--thanks for the correction, by the way.

Yes, I think you're right -- when I do the calculation with your numbers, I get the same result.

I'm too lazy to go through my calculation and see what I did wrong, but probably somewhere in the conversion from units of BTU-hours and tons of ice to kilojoules and seconds.

Interesting calculation. I think the efficiency loss in trying to cool all the way down to ice is probably not worth the benefit of a lower amount of water used.

Water heat capacity is about 4.2 kJ/kg per degree, so if we cool the water, say, ten degrees (C), for 4 kW of cooling for 12 hours we'd need about 4 tons of water (*). Seems like a lot, but water is cheap, and the tank would be a cylinder .64 meters radius at the base by 2 meters high, bigger than a home water heater, but still not too huge to put in your basement.

Ice would be better; the lower temperature would make heat transfer faster. On the other hand, you could circulate the cooled water in the same loop as baseboard hot-water heating, so in some ways it's simpler.

--

*(unless I screwed up the calculation, which is easily possible.)

Ah, this again. Are you being paid by oil companies, who want to do anything possible to stop electrical vehicles?

No. The main pollution is not tire particulates, and electric cars are not particularly harder on tires than any American SUV. There turn out to be incentives to making cars larger and heavier. Eliminating these incentives would help, but (spoiler alert) it's not electric cars that are the problem.

No, it's partly right. Air conditioning loads tend to peak in the late afternoon, when solar power is still available (but not at its peak), but have another peak when people get home from work, which continues on into the evening and loads typically only drop below average around midnight, when solar is not abundant. Look up "duck curve"> .

This could, in principle, be easily solved-- air conditioners could easily store coolness. Water has a high heat capacity, and you could cool water during the solar peak, and use it to cool your living area in the afternoon. Water has low watt-hours per kilogram, but for residential or commercial use, that's not a big deal. But most of the US doesn't have time-dependent electricity rates, so there's no reason for consumers to want this.

Absolutely right, if by "renewables" you mean "solar". If we did have time dependent electrical rates, the cheap power is midnight to 6AM, not the solar peak at all.

But this may change as more and more solar gets emplaced.

The problem is that there aren't enough of the little appliance-size batteries to economically recycle, but there are enough that sometimes they cause fire.

How many batteries per week do you think people in Britain discard?

We already know that there is water in permanently shadowed craters near the lunar poles. This has been well-proven by multiple missions, including the LCROSS mission that actually impacted the pole.

What we don't know is what the physical state is. Sheets of ice? Ice-coated grains of regolith? Deeply hydrated minerals? Fluffy snow? Layers of dust alternating with rock-like layers of minerals cemented together with cryogenic ice?

You're not paying me to be your research assistant. So far I've given four links-- you have given none-- and for three of them you explained why you're not going to read them, and one you simply ignored. Since you show not even a casual interest in the links I already gave, I see no reason to spend any of my time giving you more links to ignore.

The one you ignored is this one:

As for

Yes, I've noticed that deniers don't like being called deniers.

I'll add that the greenhouse effect is the tool we use to understand the temperatures of ALL planets with atmospheres (and one moon), not just Earth.

(In fact, I can say that I have personally measured the infrared downwelling from the atmosphere on Mars (using the mini-Thermal Emission Spectrometer on the Mars Exploration Rovers).)

Yes, I've noticed that climate deniers are highly allergic to reading actual science, and in particular will do anything at all to avoid looking at IPCC reports, so I'm not surprised that you want me to read the reports and summarize them for you, so you can argue with me instead of actually learning anything.

In fact, as a hobby I've been keeping a graph of the predictions based on the Manabe and Wetherald model (1967, the first greenhouse effect model using detailed CO2 infrared spectra and incorporating convection and radiation), as well as the National Academies of Sciences 1979 report, and comparing them to measurements. So far they've been tracking remarkably well. I'd post the graphs, but slashdot doesn't have that capability. However, here's an article from Forbes that does the same comparison: https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...

For a more scholarly summary, here a paper from the American Geophysical Union: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....

And I'll even help! You can find the predictions in the IPCC assessment reports, all of which are easily available on the web. Here's the very first one, 1990:
The scientific basis: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1...
The impact assessment: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1...

It also coincides with an improved definition of Alzheimer's, and more effective detection and diagnosis.

Or perhaps the way they controlled for that was inadequate. If even ONE PERCENT of the deaths attributed to other causes was actually due to Alzheimers, that would swamp the observed effect. Can they say for sure that their method of controlling for other effects is better than 99% effective?

It's a good question.

Not enough information here. Alzheimer's disease starts slow, and progresses incrementally for years. My first hypothesis would be that taxi drivers in the early stages of Alzheimer's become unable to drive effectively, and hence leave the profession years before they are diagnosed with Alzheimer's; hence their death certificates don't list "taxi driver" as their occupation.

But the observation that taxi drivers die an average of ten years earlier than other occupations also makes the explanation that their protocol for removal of confounding effects may be inadequate. That's a huge effect to compensate out.