It's all over but for the sweating?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Wikipedia needs fixing then.

So you're claiming Wikipedia as the ultimate authority? Seriously?

Seriously, the fact that Wikipedia repeats the 2nd full moon nonsense just shows how far the rot has spread. The people writing the article need to get out in the fresh air more. I suppose it's analogous to a linguistic back-formation: they take the expression "once in a blue moon", which is derived from a natural but rare phenomenon, and because they've never seen this rare thing themselves, assume that it can't be so and try to fill the gap with a very shaky hypothesis.

Indeed, to the best of my recollection the 2nd full moon theory only surfaced in the last decade or two. Even the Wikipedia article you reference says it's modern crap:

Widespread adoption of the definition of a "blue moon" as the second full moon in a month followed its use on the popular radio program StarDate on January 31, 1980.

[freebeard]

One of the more interesting concepts I've run across recently is the health benefit to being more electrically grounded to the earth.

[Arragonis]

If Monkton disappeared quite a few skeptics would be happier, me included.

Anyway in more interesting news, someone is developing a method of burning natural gas without CO2 emissions.

They're looking to do that by making methane (CH4), the main compound in natural gas, into straight hydrogen and carbon. The hydrogen can then be burned as a fuel - in a fuel cell, a combustion engine, a boiler, anything you like - and the resulting exhaust will be harmless water rather than possibly planet-busting CO2.

It's not all peachy clean of course

Even if successful, the Flüssigmetallblasensäulenreaktor would no doubt face some objections. Hydrogen, though dense with energy compared to other green-energy storage media such as batteries, is nonetheless inconvenient and dangerous (hence, expensive) compared to fossil fuel. Methane itself is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and even relatively small leakages of it during natural gas production, refining etc might be seen as a problem. It isn't yet clear how much energy will be used up in the process of turning methane into hydrogen, but this will plainly be non-trivial as metal has to be kept molten for it to happen.

But there is at least some prospect here of powering the human race with very low carbon emissions - not just the few per cent of its needs met by electricity, but just about everything - using potentially abundant natural gas rather than cripplingly expensive, sharply limited renewables or politically contentious nuclear means.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hydrogen is anything BUT dense energy storage.

What points does Christopher Monckton make that you disagree with, and why? What points does Christopher Monckton make that you agree with, if any, and why?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Anyway in more interesting news, someone is developing a method of burning natural gas without CO2 emissions.

And of course someone is sure to say "What are we going to do with these piles of leftover carbon? I know, let's burn them!"

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What points does Christopher Monckton make that you disagree with, and why? What points does Christopher Monckton make that you agree with, if any, and why?

I can't answer those questions in detail as I haven't followed Monkton at all except for some occasional YouTube videos of his appearances on US and Australian TV. What I have watched suggests he makes this a political ideology issue - just like Delingpole, Climate Depot, Chris Mooney, Desmogblog and Climate Progress.

The position (from both sides) seems to be - believe in CAGW and you are a commie, one world government UN sell out. Decide to be a skeptic and you are a flat earther, tea party advocate and believe in creationism.

These kind of broad sweeps are nonsense. Actually to quote Brian Cox they are

Utter Bollocks

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

And of course someone is sure to say "What are we going to do with these piles of leftover carbon? I know, let's burn them!"

You've just invented a perpetual motion energy source

[NeilBlanchard]

This is neat - they have found some maps of the Arctic ice in Norway that go waaaay back to 1893:

Index of /pub/trausti/Iskort/Pdf

And they include 1930's - 1938 was a lot of melting (relative to the previous decades) but it does not even come close to 2012:

Pesky Reality Intrudes in Denierville (again). Danish Ice Maps from the 30s. | Climate Denial Crock of the Week




In fact, the 1938 melt doesn't even match the median from 1979-2000!

[Arragonis]

Cough.



Note the captions - reconstructed vs observed.

Jeebus sliced.

[NeilBlanchard]

What is your concern? Remember the lighter pink area is the range of uncertainty; to put it imprecisely.