Unheard of Record Breaking shocking lows across America.

Threats from nature can be more devastating than threats from Mankind. Here is where you can talk about them.
User avatar
KimPossible
Regular contributor
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:52 pm

Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:12 pm

Obreid wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:53 pm
I am an environmentalist in that we owe it to ourselves and planet to care for it properly. Where I get off with GW is bogus unattenable limits and controls that mean nothing in the first decade of 2000 Europe closed down countless coal plants but in the end because of demand exceeded their greenhouse output because they had to run existing inefficient plants overtime to make up demand. That and the fact the 2nd and 3rd world countries are exempt from controls. When china and India submit to greenhouse gas output limits we can talk then. At one time US was only country meeting output limits while everyone else trudged on.
The sea levels are going to flood the coast of world, oh wait no it's freezing temps. Artic was going to melt away, oh wait. Why is the ice PAC on Greenland and Antarctic thicker now, why, more snow build up. What does that cause more calving of ice sheet.
The climate 300 years ago was warmer than the projected temp changes before the projections changes and the climate was colder 200 years ago it was colder than today. Those bright red hot regions on climate maps of Africa that elevated the world temps, yeh those are estimates there is no scientific recording of those temps (fine print) of reports. I am passionate about this because it's a scam. If the problem was so bad why did gore by a sea side home in Cali, if gases so bad why don't those that work so hard to sell it have their confabs via computer uplink rather than jets to Davos, and bell helicopters from airport to hotel.
Maurice Strong who worked so hard to get global warming on UN agenda all those years ago retired to china who's pollution is so bad it's citizens need face mask to leave the house. Worse than Pittsburgh in the 50's
Do we always have to concider environmental impact, YES. Do we effect enough to turn the earth into a boiling cauldron no. It's always changing, one major volcanic eruption will change the climate for a decade.
One more thought stand in front of a radiant heater turn it down or up one mark and notice the effect it has on your skin. In virtually all climate models the solar activity is not considered, what makes that s valid model if the primary source of heat energy to our planet is excluded as a variable? I'm done will never say another word on climate.

KimPossible wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:36 pm
RiffRaff wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:45 pm
I agree with you that humans are probably speeding up, or at least affecting the process. What we might disagree on is how much of the process is man-made and how much of it is natural planetary cycle.
Indeed, very well said.
Thank you for your views & knowledge very good incite. But Climate Change isn't just about temperature, involves water and air streams, weather patterns, wild life, and so much more that I could probably wright about for two days straight on caffeine caps.

Note I only use "Global Warning" instead of climate change because I'm very un politically correct so I have been told many times.
There is a war on woman! #VoteThemOut

User avatar
TheChrome
Regular contributor
Posts: 907
Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 4:56 am

Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:49 am

RiffRaff wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:45 pm
KimPossible wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:36 pm
I firmly believe of the facts at hand and the things I have extensively read that humans are indeed speeding up "climate change".
Side note sorry, was called global warming first so that is what I call it. Just like I still call things "retarded" or still say "that is gay" here and there even though its not "PC" so in the future I am not a politically correct person because I don't care about peoples "feelings". :)
Yeah, I really don't care what you call it either, just wanted to note that "global warming" is a highly inaccurate misnomer, whereas "climate change" is much more accurately descriptive of what's actually occurring. That's all.

I agree with you that humans are probably speeding up, or at least affecting the process. What we might disagree on is how much of the process is man-made and how much of it is natural planetary cycle.
Climate change is certainly the more accurate term. My retort to the whole generic climate change debate is that we as a human society can't even inspire, educate, or motivate the average person to not throw their plastic cup on the ground. It is shocking how lazy people are, and how little respect they have for themselves or the environment. Even those people protesting the pipelines in the name of environmentalism, left huge amounts of litter in their wake...a sign that they don't really give a crud about the environment like they say. It's all smoke in mirrors.

rothauserch
New member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:17 pm

Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:14 pm

The sun is entering its Grand Solar Minimum - the sun is the main driver of climate change with 206 year cycle confirmed by over 200 researchers. The Grand Solar Minimum could last up to 20 years beginning in 2020 - altering the earth surface temperature to smooth out the mini-ice age 206 years ago was foolish. 206 years prior to the mini ice age was the worst winter on record that helped defeat Napolean's army, the record is also in ice cores drilled at the poles and tree rings as well.

lcurle
Regular contributor
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:15 pm

Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:03 pm

Lets take a look back into 1973 when the world as a whole used 4661 Mtoe (million Tonnes oil equivalent) If we can match the increase in energy with the recorded temperatures we can see had in hand if there is a correlation.
Looking back further into the population of the world in 1973 the UN census estimates that we had approximately 3.9B people. With this information we can conclude that in 1973 we used on average 1.59 Kilowatts per hour per person.
Take the same formula and we can check the usage in 2015. 2015 we used 9383 Mtoe with a population of 7.2B which averages out to 1.73 Kilowatts per hour, per person, an increase of .14Kw/h.
The average global temperature in 1970s were 57.20F(14C), in 2015 they were 60.4F(15.8C), an increase of 3.2F(1.8C).

What does all this mean? The information is all relative and can be used to make individual assessments on the impact of humanity on the earth from an energy standpoint. Can we justify the increase based on population alone or can we assume that people have more electronics available to them and are now using more electricity to charge/power them? Alternatively, as electric devices become more energy efficient and the population stays the same should we see a drop in the average usage in the world? Something to think about.
Lee

Obreid
Regular contributor
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:51 am

Sun Feb 11, 2018 3:23 am

Look into how much energy is being used to mine bitcoin in cyberspace, fortune mag article reported that some estimate for 2018 are close to 135 terawatt hours, or more than the nation of Argentina or all the electric cars in the world. The digital world is a power hungry thing.

lcurle wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:03 pm
Lets take a look back into 1973 when the world as a whole used 4661 Mtoe (million Tonnes oil equivalent) If we can match the increase in energy with the recorded temperatures we can see had in hand if there is a correlation.
Looking back further into the population of the world in 1973 the UN census estimates that we had approximately 3.9B people. With this information we can conclude that in 1973 we used on average 1.59 Kilowatts per hour per person.
Take the same formula and we can check the usage in 2015. 2015 we used 9383 Mtoe with a population of 7.2B which averages out to 1.73 Kilowatts per hour, per person, an increase of .14Kw/h.
The average global temperature in 1970s were 57.20F(14C), in 2015 they were 60.4F(15.8C), an increase of 3.2F(1.8C).

What does all this mean? The information is all relative and can be used to make individual assessments on the impact of humanity on the earth from an energy standpoint. Can we justify the increase based on population alone or can we assume that people have more electronics available to them and are now using more electricity to charge/power them? Alternatively, as electric devices become more energy efficient and the population stays the same should we see a drop in the average usage in the world? Something to think about.

Post Reply