Climate Change Report

#601
#601
Roustabout said:
Let’s see how quickly that is buried by the Global Warming folks
Click to expand...

I don't see why anyone would feel the need to bury this since these ideas are just floated as plausible explanations for what we're experiencing. The asteroid one seems particularly unrealistic.
 
#606
#606
AshG said:
I'm not going to take one side or the other here, but I do need to point out the illogic in your record high proving anything comment:

Statistically speaking, that record temperature was an outlier. Outliers happen. What you should be concerned with instead are trend lines and averages - data collected over time. Right now, the trend lines are headed up along with the average temperatures. The world, as a whole, is getting hotter. Do with that info what you wish.
Click to expand...
Accuweather reports that we will only have one day with a high of 39 degrees after this coming cold snap for Feb and March. The rest will be 40 + with 6 days over 55 in Feb. We hit 70's in March. Oh praise the LORD!!!
 
#608
#608
ClearwaterVol said:
No, but instead of leading the charge. We have numb nuts in the white house denying climate change.
Click to expand...

We have been told about climate change for almost 30 years.... what did any of the other presidents do that actually made a difference?
 
#609
#609
Wafflestomper said:
I don't see why anyone would feel the need to bury this since these ideas are just floated as plausible explanations for what we're experiencing. The asteroid one seems particularly unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Get back to me when they figure out a way to retroactively tax an asteroid.
 
#612
#612
Roustabout said:
Get back to me when they figure out a way to retroactively tax an asteroid.
Click to expand...

Ssshhhh! Some legislative troll will figure out that we are all equally responsible for the asteroid and pass legislation to simply tax everybody.
 
#615
#615
0nelilreb said:
Are fossil fuels considered renewable energy ? Asking for a RUSSIAN friend that owns a pipeline .
Click to expand...

I will say they were seriously jumping on the wind power when I was over there. Turbines were going up all over the place.

I think they'll have a harder time of it since they decided to chuck their nuclear plants after Fukushima. Closing both their coal plants and nuclear plants might be a bit tricky even given the time they have allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#616
#616
Grand Vol said:
I will say they were seriously jumping on the wind power when I was over there. Turbines were going up all over the place.

I think they'll have a harder time of it since they decided to chuck their nuclear plants after Fukushima. Closing both their coal plants and nuclear plants might be a bit tricky even given the time they have allowed.
Click to expand...

I get if they want to close the coal but I don’t understand closing the nuclear . I know that’s a whole other debate .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Wafflestomper
#618
#618
Roustabout said:
Seems like you e rejected it without consideration
Click to expand...

What makes you say that? I read the article and considered it.

Why would the eruption of a volcano such as Mt. St. Helens, which was more powerful and also released water into the atmosphere, not produce similar effects?

Why does adding a relatively insignificant amount of water to the atmosphere result in ~100 years of climate effects?

Just seems implausible to me.
 
#619
#619
82_VOL_83 said:
Accuweather reports that we will only have one day with a high of 39 degrees after this coming cold snap for Feb and March. The rest will be 40 + with 6 days over 55 in Feb. We hit 70's in March. Oh praise the LORD!!!
Click to expand...
Where are you located?
 
#621
#621
Wafflestomper said:
What makes you say that? I read the article and considered it.

Why would the eruption of a volcano such as Mt. St. Helens, which was more powerful and also released water into the atmosphere, not produce similar effects?

Why does adding a relatively insignificant amount of water to the atmosphere result in ~100 years of climate effects?

Just seems implausible to me.
Click to expand...
Then you read a different article than I did.
It specifically mentioned the mesosphere of the most upper level. It mentioned 2000 kilometers of impact. MSH affected about 31 kilometers. So, what the fudge are you comparing? That’s about as bad as your Tylenol analogy.

Great point in one sense though as volcanic activity is certainly pumping a boatload of particulate into the atmosphere.
 
#622
#622
Roustabout said:
Then you read a different article than I did.
It specifically mentioned the mesosphere of the most upper level. It mentioned 2000 kilometers of impact. MSH affected about 31 kilometers. So, what the fudge are you comparing? That’s about as bad as your Tylenol analogy.

Great point in one sense though as volcanic activity is certainly pumping a boatload of particulate into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

It impacted trees over a 2000 km area. The blast force was downward, and from ~5 miles above the surface; where as a volcano is generally directed upward, which explains why MSH did not do as much damage to trees. However, MSH lost the top 1000 feet of the entire mountain, which included lots of ice and snow, and is far more material than the estimated size of this asteroid. This was sent, along with ash and rock, to over 100,000 feet into the atmosphere.
 
#623
#623
0nelilreb said:
I get if they want to close the coal but I don’t understand closing the nuclear . I know that’s a whole other debate .
Click to expand...
Nuclear waste is extremely toxic and difficult to dispose of, also terrorism concerns, and the Japanese experience can attest that melt downs are ugly.

Why knock the Germans for paying heed to science so you can provide weak support for the fossil fuels economy which is close to being superseded by cheaper electricity?
 
#624
#624
jvol1 said:
Nuclear waste is extremely toxic and difficult to dispose of, also terrorism concerns, and the Japanese experience can attest that melt downs are ugly.

Why knock the Germans for paying heed to science so you can provide weak support for the fossil fuels economy which is close to being superseded by cheaper electricity?
Click to expand...

Nuclear waste is difficult to get rid of because of regulations. Most high-level nuclear waste is self-protecting, and thus not a terrorism-related concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top