OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 21:40:59 GMT -5
UN predicts Disaster if Global Warming is not checked!!! Peter James Spielman, ( June 29, 1989)
In ten years!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 26, 2019 22:24:50 GMT -5
UN predicts Disaster if Global Warming is not checked!!! Peter James Spielman, ( June 29, 1989)
In ten years!!
no. it does not say that it would happen in 10 years.
it said that it would not be stoppable in 10 years if not brought under control.
there is actually no way of saying whether he is right or wrong.
so it is kind of a dumb claim to make. it is also kinda dumb to bring it up.
how did you even FIND this?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 22:30:50 GMT -5
UN predicts Disaster if Global Warming is not checked!!! Peter James Spielman, ( June 29, 1989)
In ten years!!
no. it does not say that it would happen in 10 years.
it said that it would not be stoppable in 10 years if not brought under control.
there is actually no way of saying whether he is right or wrong.
so it is kind of a dumb claim to make. it is also kinda dumb to bring it up.
how did you even FIND this?
Thirty year anniversary!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 22:32:49 GMT -5
Does that mean we are nineteen years past the turning around point?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 22:38:31 GMT -5
Here is a question related to Global Warming,
Why do the test for carbon way up on top of the super high Hawaiian mountain where the observatories are located.no plants or trees for miles. why don't the take the sample down in the tropical forest next to the ocean,, sea level? like trees eat carbon give off oxygen. Maybe they don't want to show where the carbon is reduced!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 26, 2019 22:39:59 GMT -5
Does that mean we are nineteen years past the turning around point? recognize why that is meaningless?
the guy doesn't actually define what the end point looks like, and how long it will take.
if it takes a billion years, who cares?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,336
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 26, 2019 22:42:31 GMT -5
Here is a question related to Global Warming,
Why do the test for carbon way up on top of the super high Hawaiian mountain where the observatories are located.no plants or trees for miles. why don't the take the sample down in the tropical forest next to the ocean,, sea level? like trees eat carbon give off oxygen. Maybe they don't want to show where the carbon is reduced!
Instead of asking why they do what they do, why don't you look into your question and post the answer to the board. That is what normal inquiring minds do.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 22:45:14 GMT -5
Geeees, DJ I can not figure it out why so many believe in Global Warming rising sea levels,, they are not gobbling up my High Desert Estates. I was sure Welt would fall for it Buy some!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 22:46:30 GMT -5
Here is a question related to Global Warming,
Why do the test for carbon way up on top of the super high Hawaiian mountain where the observatories are located.no plants or trees for miles. why don't the take the sample down in the tropical forest next to the ocean,, sea level? like trees eat carbon give off oxygen. Maybe they don't want to show where the carbon is reduced!
Instead of asking why they do what they do, why don't you look into your question and post the answer to the board. That is what normal inquiring minds do. Do you think they would admit to cooking the books??
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,336
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 26, 2019 22:48:55 GMT -5
Instead of asking why they do what they do, why don't you look into your question and post the answer to the board. That is what normal inquiring minds do. Do you think they would admit to cooking the books?? I have no idea and neither do you. Now research your own question and report back to us. Time's A-Wastin'!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 22:59:13 GMT -5
well here it is, On top of a mountain,, Barrows AK, and the South Pole,, all miles from any trees, Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing winds blow from the land out to sea, which effect brings clean, well-mixed Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory. This removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the island. How do they get there walk? This parts per million, that mean if there were 390 parts of carbon, there would be 999610 parts of something else, Like nitrogen, oxygen, ,,,,,,that don't cause global Warming!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 26, 2019 23:09:33 GMT -5
well here it is, On top of a mountain,, Barrows AK, and the South Pole,, all miles from any trees, Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing winds blow from the land out to sea, which effect brings clean, well-mixed Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory. This removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the island. How do they get there walk? This parts per million, that mean if there were 390 parts of carbon, there would be 999610 parts of something else, Like nitrogen, oxygen, ,,,,,,that don't cause global Warming!!
ok, that makes sense. it is a controlled environment. makes for better data.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 23:09:59 GMT -5
Checking out the Keeling Curve, The constant rise in concentrations of carbon. With all those solar panels wind mills, and electric cars, how come it is still going up. Don't those thing work??
