Climate Change - The End is Near

[Snow]

While Global Warming alarm has taken a beating recently - from the email scandals, to an admission that there has been NO warming during the last 15 years, false stories about glacier melt, another admission that the earth may have been warmer than today during the Medieval Warming Perion - 700 years ago, etc... does anyone remember this article from Time Magazine in the 1970's?

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

[havejoy]

Didn't they end up calling it nuclear winter or something like that?

[CrimsonKairos]

As long as we remember that it is Anthropomorphic Global Warming that is causing the record-setting snow storms and cold weather right now.

I hate it when it's so hot it's cold!

[Traveler]

We should be so lucky that government meddling in science has only been with climate data - Thank goodness that the CDC is not involved in any scams.

The Traveler

[hordak]

I'm not that old, but i do recall having the global warming scare taught in grade school when i was a kid.

[john doe]

My children were being indoctrinated with it in Junior High School as recent as two years ago.

[BenRaines]

Snow, I remember the time well. Also for those living in California at the time, we waited for the big quake that would make Nevada ocean-front property.

It is all guessing is what it is. At times I think a lot of science is guessing.

Ben Raines

[pam]

It was way before my time. As everyone knows, I'm much younger than BenRaines.

[MichaelCraig]

But....what about the things that the Bible says takes place before the end like the 1,000 yr reign and all the other events???? Has all of those things taken place yet? My only issue about all this 2012 stuff and the many other "end of the world" predictions that never came true is the words I heard long ago that says, no man will know the exact time, not even the Son. Only the Father. Either way, I do know one thing for sure....that it is my personal responsibility to be ready RIGHT NOW, and I am. :)

[KBTPhys]

You make an excellent point, Michael. It's our responsibility to live in such a way that we're prepared for the end if it comes now, as well as prepared for a long life if the end isn't going to be during our lifetime.

[Guest Dimiras]

While Global Warming alarm has taken a beating recently - from the email scandals, to an admission that there has been NO warming during the last 15 years, false stories about glacier melt, another admission that the earth may have been warmer than today during the Medieval Warming Perion - 700 years ago, etc... does anyone remember this article from Time Magazine in the 1970's?

http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

It's funny that you would deny climate change over the past 15 years and make reference to the 'medieval warming period' in the same sentence. If you had actually done some of your own research and not relied on teabagger talking points, you would see that the entire argument against global warming is based upon the findings of one guy.

World may not be warming, say scientists - Times Online

This is typical ignorant rabble. They describe the scientific evidence for climate change in the vaguest possible terms, and wording it very skepticly. They do, however, try to sell this notion that various situational anomalies are somehow responsible for the entire global warming 'conspiracy'. They don't even address any of the hard evidence behind global warming. There's a reason why all of these 'climate change conspiracy' articles read the same: they cant actually refute any of the evidence. they then invent totally irrational hypotheses like jet engine emissions and garbage incinerators are to blame for this whole mess, and the fact that it all happens to make sense mathematically on a global scale is just random chance. are there weather monitoring stations that are effected by heat emissions from local sources? of course, but these are scientists we are talking about, and i'm pretty sure they know how to anticipate and factor such variables. The truth is, that the the earth's temperature IS in fact rising, and these climate change deniers are unwilling to do anything about it, for some insane reason.

The medieval warming period is even more laughable. If our weather measuring instruments are inaccurate NOW, what makes you think that people 500 years ago were any better at measuring climate?

FURTHERMORE:

Global warming CAUSES cooling at first. Its elementary science. Atmospheric temperature rises, causing an drastic rise in oceanic evaporation. What happens when water evaporates? It rises into the atmosphere, forms clouds, blocking out much of the light radiation in a given area, causing the precipitation to cool to the point of freezing, thus creating snow, and a general cooling higher up in the troposphere. Any of you live in Florida? Notice that unusual snow out there?

Edited February 21, 2010 by Dimiras

[CrimsonKairos]

If you had actually done some of your own research and not relied on teabagger talking points, you would see that the entire argument against global warming is based upon the findings of one guy.

Let's really talk global warming then. I have done my own research as you will shortly discover. :)

Cow flatulence contributes methane to the atmosphere which is more responsible for greenhouse atmospheric alteration than coal or other fossil fuel emissions.

Methane traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide.

This might be an argument for vegetarianism, but it certainly undercuts the theory of human-caused global warming (the word is global, a fact many seem to forget; it's not called American warming, for good reason).

Another fact of history which many global-warming alarmists forget or ignore is that the first commercial coal factory didn't show up until 1748 in Virginia, and widespread coal use didn't occur until the early 1800's (in America and England anyway).

