come.[/QUOTE] I was looking at one of the threads you linked, and saw one user mention potential increases of anywhere up to 20-30 [B]Celsius.[/B] [QUOTE] Just my logical thoughts: seeing the Arctic temp anomalies- I'd say this is even without the two most important feedbacks kicking in full swing (methane, albedo- loss)- [B][I]a global warming potential of + 20- 30 C is not even out of the equasion.[/I][/B] [/QUOTE] [B]EDIT:[/B] For what it's worth, I did see this comment after: [QUOTE] meddoc [B][user from the first quote][/B] .. would be true if we were starting with a frozen planet . Thankfully we are not . SIS .. for the last 4 weeks most of the heat has been very obviously pouring into the arctic drowning out any local imput (see my reply 293 ) . As this pattern is now changing so will Arctic temps . Autumn in the Arctic is nearly over .. it's been exciting .. much more so than watching ice melt in summer .. Thanks to all contributers lately .. I now realize I have to wait till after events like this for science to comment .. [/QUOTE]