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 26, 2019 23:12:47 GMT -5
Checking out the Keeling Curve, The constant rise in concentrations of carbon. With all those solar panels wind mills, and electric cars, how come it is still going up. Don't those thing work??
I blame China.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 23:13:17 GMT -5
well here it is, On top of a mountain,, Barrows AK, and the South Pole,, all miles from any trees, Early attempts to measure CO2 in the USA and Scandinavia found that the readings varied a lot due to the influence of growing plants and the exhaust from motors. Mauna Loa is ideal because it is so remote from big population centres. Also, on tropical islands at night, the prevailing winds blow from the land out to sea, which effect brings clean, well-mixed Central Pacific air from high in the atmosphere to the observatory. This removes any interference coming from the vegetation lower down on the island. How do they get there walk? This parts per million, that mean if there were 390 parts of carbon, there would be 999610 parts of something else, Like nitrogen, oxygen, ,,,,,,that don't cause global Warming!!
ok, that makes sense. it is a controlled environment. makes for better data. controlled environment,, That would only be accurate if the Earth had no tree or plants, that convert carbon to oxygen.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 26, 2019 23:14:24 GMT -5
Good Night dj,, maybe I will see you tomorrow.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 26, 2019 23:44:44 GMT -5
ok, that makes sense. it is a controlled environment. makes for better data. controlled environment,, That would only be accurate if the Earth had no tree or plants, that convert carbon to oxygen. precisely. all of those things can influence the data. it is better to choose a place without those things and rely on atmospheric mixing. now, if you can show that atmospheric mixing varies over time, that would be a good study. but neither you nor I know enough about climate science to say whether or not that is a thing. I presume that those in the field know better.
not you?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 27, 2019 9:13:11 GMT -5
controlled environment,, That would only be accurate if the Earth had no tree or plants, that convert carbon to oxygen. precisely. all of those things can influence the data. it is better to choose a place without those things and rely on atmospheric mixing. now, if you can show that atmospheric mixing varies over time, that would be a good study. but neither you nor I know enough about climate science to say whether or not that is a thing. I presume that those in the field know better.
not you?
Depends on where their funding comes from.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 17:59:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 12:41:23 GMT -5
Checking out the Keeling Curve, The constant rise in concentrations of carbon. With all those solar panels wind mills, and electric cars, how come it is still going up. Don't those thing work??
I blame China. I don't. During the huge global economic slowdown, 2008 through approx. 2011. There was a dramatic drop in global fossil fuel usage. Yet Atmospheric carbon continued to rise at the same rate during those years @ Mauna Loa www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/Quote; A Surprising Look at Oil Consumption. ... The largest drop was in 2009. For Europe we only have data through 2013. Europe’s oil consumption is down 13 percent, 2006 to 2013. Germany is Europe’s largest economy. Germany’s oil consumption started to drop in 1999 but has leveled out since 2007. Germany’s oil consumption is down 18 percent …peakoilbarrel.com/a-surprising-look-at-oil-consumption/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 27, 2019 13:29:58 GMT -5
precisely. all of those things can influence the data. it is better to choose a place without those things and rely on atmospheric mixing. now, if you can show that atmospheric mixing varies over time, that would be a good study. but neither you nor I know enough about climate science to say whether or not that is a thing. I presume that those in the field know better.
not you?
Depends on where their funding comes from. and AGAIN we agree. when they are funded by the oil and gas industry, their research should be either disregarded, or picked apart with a fine tooth comb.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,035
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 27, 2019 13:31:26 GMT -5
I don't. During the huge global economic slowdown, 2008 through approx. 2011. There was a dramatic drop in global fossil fuel usage. Yet Atmospheric carbon continued to rise at the same rate during those years @ Mauna Loa www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/Quote; A Surprising Look at Oil Consumption. ... The largest drop was in 2009. For Europe we only have data through 2013. Europe’s oil consumption is down 13 percent, 2006 to 2013. Germany is Europe’s largest economy. Germany’s oil consumption started to drop in 1999 but has leveled out since 2007. Germany’s oil consumption is down 18 percent …peakoilbarrel.com/a-surprising-look-at-oil-consumption/I was mostly kidding. but how does this disprove my joke? China is part of the global economy.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 29, 2019 10:47:53 GMT -5
The glacier-covered island is experiencing record-breaking temperatures which rose to 22C on August 1, 15C above the average rate. On that same day, the severe heat caused Greenland to lose 12.5 billion tons of ice, a staggeringly large amount even by Arctic standards.
