Upside To Polar Vortex

Status
Not open for further replies.

LeftyTom

Tom
Corporate Member
I heard on NPR, from a learned fellow in Minnesota, that the frigid weather may help kill off the emerald ash borer.

The cold snap may also help with a tick problem in Maine.
 

Dave Richards

Dave
Senior User
I've heard the same thing but then we had a similar cold spell a couple of winters ago and they said it would kill the emerald ash borers. They are still around. Might slow them down a little.
 

Rwe2156

DrBob
Senior User
I also heard one "climate scientist" claim this polar vortex is caused by global warming?????

Seriously back in November I read an article by a NASA scientist that 2018 was the lowest sunspot activity in recorded history & he predicted the coldest winter in generations.
 

Rick M

New User
Rick
Call me a climate denier if you want, but the key to this is "on record". A 100 year window (even a 1000 year window ) is a miniscule snapshot into the history of the Earth and is no indicator of "climate change". Just my $.02.

The US Navy discovered and accepted 'global warming' as fact as far back as the 50's. Even then they had observed and documented it's effects on sea level, ice, sea life, fishing, and migrations. There were articles in Popular Science about it. The US accepted global warming before it accepted that lead water pipes are a stupid idea (sadly, over 100 years after Europe on the latter). All this denier stuff is more recent.
 

Pop Golden

New User
Pop
My problem with global warming is twofold. 1: That it has been caused by man. If you put the volcano app. on your phone or tablet you will see that there are an very large amount of volcanoes blowing hydrogen sulfide high in the sky at any one time. This is a real problem that has been going on for a long time. It's going to fit in this equation somewhere. 2: Every year near the arctic sea there is a occurrence of an algae collecting in a amount that exceeds the worlds rain forest in the amount of CO2 they absorb from earth's atmosphere. Along with this the super large forest that exist across Europe, Siberia, and North America has the ability to eat all the CO2 that can find. Both of these have got to be an offsetting factor.

Pop
:dontknow:
 

Rick M

New User
Rick
For many decades, thousands of scientists worldwide have dedicated their lives to studying climate. Trust me, they thought of volcanoes, sun spots, algae, and whatever else seems obvious to Joe Public. And the only reason those things concern Joe Public is because Joe Executive has been flooding the media and politicians with fake data, just as they did with cigarettes and lead pipes.
 

chris_goris

Chris
Senior User
For many decades, thousands of scientists worldwide have dedicated their lives to studying climate. Trust me, they thought of volcanoes, sun spots, algae, and whatever else seems obvious to Joe Public. And the only reason those things concern Joe Public is because Joe Executive has been flooding the media and politicians with fake data, just as they did with cigarettes and lead pipes.



Sorry, not swayed by Joe executive's thoughts. I have my own thoughts as should everyone, but sadly most dont. This has been going on far longer than our current administration has been in office. I simply look a the incredible changes this planet has undergone in its 4.5 Billion years or so and we look at a 100 year temperature profile and get alarmed???. That works out to be .0000000222 percent of the earths age. Hardly a controlled study.
 
Last edited:

Willemjm

Willem
Corporate Member
f5b96b48-9f6e-4004-ac8e-aee245b3fbb7


All one has to do is fly at 30,000 ft and look out the aircraft window to see how bad it has become. September was always the nicest month in NC, not last year!

Go to CO2.Earth and look at the 10,000 year curve by scrolling down.

It beats me how anyone is not alarmed by the facts.
 
Last edited:

chris_goris

Chris
Senior User
f5b96b48-9f6e-4004-ac8e-aee245b3fbb7


All one has to do is fly at 30,000 ft and look out the aircraft window to see how bad it has become. September was always the nicest month in NC, not last year!

Go to CO2.Earth and look at the 10,000 year curve by scrolling down.

It beats me how anyone is not alarmed by the facts.

I wasnt aware we monitored the Earths CO2 levels 10,000 years ago..... Interesting. That 10,000 year "curve" (speculation) does bring that percentage of the Earths age WAY up to .00000222 %. That number is so insignificantly small as a sample its impossible to quantify. The part of this equation that really puzzles me is if say tomorrow, all the scientists got all the funding they wanted, because lets face it, this IS about money. What would the checks be written for? .What are the deliverables?. More study?.. If its a scientific fact, that shouldnt be necessary.... Is the entire world ready to give up life as we know it today?. No more fossil fueled vehicles?. The entire human race would perish if that happened. So, Im asking what is it global warmers want EXACTLY?.
 

gritz

New User
Robert
The part of this equation that really puzzles me is if say tomorrow, all the scientists got all the funding they wanted, because lets face it, this IS about money. What would the checks be written for? .What are the deliverables?. More study?.. If its a scientific fact, that shouldnt be necessary.... Is the entire world ready to give up life as we know it today?. No more fossil fueled vehicles?. The entire human race would perish if that happened. So, Im asking what is it global warmers want EXACTLY?.[/QUOTE]

Simple...they want a "scientific study" to show how the ice ages ended because of overpopulation and man-made CO2 production.
 

tarheelz

Dave
Corporate Member
Weird that we rely upon those who have devoted their lives to woodworking for their advice and guidance.
We then turn around and reject those who have devoted their lives to climate science - instead winging it on our own.
 

chris_goris

Chris
Senior User
Weird that we rely upon those who have devoted their lives to woodworking for their advice and guidance.
We then turn around and reject those who have devoted their lives to climate science - instead winging it on our own.

