PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
69 f
Snow storms
- Thread starter Jerry Lundegaard
- Start date
69 f
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
This might open some eyes to people. Watch out global warmers, here's some facts! Run!!!
https://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/
Arctic ice is increasing not deceasing. Why would there be any periods of decreasing if the globe is continuously getting warmer?
Also, global heating on Mars! But wait, how many cars and factories are there?
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/
The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots.
But I thought ice only melted on earth because of big evil oil and factories and people driving *gasp* cars with balls?
It's okay, I'm sure the Toyota Pirus is going to save us all. Or that crappy electic car that Chevy put out. Pop quiz, if a car runs on electricity, how is the electricity produced?
But but but, I thought we were trying to lower greenhouse gases?
So if everyone transfers to electric cars, the greenhouse gases produced by fuel combustion engines will just be replaced by the greenhouse gases emitted from power plants.
Of course, other alternatives are out there, such as Nuclear power. But even then, the greenies won't budge.
Essentially, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want energy, but refuse to offer any realistic alternatives and shoot down all the others.
Wind, highly unpredictable, takes up large amounts of space, kills animals, and cannot store energy.
Solar, extremely expensive, unpredictable, solar panels are produced from oil, take up large amounts of land, can cause damage to wildlife, and cannot store energy.
Hydroelectric. Predictable. But the greenies hate destroying wildlife and creating dams.
sigh... What can we do when everything humans do kills or destroys something?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/
Arctic ice is increasing not deceasing. Why would there be any periods of decreasing if the globe is continuously getting warmer?
Also, global heating on Mars! But wait, how many cars and factories are there?
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/
The south polar ice cap of Mars is receding, revealing frosty mountains, rifts and curious dark spots.
But I thought ice only melted on earth because of big evil oil and factories and people driving *gasp* cars with balls?
It's okay, I'm sure the Toyota Pirus is going to save us all. Or that crappy electic car that Chevy put out. Pop quiz, if a car runs on electricity, how is the electricity produced?
But but but, I thought we were trying to lower greenhouse gases?
So if everyone transfers to electric cars, the greenhouse gases produced by fuel combustion engines will just be replaced by the greenhouse gases emitted from power plants.
Of course, other alternatives are out there, such as Nuclear power. But even then, the greenies won't budge.
Essentially, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want energy, but refuse to offer any realistic alternatives and shoot down all the others.
Wind, highly unpredictable, takes up large amounts of space, kills animals, and cannot store energy.
Solar, extremely expensive, unpredictable, solar panels are produced from oil, take up large amounts of land, can cause damage to wildlife, and cannot store energy.
Hydroelectric. Predictable. But the greenies hate destroying wildlife and creating dams.
sigh... What can we do when everything humans do kills or destroys something?
tl;dr
But don't you think it sucks *** to breathe pollution from too many cars, and that should be reason enough to identify ways to avoid making more pollution? I know it's in the Bible somewhere, about "O ye, for the earth shall fruitfully forbear upon, and whence lands become forth unto, and the Lord did say "**** it, you guys, let's do NASCAR.""
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I drive a Prius. Mostly because of 2 factors. 1) I get 48 MPG or thereabouts over the life of the car and I got it pretty cheap brand new and 2) I am 6'2" and 300 lbs. I just look awesome in that little car. Makes me think of this whenever I get in it:
Back to thread....
I am very glad I am in Reno. Nice weather for the most part (50's) and no snow and sunshine. But the east must be a mess. My company announced more than 15 branch closures due to weather. Yikes!
Back to thread....
I am very glad I am in Reno. Nice weather for the most part (50's) and no snow and sunshine. But the east must be a mess. My company announced more than 15 branch closures due to weather. Yikes!
unluckyseventeen
Well-Known Member
Aren't those the cars that have some ridiculous price tag on their replacement batteries? Isn't that gonna suck *** when that day comes?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
No because I got an 8-year unlimited mileage warranty on the hybrid system (batteries included...lol) and the resale value is stupidly high. I will be out of it and into probably another new one before it becomes an issue.
Frankly I love my Prius. Fun to drive. Much bigger inside than you would think. Crammed 3 kids, wife and myself and luggage in there for a 5 day trip to Disneyland. Bells and whistles? Hell it is a rolling gadget. Great mileage. Hardly any maintenance issues in almost 100k miles. There was an issue with the HID headlamps but Toyota took care of it. I would highly recommend and I couldn't care less if it is green or not. Saves me money and is a nice little ride.