So we are supposed to believe that in about 209 years, humans have done to the atmosphere and ozone layer what it previously took millions of years for Nature to accomplish? (natural cycling of ice ages and warmer periods) Talk about human arrogance and self-centeredness!

If we want to point fingers, India should be our first target. Because their religious beliefs forbid them to eat beef or kill cows, there are 283 million cows in India, more than anywhere else. Furthermore, the cows' poor diet causes them to produce more methane than cows in America where science has developed chemicals to slow methane production in the gut (score one for science).

Since methane traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide, the 283 million cows passing one cubic foot of methane gas a day is equal to the warming effect of 5,660,000,000 cars emitting one cubic foot of carbon dioxide a day (283 million multiplied by 20).

It is estimated that there are 600,000,000 cars in the world today. That's a far cry from five and a half BILLION cars required to equal methane produced by cows IN INDIA ALONE in one day (per pound of gas).

Stated differently, there would have to be about 90 times as many cars in the world to compete with cows JUST IN INDIA for greenhouse gas emission (5.5 billion divided by 6 million actual cars). Perhaps they should call it "Methane Warming" and place blame squarely where it belongs.

Turning to another myth, the "hole in the ozone layer" is over the SOUTH POLE, where the ice thickness and freezing temperatures prevent significant melting from occurring. The NORTH POLE is the one that is supposedly melting at an alarming rate, but here's the problem:

The North Pole is composed of floating ice. When water freezes, it expands, taking up more room and displacing more water than it would as a liquid. Try this experiment: Put about five ice cubes in a glass and fill it with water until it almost overflows the glass. Wait for the ice to melt. The overall water level will have gone DOWN, not up!

Since the North Pole ice is floating, even if it melts it will not cause the sea level to rise significantly! In fact, the sea level would GO DOWN! The hype and fear-mongering over melting ice is smoke and mirrors and intentional manipulation of well-intentioned people such as yourself.

If our carbon dioxide emissions are melting the North Pole, all the better; it will make sea levels drop worldwide! Only if the South Pole (which contains 90% of the world's ice, much of it freshwater) were to melt would sea levels rise dangerously.

Add to that the fact that the hole in the ozone appears to be closing, and the global warming myth's claims about ozone depletion and greenhouse gases evaporates like so much water vapor.

I hope you don't think I'm attacking you or belittling you. I'm not. I'm attacking the theory that dishonest scientists and manipulative politicians (one whose name rhymes with bore, an accurate description of his speeches) have advanced for political aggrandizement and control over American businesses. After all, if you can convince people that American factories are melting the ice caps which will harm the Earth, you can with the public's approval impose punitive taxes on these businesses to "dissuade them from harming the atmosphere" when in fact they are doing no such thing.

Follow the money, not the carbon dioxide, and you'll unveil the man (or woman, to be fair) behind the curtain.

HERE IS AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF INFO ON COWS AND CARS AND GLOBAL WARMING

Burning one gallon of gas creates 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, and the average car emits about six tons of carbon dioxide every year.

So let's compare how many tons of methane gas one cow produces in a year and compare it to the 6 tons of carbon dioxide (12,000 pounds) that a car produces in a year. Here's the math (simplified and admittedly not 100% precise; it illustrates general principles):

According to Donald Johnson, an animal-nutrition specialist at Colorado State University who has studied cow methane emissions, each cow emits 200 to 400 quarts of methane gas per day, or 50 million metric tons per year. How many tons of methane does that equal?

One metric ton equals 2,204.62262 pounds (you can Google it). We'll round down to 2,204 pounds.

So 50 million metric tons multiplied by 2,204 pounds per metric ton equals about 110,200,000,000 pounds.

There are 2,000 pounds in a ton, so 110,200,000,000 pounds divided by 2,000 pounds per ton equals 55,100,000 tons.

So a cow produces about 55,100,000 tons (US) of methane per year on average. But wait, remember that methane traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide? So to find out how much heat that methane traps per year we multiply it by 20 to see how much heat it traps compared to carbon dioxide.

55,100,000 tons per year multiplied by 20 times as much heat retention equals 1,102,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. If you take 1,102,000,000 tons produced by one cow per year and divide it by the 6 tons produced by one car per year, you get this number: 183,666,667. That means in one year, one cow produces over 183 million TIMES MORE greenhouse effect than one car in that same year!

So if the average car produces about 6 tons of carbon dioxide per year, and a cow produces the equivalent of 1,102,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, a car would have to drive for 183 million years to equal the greenhouse gas effect that a cow exerts in one year! Which do you think is the main culprit in terms of worsening the greenhouse effect? The car, or the cow?

Now to thicken the plot as it were, consider that ALL RUMINANT animals emit methane gas: that includes cows, sheep and goats. Ruminant means they have four stomachs. The International Erosion Control Association tracks overgrazing to calculate the world's cattle population. I quote:

"...the world's cattle herd went from 720 million in 1950 to 1.53 billion in 2001. As a comparative, the world population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.1 billion in 2001. If you add in sheep and goats, the herd size increases to 3.3 billion. In Africa there are an estimated 230 million cattle, while India hold's the world's largest cattle population with 283.1 million. The United States has 98 million head of cattle, while China has 130 million head."

Hmmm, the United States has the least number of cattle in the world compared to other countries. India has the most cows, Africa has a little less than India, China has less than Africa, and the U.S. has less than China.

I guess we could call it "foreign warming".

As you'll recall, there are an estimated 600,000,000 passenger cars worldwide right now. Yet there are 6.1 billion cows in the world back in 2001 according to the above quoted study. Add to that the fact that one cow produces over 183 million times MORE greenhouse heat retention than one car per year, and you have a vastly greater number of cows (plus other ruminants) in the world producing a vastly greater amount of greenhouse gases per year compared to cars.

So I guess using fossil fuels and mankind's activities really ARE the cause of global warming (sarcasm abundant in previous comment).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Edited February 21, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[Snow]

Snow, I remember the time well. Also for those living in California at the time, we waited for the big quake that would make Nevada ocean-front property.

It is all guessing is what it is. At times I think a lot of science is guessing.

Ben Raines

I actually remember it too. I was a little kid and my dad explained to me two separate theories of climate change - cooling and warming - and the supposed mechanisms by which they worked. Always stuck with me for some reason.

[Snow]

It's funny that you would deny climate change over the past 15 years and make reference to the 'medieval warming period' in the same sentence. If you had actually done some of your own research and not relied on teabagger talking points, you would see that the entire argument against global warming is based upon the findings of one guy.

It must be a full moon. What on earth are you muttering about?

Try and speak in cogent sentences.

[Guest Dimiras]

I can't even begin to pick apart your post because all of it is so horribly wrong. Methane itself has the potential to trap 20x more heat than carbon dioxide, but that doesn't mean that it traps 20x more OVERALL than carbon dioxide. The cumulative heat trapped by all the cow-related methane in the world doesn't even begin to come close to the global vehicle emissions, or corporate environmental damage.

Even if your skewed cow argument were valid, why do you think there so many more cows now than there were before? FACTORY FARMING. Human need dictates how many cattle are raised and slaughtered. Factory farms don't occur in nature.

[Guest Dimiras]

It must be a full moon. What on earth are you muttering about?

Try and speak in cogent sentences.

"It must be a full moon" You are using 'moon' as an adjective, 'Must' and 'Be' are not verbs, and 'It' is not a subject.

Furthermore, if you need me to explain what I said when I quoted YOU, you are far beyond reproach, and it baffles me how you actually found your way onto the internet.

[CrimsonKairos]

Hey, what happened to my really long post about methane vs. carbon dioxide???

[mightynancy]

Please don't confuse weather with climate.

[john doe]

Hey, what happened to my really long post about methane vs. carbon dioxide???

It got deleted as part of a clean up of certain undesirable elements. Your post quoted the undesirable element. If you would like it back to repost with modifications, PM me.

[CrimsonKairos]

That's okay, I save my posts in case my internet freezes before an upload is complete so I have the text (minus the quote) to repost, but I guess it's unnecessary for now. I understand the purging thing, that's cool, I just was curious what happened.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Dr. Fennyman <---- spelling??

As early as the sixties he was concerned about the loss of what he called "true science".

In essence he stated that the science he was taught was a discipline of study that tested for ALL results in an experiment. Be whatever results they were, they were real results and must be accounted for in the hypothesis and/or theory.

Instead what he saw was a discipline of study that only accepted the EXPECTED results as valid, regardless of whether they were a complete picture of the experimental results.

I have the quote at home, and I'll post it here, but that's the main problem I see in the scientific world today. When the results don't match the expected outcome, then the experiment is assumed to be the part that is flawed, rather than the hypothesis or core theory.

[Snow]

Dr. Fennyman <---- spelling??

As early as the sixties he was concerned about the loss of what he called "true science".

In essence he stated that the science he was taught was a discipline of study that tested for ALL results in an experiment. Be whatever results they were, they were real results and must be accounted for in the hypothesis and/or theory.

Instead what he saw was a discipline of study that only accepted the EXPECTED results as valid, regardless of whether they were a complete picture of the experimental results.

I have the quote at home, and I'll post it here, but that's the main problem I see in the scientific world today. When the results don't match the expected outcome, then the experiment is assumed to be the part that is flawed, rather than the hypothesis or core theory.

Richard Fenyman? A rather extraordinary scientist:

Richard Feynman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia