Jump to content
notme

Is global warming a myth?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Muslim96 said:

Wow you really cannot read. :hahaha:

l kould reed da 6th paragraph.

An da "rain on snow" ain't nuttin' gnu. We gnu dat when we went to Artic Warfare skool 40+ years a-go.

Bee-sides, da Dutch Mariner Vitus Bering sailed the Northeast Passage in 1728 BECAUSE the passage was lCE FREE enough to move wooden ships.  And Greenland was GREEN a millennium ago.

Besides, what do l kare about raindear?  How many cattle froze to dead a few years ago in the Dakotas?

 

Now, to be serious:  What "loss" did those reindeer herders take? Nearly in entirety those reindeer provide food and housing for the herders and a tiny bit of tourism. lf one herder has 150 animals and loses 100, he still has 50 to live on. BUT compare the 2013 estimated loss of 100,000 cattle in South Dakota which FROZE to Death --ain't no global warming here-- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131022-cattle-blizzard-south-dakota-winter-storm-atlas/  which is a two-week-after assessment. Then there is last year's http://www.thefencepost.com/news/farmers-and-ranchers-struggling-after-deadly-blizzard-kills-cattle-destroys-crops/ 

The current desired "market weight" for cattle is 1200 lbs (use to be 1100). Currently the price paid is running at $149  --which means for every 100 pounds live animal $149-- times 12 = $1788 per animal. The current cost to "finish" these animals is $90 per 100 lbs weight. 

Unlike those reindeer, cattle do not eat-for-free.

 

Edited by hasanhh
ref

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hasanhh said:

lt is still FROZEN. And it takes LOW temperatures to do that.

This sounds intuitively correct. But it doesn't mean that warming is not occurring. The article is saying that the thick layer of ice is present because of warming temperatures (because of increased melting and precipitation that has moved toward colder air). Resulting in thicker ice being present in areas where it historically had not been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point in time, there appears to be a large number of independent sources pointing toward warming temperatures.

At the same time, we have rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Which isn't a surprise considering we drive hundreds of millions of cars all around the planet, every day.

Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there really isn't a question of whether or not mankind has some responsibility in the rising temperatures. Rather, it is a question of how much of an affect do we have, versus other natural or unnatural causes.

Simultaneously we have hazardous emissions and toxic compounds released into groundwater and soil every day.

So really, the best we can do is "go green". Then its just a question of what kind of climate change is to come, and if we are ready for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, iCambrian said:

This sounds intuitively correct. But it doesn't mean that warming is not occurring. The article is saying that the thick layer of ice is present because of warming temperatures (because of increased melting and precipitation that has moved toward colder air). Resulting in thicker ice being present in areas where it historically had not been.

l don't know if it snows where you live, but after a snowfall and a few days you will notice a layer of ice on top of the snow where the Sun has melted it and then it freezes even during the sunny day. Thickest l have seen under these condition was probably ~1+ inches. But when it lightly rains on top of the snow l have seen it freeze as ice all the way to the ground, probably 6-8 inches.

A single weather pattern does not change climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^Coincidence, this l came across goes with the above. Watching an older dw.de program l'd taped, was a feature on studying aerosols and their effects on cloud formation.

What l question is how this is any different than volcanic ash?. Comparative: after the ash cloud of the Mt. St. Helens was analyzed, it was determined that the sulfur released was so-many-hundred times more than  from all historical industrial activity.

https://ral.ucar.edu/solutions/capability/aerosols-clouds-and-precipitation-studies is an overview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a quote about wind power.

http://nlpc.org/2014/11/26/google-engineers-conclude-renewables-cant-save-world-global-warming/ 

para 7:  "After all, as physicist Howard Hayden once said, 'How is it that wind, with a 4,000-year head start, is such a small player in the energy scene? Could it be -just possibly- that the answer has something to do with physics instead of economics and politics?' "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all the energy used on Earth comes from the sun. We just need to design more efficient and effective ways to use it. Inefficiency yields waste - that's why burning oil and coal are so filthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Coal was deposited from previous C-N-O fusions cycles in exploded stars when the Earth was formed, as was oil.

What? No. Yes, the elements heavier than iron were formed in supernova events, but only a small amount of the energy used on Earth (by humans) is derived from the radioactive elements. Coal and oil are biological residues, and almost all biological energy comes directly or indirectly from photosynthesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, notme said:

What? No. Yes, the elements heavier than iron were formed in supernova events, but only a small amount of the energy used on Earth (by humans) is derived from the radioactive elements. Coal and oil are biological residues, and almost all biological energy comes directly or indirectly from photosynthesis.

Geothermal is do to the radioactivity within the Earth. lt is also the basis for the magnetic field. Review solar fusion. Both H-H and C-N-O cycles exist.  Nuclear power is 20% of US energy production. See: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states 

"Bio residues" excluding peat and peat-like are pre-1970s guesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×