Dave, Im not trying to give any guidance here, just trying to understand the science. Because im pretty sure if I did a study and my study conclusively said that something was indeed happening based on .0000000222% of the total sample, Im quite certain no one would or should believe it. I believe in numbers, statistics and tangible things. Scientists are claiming we are warmer (by 1.63 degrees or some random number) now than we were 100, 500, 1000 years ago?. They have only recently been able to predict temperatures with any reasonable accuracy (+/- 3 degrees seems to be the norm) of what the temperature will be tomorrow.
 

tarheelz

Dave
Corporate Member
Dave, Im not trying to give any guidance here, just trying to understand the science. Because im pretty sure if I did a study and my study conclusively said that something was indeed happening based on .0000000222% of the total sample, Im quite certain no one would or should believe it. I believe in numbers, statistics and tangible things. Scientists are claiming we are warmer (by 1.63 degrees or some random number) now than we were 100, 500, 1000 years ago?. They have only recently been able to predict temperatures with any reasonable accuracy (+/- 3 degrees seems to be the norm) of what the temperature will be tomorrow.

This is a helpful website as it brings together a number of the answers to questions skeptics regularly ask. It also provides references to other resources in the event you are really interested in studying this area of science. (I'm not. Instead, I merely appreciate that others have chosen to dedicate their careers to this stuff. It ain't my bag.)

https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
https://grist.org/climate-energy/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough/
 

Willemjm

Willem
Corporate Member
I wasnt aware we monitored the Earths CO2 levels 10,000 years ago..... Interesting. That 10,000 year "curve" (speculation) does bring that percentage of the Earths age WAY up to .00000222 %. That number is so insignificantly small as a sample its impossible to quantify. The part of this equation that really puzzles me is if say tomorrow, all the scientists got all the funding they wanted, because lets face it, this IS about money. What would the checks be written for? .What are the deliverables?. More study?.. If its a scientific fact, that shouldnt be necessary.... Is the entire world ready to give up life as we know it today?. No more fossil fueled vehicles?. The entire human race would perish if that happened. So, Im asking what is it global warmers want EXACTLY?.

The curve is not speculation, they can measure CO2 levels accurately way beyond 10,000 years ago. No rocket science needed to do that. Look at an ice cube in your refrigerator and you will see tiny bubbles. The bubbles are air, can be released and measured for CO2 content. First to second year college math. Then there are glaciers, we can drill down and extract, do the same thing. Then there are carbon isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-14.

Ever wonder why snow is so light? Because it is filled with air. When it is compressed and turns into ice some of that air is trapped in the ice and will be available millions of years later when released.

If I recall the mass spectrometer was invented in 1927, and no one questions its accuracy.

Antarctic ice core records at dome C with atmospheric CO2 levels extend 800,000 years back.

I do not understand the relevance of your percentage calculation in this instance for relevance. There are various other studies about Mother Earth, vegetation, oxygen and CO2 levels well beyond 10,000 years. Going back 10,000 years for this study gives a massive sample compared to the man made Industrial Age.
 
Last edited:

chris_goris

Chris
Senior User
I do not understand the relevance of your percentage calculation in this instance for relevance.
The relevance is this: Since the amount of time we are using as our baseline to determine a temperature change is SO short (relative to how long the Earth has existed) that the scientists are measuring would not even be a tiny blip on the total timeline , how do we know this has not occurred regularly naturally, say every 10 million years?. It could have happened hundreds, thousands of times perhaps and I doubt it could be detected by looking at frozen oxygen bubble levels in ice that could be MUCH younger than the last time it naturally occurred.

Do you think anyone would be alarmed if I said that based on my sampling of .0000000222 of the world population everyone WILL get cancer or some other horrific disease?.

But, you can believe what you want, this my rationale for not believing. So, if you DO believe so vehemently, what are YOU doing about it, personally?. All I hear constantly is "the sky is falling", and then I hear, we need to send money!!!!!!!.... to WHO? for what?? If its SO important, what is our government to do about it??????.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Premier Sponsor

Our Sponsors

LATEST FOR SALE LISTINGS

Top