15C above the average rate,, 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Just think if this was AZ, 105 normal temps add 60 degrees,, that would be 165 degrees, that might break a record!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,133
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 29, 2019 12:32:57 GMT -5
The glacier-covered island is experiencing record-breaking temperatures which rose to 22C on August 1, 15C above the average rate. On that same day, the severe heat caused Greenland to lose 12.5 billion tons of ice, a staggeringly large amount even by Arctic standards.
15C above the average rate,, 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Just think if this was AZ, 105 normal temps add 60 degrees,, that would be 165 degrees, that might break a record!
Is there anything that you ever get right? A difference of 15 degrees Celsius = 27 degrees Fahrenheit. Add that to your 105 for Arizona it would be 132. Not a record. If you were to add it to higher than normal temps for Arizona it would break the record of 134 F. which was recorded in Death Valley, CA.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 29, 2019 20:20:30 GMT -5
The glacier-covered island is experiencing record-breaking temperatures which rose to 22C on August 1, 15C above the average rate. On that same day, the severe heat caused Greenland to lose 12.5 billion tons of ice, a staggeringly large amount even by Arctic standards.
15C above the average rate,, 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Just think if this was AZ, 105 normal temps add 60 degrees,, that would be 165 degrees, that might break a record!
Is there anything that you ever get right? A difference of 15 degrees Celsius = 27 degrees Fahrenheit. Add that to your 105 for Arizona it would be 132. Not a record. If you were to add it to higher than normal temps for Arizona it would break the record of 134 F. which was recorded in Death Valley, CA. You need to go check your numbers, 15C is about 59F
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,133
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 29, 2019 20:41:34 GMT -5
Is there anything that you ever get right? A difference of 15 degrees Celsius = 27 degrees Fahrenheit. Add that to your 105 for Arizona it would be 132. Not a record. If you were to add it to higher than normal temps for Arizona it would break the record of 134 F. which was recorded in Death Valley, CA. You need to go check your numbers, 15C is about 59F Doesn't work that way, junior. Figure it out.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 29, 2019 21:23:42 GMT -5
You need to go check your numbers, 15C is about 59F Doesn't work that way, junior. Figure it out. 0 C is 32 F. Ask one of our Canadian poster, 15C is??
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 29, 2019 21:25:49 GMT -5
The glacier-covered island is experiencing record-breaking temperatures which rose to 22C on August 1, 15C above the average rate. On that same day, the severe heat caused Greenland to lose 12.5 billion tons of ice, a staggeringly large amount even by Arctic standards.
Annnnd you wonder why I question Global Warming advocates,
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,133
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 29, 2019 21:39:11 GMT -5
Doesn't work that way, junior. Figure it out. 0 C is 32 F. Ask one of our Canadian poster, 15C is?? Yes, if the temperature is 15 C. that equals a temperature of 59 F. That means you are one-third of the way through the problem. Figure out the rest of it.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 29, 2019 21:42:27 GMT -5
0 C is 32 F. Ask one of our Canadian poster, 15C is?? Yes, if the temperature is 15 C. that equals a temperature of 59 F. That means you are one-third of the way through the problem. Figure out the rest of it. A difference of 15 degrees Celsius = 27 degrees Fahrenheit.
What's the matter not smarter than a fifth grader?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,133
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 29, 2019 22:22:13 GMT -5
Yes, if the temperature is 15 C. that equals a temperature of 59 F. That means you are one-third of the way through the problem. Figure out the rest of it. A difference of 15 degrees Celsius = 27 degrees Fahrenheit.
What's the matter not smarter than a fifth grader?
I am. You apparently are not. All of the information needed is there. Figure it out.
|
|