[Orion27]

How deceptive is this Photo:



Headlined Here@: Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post

2000's Hottest Ever?

[nonhuman]

2000's hottest ever what?

[imitchellg5]

I don't get it.

[Eug]

I don't get it either. It just looks like a standard long exposure photo.

[reader50]

The photo appears to show nuclear cooling towers releasing smog (carbon emissions). Cooling towers release nothing of a chemical nature - the photo is either out of context, or showing condensation formation in the turbulance at the tower tops under specific atmospheric conditions.

[imitchellg5]

Nuclear cooling towers release steam... nothing bad about steam.

[Eug]

Oh, is that what he's getting at?

P.S. I wonder how long the exposure was, to give that steamy smoothness. 20 s? Interesting pic.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Headlined Here@: Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post

Online article linking FAIL !

You ARE aware that headlines change all the time ?

-t

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Nuclear cooling towers release steam... nothing bad about steam.

Actually, it's not steam, it just fog if I remember correctly. I grew up next to three plants, and the plume was ever-present, even though the tower was only there as an emergency backup. Our plants don't actually need the tower, the reactors are cooled by Lake Ontario, with the cold water intakes miles off shore in water deep enough to not rise above the critical temperature. That's why we have only one tower shared by three different plants.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

How deceptive is this Photo:



Headlined Here@: Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post

2000's Hottest Ever?

Sorry, In my haste to post, I though the link to the HuffPost would explain. Under this photo the lede referenced greenhouse carbon emissions and a global warming emergency. The headline also referenced that the last decade ( 2000's ) was the warmest ever. The photo, showing mostly condensate ( water vapor ) was intended to mislead the less informed of massive CO2 emissions coming from these cooling towers. The headline and photo have since been taken down. There must have been other complaints.

[mattyb]

Actually water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

BAN WATER VAPOUR NOW !!!!

[subego]

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Actually water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

BAN WATER VAPOUR NOW !!!!

Actually, you don't have to worry about it at all. When there is too much water vapor in the air, it rains. Temporary water vapor problem fixed.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Sorry, In my haste to post, I though the link to the HuffPost would explain. Under this photo the lede referenced greenhouse carbon emissions and a global warming emergency. The headline also referenced that the last decade ( 2000's ) was the warmest ever.

And it seems that it is: Met Office: 'Noughties' the warmest decade on record

These figures highlight that the world continues to see global temperature rise, most of which is due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and clearly shows that the argument that global warming has stopped is flawed.

Separately, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has today revealed that 2009 looks set to become another top-ten warm year according to latest figures, with a provisional warming of 0.44 °C above the long-term average of 14.0 °C.

2009 has been warmer than 2008, owing to the emergence of El Niño conditions in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and is expected to be the fifth-warmest year in the instrumental record that dates back to 1850.

[richwig83]

The stuff coming out of the actual chimney (far left) is the damaging polution!!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

And it seems that it is: Met Office: 'Noughties' the warmest decade on record

Oh! Warmest since 1850, not warmest ever. If I'm not mistaken, the middle ages were as warm or warmer than today, if you use extrapolated data. If you want to exclude the extrapolated data and hang your warming theory only the real temperature data only available from 1850 that's a pretty small piece of pie considering 1850 was only 150 years north of the little ice age.
The graph below is one graph alluded to in the Climategate controversy. Most of the data shown on the chart is extrapolated data, Ice cores ect. If you notice, all the graphs trend down until the end, when real temperature data is spliced in ( Black Graph ) to show a spike in temperature when the core samples failed to corroborate a spike in warming. Notice there is no mention two data sets are used to produce the graph. Researchers later further manipulated the data in this graph to smooth out middle age warming and the little ice age, to create the great Hockey Stick Graph. So much for warmest ever and so much for your little blip of a data set from whatever temperature stations one chooses to cherry pick.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Notice there is no mention two data sets are used to produce the graph.

Probably because there weren't two; there were 10.

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956
(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.
(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270
(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
(light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.
(yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
(orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
(red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046
(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

source: File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikimedia Commons

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Researchers later further manipulated the data in this graph to smooth out middle age warming and the little ice age...

And it was all for naught, because they then absent-mindedly labeled those two regions on the graph they published!

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Actually, you don't have to worry about it at all. When there is too much water vapor in the air, it rains. Temporary water vapor problem fixed.

You have me confused with someone who does worry about water vapour.