Oh yeah to keep with the thread, it does fantastic in the snow. Front wheel drive obviously with traction control. It just putts right up the snow-covered hills others are slipping on and stops nicely in slick conditions.
Plus you can do this:
https://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/01/man-powers-home.html
Do THAT with an SUV.
Inn Dawn
Well-Known Member
This ain't the late 90s, brough. Electric cars are the way to go, for many these days.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I just want to state something that's pretty clear. It's cold outside. Seriously though, it is.
unluckyseventeen
Well-Known Member
Well there's always a downside. You'd figure that if they are so new and use such a specialized battery that finding a replacement is going to be really hard and thus expensive. I'm not sure if it was as bad as I was lead to believe. Haven't really done any official research, just gathering information through random conversations I have with people.
larryselbows
Banned
Man-caused global warming is a real phenomenon, sorry to burst bubbles, but it's just physics. Here's a website to help us understand why this occurs: https://www.pa.msu.edu/sciencet/ask_st/083194.html I urge anyone that has argued against human caused global warming to read this.
Second, someone said that man couldn't possibly have an effect on the earth's climate, but this is untrue. Before the industrial revolution (~1800 AD) global atmospheric CO2 was about 280 parts per million, now it is around 390. We have added about 110 parts per million of CO2 gas to the atmosphere-- that's a 40% increase.
Finally, this cold spell that has passed through is a natural phenomenon called the Pacific North American Oscillation, or the PNA for short. This is a climate teleconnection pattern that occurs on decadal, interannual, and intra-annual time scales and is closely related to el nino events, it has nothing to do with man-caused global warming.
This year, we happen to be in a positive phase.
Second, someone said that man couldn't possibly have an effect on the earth's climate, but this is untrue. Before the industrial revolution (~1800 AD) global atmospheric CO2 was about 280 parts per million, now it is around 390. We have added about 110 parts per million of CO2 gas to the atmosphere-- that's a 40% increase.
Finally, this cold spell that has passed through is a natural phenomenon called the Pacific North American Oscillation, or the PNA for short. This is a climate teleconnection pattern that occurs on decadal, interannual, and intra-annual time scales and is closely related to el nino events, it has nothing to do with man-caused global warming.
This year, we happen to be in a positive phase.
larryselbows
Banned
Really high, like 2,000 ppm.
So CO2 levels vary a lot, with or without human involvement, right? So how does the fact that it is up right now prove anything? Doesn't ocean temp have more to do with atmospheric CO2 levels than anything else (warm water holds less CO2 than cold water)?
I hate to even get into this because I'm no expert (or even all that well informed), but just because the experts all tell me to believe them doesn't mean I will do it automatically, which I know really gets under the skin of intellectuals who want to be able to tell the stupid masses what to think and how to act.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
So I imagine there was no life there at all. That is what they say will happen to us, the end of the world and all.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Gee, so what drove up the levels so much? T-rex driving too many SUVs?
This is what makes this global warming hoax... I mean, business... I mean science (since obviously only evil oil companies are in the profit business. Green special interest groups have nothing to gain other than a warm fuzzy feeling in their hearts).
This is what complicates things.
The human race has been around for a tiny tiny TINY fraction of this planet's history. For just a tiny fraction of our own history, have we kept record of the climate. And for an even smaller fraction have we kept accurate and comprehensive records. In fact, I imagine in the next 50 years we'll look back at this period and just laugh at how prehistoric and inaccurate our models were. Hell, the weatherman STILL can't predict the weather a few days into the future let alone declaring this doomsday apocalypse unless we all switch over to hydroelectric energy right now.
We have no clue how hot or cold it has been before. We have no idea what will happen if it does heat or cool. We have no idea how much we're effecting the climate. It's just a strong special interest group that is trying to make us scared so we pony up more money for them. Greenies and oil companies are BUSINESSES.
And until the greenies develop useful and cost effective solutions, we'll continue to DRILL BABY DRILL and pollute. It's our livelihood. I have no doubt that in the future we'll change over to different sources of energy. But it will come naturally. We didn't need the government or Al Gore to tell people to stop using horses and carriages in favor of trains and automobiles. Likewise, we'll use other technologies once they prove more useful and cost effective. It will come naturally, not out of a state of panic.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I don't question that the earth is warming somewhat. But the doomsday predictions are what get me. In the cretaceous average temperatures were somewhere around 4-7 deg celsius warmer than now (remember the doomsayers are predicting global catastrophe with a 2 degree change), and life was incredibly abundant. Plants and animals all reached enormous sizes. There were a much larger variety of plants and animals than we know of today. Ocean temperatures, another doomsday predictor, were anywhere from 17 to as much as 30 deg cels warmer than today, yet there were several times the species evident in the oceans that there are today. I just think that the one part of this that cannot be supported are the doomsday predictions.
You also have to wonder, at the current levels, say 400 ppm, that is 0.04%. So far less than one percent of earths atmosphere is CO2. In the cretaceous it was 0.2%, yet the temperature differential was 4 degrees. There was no polar ice cap for much of that epoch. Yet the argument is that if we melt the polar icecap practically all dry earth will then be covered in water. Why wasn't it all covered during the cretaceous?
I question the true anthropomorphic influence and the predicted outcomes.
Not saying it isn't happening, just not on board with the why's and results. Also the fact that millions of dollars and entire economies are potentially at stake with sanction and restrictions (ala the Kyoto Protocol, which would substantially over-penalize developed countries who participate but not affect many of the larger CO2 producers who did not participate, namely China and India), not to mention huge government grants associated with the study of anthropomorphic global warming (tacking on the "anthropomorphic" label nearly quadrupled grant money from what was previously spent on climate study and global warming) makes this a bigger issue with innumerable stakeholders and potential "winners" and "losers".
And the crux of it is, all the outcomes are speculation. Yet they want us to commit huge resources to combating a disputed issue with questionable outcomes. And even at that unless we literally strangle off all carbon emissions we will do little to affect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now. What would it do to the world economies if we shut off all fossil-fuel usage right now? And 3rd world countries would be the hardest hit as they do not have the resources to find some alternative, as we might be able to if forced that route.
By all means we need to take care of the environment. We need to find alternate forms of energy that are sustainable and practical, and soon. But I am not buying into the panic-inducing arguments coming from researchers whose livelihood depends on the next grant for their research, which will only come in those large amounts fueled by that panic.
And don't get me started on "carbon footprint". There is the biggest red herring of all time.
You also have to wonder, at the current levels, say 400 ppm, that is 0.04%. So far less than one percent of earths atmosphere is CO2. In the cretaceous it was 0.2%, yet the temperature differential was 4 degrees. There was no polar ice cap for much of that epoch. Yet the argument is that if we melt the polar icecap practically all dry earth will then be covered in water. Why wasn't it all covered during the cretaceous?
I question the true anthropomorphic influence and the predicted outcomes.
Not saying it isn't happening, just not on board with the why's and results. Also the fact that millions of dollars and entire economies are potentially at stake with sanction and restrictions (ala the Kyoto Protocol, which would substantially over-penalize developed countries who participate but not affect many of the larger CO2 producers who did not participate, namely China and India), not to mention huge government grants associated with the study of anthropomorphic global warming (tacking on the "anthropomorphic" label nearly quadrupled grant money from what was previously spent on climate study and global warming) makes this a bigger issue with innumerable stakeholders and potential "winners" and "losers".
And the crux of it is, all the outcomes are speculation. Yet they want us to commit huge resources to combating a disputed issue with questionable outcomes. And even at that unless we literally strangle off all carbon emissions we will do little to affect the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now. What would it do to the world economies if we shut off all fossil-fuel usage right now? And 3rd world countries would be the hardest hit as they do not have the resources to find some alternative, as we might be able to if forced that route.
By all means we need to take care of the environment. We need to find alternate forms of energy that are sustainable and practical, and soon. But I am not buying into the panic-inducing arguments coming from researchers whose livelihood depends on the next grant for their research, which will only come in those large amounts fueled by that panic.
And don't get me started on "carbon footprint". There is the biggest red herring of all time.
larryselbows
Banned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
Opinion
Opinion
We can reconstruct climates that occurred up to 200 million years earlier to within 0.25 degrees Celsius.
Not true.
Partially true.
Yes and No.
Agreed
Probably
They're not saying that.
I agree.
larryselbows
Banned
I'm with you. Oil is an absolute necessity, it is our primary source of carbon and immensely important to the world economy. It would be foolish (and impossible) to suddenly stop using oil.
I'm just saying the world is warming, it's a fact.
What will happen? No one knows for certain, but surely we should act wisely when implementing future policies both environmentally and economically. I don't think think they are conflicting ideals.