Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:31 am    Post subject: Coldest Thanksgiving in 150 years --- Reply with quote

Coldest Thanksgiving In 150 Years As Northeast Hit By "Siberian" Temperatures
by Tyler Durden

Most of the Northeastern United States feels like Siberia right now due to a blast of Arctic air that is pushing temperatures 15 to 25 degrees colder below trend. As a result, people spending time outdoors during Thanksgiving Day into Black Friday may face some of the coldest conditions on record in the northeastern United States for late November

The cold weather will be supplied by a burst of arctic air that produced locally blinding snow squalls across parts of the interior Northeast on Wednesday. The squalls diminished to spotty flurries south and east of the Appalachians.

"Anomalously cold weather will impact the I-95 corridor Thursday and Friday. Record low temperatures have already been broken Thursday morning across New England, and record low maximum temperatures are expected in many cities Thursday. This combined with winds gusting 15-30 mph will make it feel below zero at times through Friday morning," said Ed Vallee, head meteorologist at Vallee Weather Consulting. [....]
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-22/coldest-thanksgiving-100-years-northeast-braces-siberia-temperatures
==================================================

For those of you who actually believe that Earth is turning into a cinder -- they might want to give some thanks for this unexplained cold spell -- or, is it too a sign of global warming?
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The real effects of global warming are still a ways off. What we are experiencing now is just a tickle. The full impact will affect the earth in less than two or three centuries. You are confusing weather and climate.
There will come a tipping point where it becomes a self generating accelerating engine. When we reach that point, the full impact will still be in the future. The question is, if we reach that point of no return, how are people going to react?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Funny how different people see things differently. You see this as a bump on the way to disaster. I see this as an sign we have already achieved the temperatures of 1990, or whatever the benchmark year is ... so we can rest easy on the carbon tax.

Why isn't this a refutation of the CO2 thesis, which says that the total heat in the world is rising as CO2 rises? How can so much of the world be so cold for so long if the globe is in danger of over-heating? Where are the compensating hot regions?

That's the way I interpret this. All I know is that the first frost in my garden came two weeks before the 'frost warning' date. Yesterday was totally out of the normal range (climate) that the weather people provide and it's not the only day that's been like that. There was snow in Missouri three weeks ago. All the signs indicate that this is going to be a cold winter. Maybe a long one too.

According to Al Gore, the effects will be upon us almost immediately. There is no time to waste, as they tell it, the oceans are rising! You'll excuse me if I have a jaundiced view of whatever Al Gore says.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The impact of what we do now will take time to manifest its self. What we see now and in the short term are not the full impact. It is the changes over the next few centuries that will do the damage.
Carbon dioxide and methane content in the atmosphere regulate re-radiation of energy. This is a feature of these two gases proven many years ago. You can model it in any under graduate physics lab. It is measureable and predictable. We have known this was coming for fifty years, yet people and politicians would rather listen to a bunch of ignorant lawyers and salesmen that physicists. I will take Stephen Hawking's word over anyone elses. Do you know anyone smarter than Hawking?
If all the scientists are wrong but we transition off fossil fuels anyway, what have we lost? We build nuclear reactors around the world using western Canadian fuel and we bring long term prosperity. We also have oil and coal that will last a lot longer, to be used for petro-chemicals, lubrication and the making of steel. Best case scenario, the climate cools and the ski season is longer.
Have a good weekend.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Transition off of fossil fuels onto what? Wood? That's got more carbon in it that gasoline, per pound. The only choice that gets us where you want us to be is the nuclear option. You have to bear in mind the scale involved. A few hundred wind turbines aren't going to do it. Nor is solar energy -- any country as far north as Canada has too thin light to make it feasible in the quantities necessary.

And who's ready to make the proposal that we build more nuclear reactors close to where the power they generate is used?

But you are wrong about the chemistry. Methane is a true greenhouse gas, but CO2 only barely qualifies -- the problem is that there is nowhere near the necessary methane in the atmosphere to have the results you predict.

The greenhouse gas that actually causes the phenomenon -- as on Venus -- is water vapour. Clouds. It's because water us all over the place on earth, and it can coat the whole of earth in a thick layer of clouds. (That's what Venus is like.)

Anything you have to measure in parts per million doesn't have the mass to have the catastrophic effects they have you worried about. If CO2 could do everything you say it can do, they're still 'wouldn't be enough of it to heat up Poland, never mind trigger hurricanes and freeze our knackers off in banana-belt Ontario. It's water vapour you should worry about. You can see clouds. Are they ary thicker than they used to be when you were a nipper?

So you can relax and have a nice Christmas ...
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nuclear power is the best way to go. I agree, wind power consumes more energy than it produces and solar isn't much better. Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium. They are currently developing a new generation of small Candu reactors for rural areas.
The permafrost is a storehouse of methane and it is already starting to be released.
Again, what happens if you are right and almost all the scientists are wrong? We convert to nuclear power, eventually transitioning from uranium to Thorium and all that oil is conserved for future generations. What have we lost? We are going to run out of oil and coal eventually. If we can conserve them for twice as long, we buy future generations time to enjoy the little things like machines and technology. Without coal, you cannot make steel. Without steel, you cannot generate electricity. Without oil lubrication, you can't keep the turbines running. When we run out of oil and coal, we cannot support billions of people.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The people that paint these scenarios of destruction are biased. They never discuss the positives of a warmer world, for instance. For Canadians, an extra degree or two would be a welcome boon.

You pass over the quantities involved. If you rounded out a quick description of Earth's atmosphere, it would be 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. In other words, all the 'trace gasses' in total come to less than one per cent of the atmosphere. Methane is one of the less prevalent of the trace gasses.

This is the makeup of the atmosphere:
Nitrogen 78.08%
Oxygen 20.95%
Water vapour -- variable, up to 4%
Argon 0.93%
Carbon dioxide 0.036% (variable)
Helium 0.0005%
Methane 0.00018%
Hydrogen 0.00005%
Nitrous Oxide 0.00003% (variable)
http://www.physicalgeography.n.....ls/7a.html

In other words, methane is a little less than 2 parts in a million in the atmosphere. it has 20 times the greenhouse effect of CO2 -- which is barely a greenhouse gas -- but there is so little of it that it won't have the devastating effects you are looking forward to. Sorry. There's almost 20 times as much CO2, and the CO2 is doing a poor job of lowering my heating bill.

The doomsayers will endlessly project images of horror to scare our kids in kindergarten, but I ask you -- is the muskeg thawing? Once it thaws, it releases its methane ... and then freezes again, and then thaws again -- except the methane is gone. It would take a deep thaw to add to the methane. Is that kind of thawing taking place?

So you can relax and have a good Christmas without these fears that plague you.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How much methane is sequestered in the permafrost? How much methane is being added to the atmosphere every year by live stock?
James Burke had an excellent special called "After the Warming" produced in 1989. If you ever get the chance, you should watch it.
This weekend, the US government issued a statement on climate change. You sshould read it.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the title, it seems that the film assumes what has to be proven. That's circular reasoning from 30 years ago when it was still possible to believe this stuff. But since then they put their predictions in a film. Al Gore got a Nobel prize for it!

Every one of those dire predictions has failed. That's what impresses me.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The predictions haven't failed. It is just too soon to feel the real effects. I assume you heard the U.S. Government report released on Friday. The real impact is coming in two - three centuries.
For Canada, it is to our benifit to hold on to our oil while it is worth next to nothing. better to sell uranium and Candu reactors. Once the other major producers bigin to run out, our oil will be far more profitable. It would be prudent to hang on to it until demand is much greater. Why sell at $15 a barrel when in the future we can get what it is really worth. Once it is gone, it is gone. They aren't making it any more.
Sometimes I think you are afraid of making money.
As for enjoying Christmas, pray for snow in Rossland. :D
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't realize you were so religious. That's how religion works -- the rapture just hasn't happened yet. The problem is -- the climate claims have dates attached to them. In the original version, we would be totally out of oil by 2010, and there would be methane fires in the atmosphere. (You do remember "peak oil" don't you?)

Buy 2020, the lower half of Manhattan Island would be under water. That's what Al Gore (who, incidentally, became disaster marketing's first $bllionaire out of his efforts) said that the rising oceans would cause disasters all around the world by now!

Let me ask you this -- is there any evidence that would cause you to change your mind?
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will change my mind if there is proof that greenhouse gases do not inhibit re-radiation of energy. I'm not a very smart person. My education is in history, not physics. Therefore, if someone smarter than Stephen Hawking proves the earth is not going to warm up due to the measurable increase in ghg's in the atmosphere and their research is duplicated many times, of course I will change my mind.
On the other hand, as a historian, I look at what happened in Europe in the late 4th and early 5th century. The Roman Empire in Europe collapsed due to a sudden cooling of the climate. For the people of Europe, the collapse seemed to take place in a matter of months. One day, the streets of London are crawling with Roman soldiers and a year later, they were gone.
Climate is always changing slowly. We adapt. When it happens quickly, we can't. The mechanisms of the earth cannot adjust to rapid changes.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, there are such things as greenhouse gases, but CO2 only barely qualifies. So your faith system is secure. I only point out that methane -- a real greenhouse gas -- exists in the atmosphere at a rate less than two parts in a million. Say they held more heat ... but think on this -- each molecule of methane would have to retain enough heat to warm up the rest of the million molecules! And that it is changing real fast -- so fast that we have to act now, even if we waste a shit-load of money.

That's what you don't have in the picture -- the scale of what you expect these trace gases to do. And the scale of the money involved in 'doing something'.

Don't call yourself stupid. You are concerned about nature. You trust a presentation that is highly professional, and which comes out of scientific thinking. But behind that is an array of PR firms, and other bits of bureaucracy that organize opinion. It is in the education system. It is funded. Bit by bit, it has become an article of faith.

The media reports any weather news as if it is a confirmation of the global warming thesis. They change the name of the effort, from global warming, to climate change, when the temperature data was manipulated and then destroyed. Soon, the media tells the public that even snow in Belize is evidence of 'climate change' ... the conferences proclaimed the science is settled, and refuse scientific papers that are critical -- of which there are many. Scientists are asked -- do they believe in climate change or not? But the climate is always changing a bit ... and it is generally conceded that industry and cars put carbon atoms into the atmosphere ... but we are in the normal cycle of temperatures, so far as we know. So they scientists answer in the affirmative, and this is presented to the public as an endorsement of the disaster scenario.

Think about this -- we have been involved with Kyoto since 1985 -- thirty years ago -- and Canadian politicians have no plan to do anything except tax us. There's a big gap between the new revenue and shovels-in-the-ground making measurable improvements. Which is my point. Not only that, it is my impression that there is less energy going into cleaning up rivers and standard urban air pollution. I am not a troglodyte.

The campaigns scare people with overdrawn claims, they tax people, but they can't point their finger to a single success. What are their plans? Paint another line down the road, and call it a bike path? More wind-turbines?
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 343
Reputation: 110
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you don't believe Hawking's warning?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6187
Reputation: 294.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what Hawking can be basing his opinion on. What I read merely said that he was something of a zealot on the subject, but it didn't sketch out his reasons. Just the same-old, same-old.

There comes a point where we make up our mind of something. Both you and I are at that point but on different sides of the issue. When a guy like Hawking says something like that, I feel I have pay attention to his warning -- but I have already been down that road with Al Gore and his movie, so I know the arguments. From what I could see, Hawking was taking the IPCC report at its word.

I was 'on side' eith the evironmentalists when Chretien signed on to Kyoto, but then, they did nothing ... and Martin, too. It was clear they were merely going to write a cheque to some third world dictator to buy their unused share of the pollution that they were allocated. (That's how Kyoto worked.) Fifteen years went by. I started to look deeper, because it made no sense if the earth was really in danger.

I began to smell a rat. None of the world leaders was acting as if there was a serious threat. They continued to jet around, and so on. Al Gore, it was famously reported, had a personal electricity bill that would rival a supermarket. I did some research. The idea of the carbon tax came out of another tax idea that came from the UN. They wanted to put a small tax on currency transactions! The bankers baulked at that, so the idea was switched to oil exports. It was all aimed at getting an independent income for the UN.

It was only when that idea was rebuffed that it was tied to the environment and pollution. A proposal came together -- the UN could get its income through the allocation of pollution quotas, and the creation of a new market in those pollution quotas. That was the Kyoto plan -- that market would be administered by the UN and produce a revenue stream for them.

That idea is still in the air, but it's stalled essentially because China and India -- the fastest growing polluters -- won't sign on. So now it's an idea that governments can horn in on -- there's a taxation windfall in it for them.

But what will they do with the money? That's what they never tell us because they don't know how to spend it. It will end up with small-town Canada will subsidize a mass transit system for every metropolis in Canada. And stuff like that.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Coldest Thanksgiving in 150 years ---

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB