• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not to start a debate but just trying to figure out between fact and fiction. The news keep saying that the polar vortex is some new phenomenon or making it seem that way but back 20 years ago we had colder winters. Is the polar vortex really this new deal that we’ve never seen before?
 
Round Oak Weather- Zeb said:
Not to start a debate but just trying to figure out between fact and fiction. The news keep saying that the polar vortex is some new phenomenon or making it seem that way but back 20 years ago we had colder winters. Is the polar vortex really this new deal that we’ve never seen before?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Unfortunately, we live in a world of sensationalism, driven by the ever-decreasing and gnat-like attention span of the public. This gives rise to the sad reality that everything must come with a descriptor that entices clicks, views, and likes — a monument to the social media-driven world of “status” and/or add revenue that permeates the virtual scope of our “information” delivery engines.
 
Rosie said:
She speaks the truth, they do deserve a safe world to live in.
Click to expand...
Interesting outlook. The world isn't and never has been "safe". Our environment is actively trying to kill us, regardless of what we do to make it better or worse. You can't make the world "safe". You can adapt and overcome, temporarily, to the dangers we all face. And that is something to be proud of! The fact that we endure at all is a testament to human ingenuity!
 
Stormlover said:
This is the kind of idiotic comment trying to take advantage of a cold snap(while air and water are much cleaner than it used to be) that we get from the left
She has no shame.View attachment 14524
Click to expand...
So when is caring about her grandchildren’s future idiotic? I guess you don’t expect to have any? Quite the Fox News junkies on this blog.
 
Stormdoc said:
So when is caring about her grandchildren’s future idiotic? I guess you don’t expect to have any? Quite the Fox News junkies on this blog.
Click to expand...

I think the point being made is that the climate, and weather phenomena, is always changing and presenting challenges for mankind whether it’s AGW induced or natural. There have been plenty of weather extremes over time that have presented challenges for mankind yet we find ways to adapt and survive. Much of the hype you hear about the world ending and we must act now is just that, hype. A lot of the rhetoric is designed to frighten, cause panic and stir people up emotionally in order to obtain their goals of a “green” world. I care about my children and grandchildren’s future but the climate warming is the least of my worries.
 
Stormdoc said:
So when is caring about her grandchildren’s future idiotic? I guess you don’t expect to have any? Quite the Fox News junkies on this blog.
Click to expand...
My grandfather did OK ... went through the '20s and 30s, drought and heat and little rain, walking behind a mule to grow just enough corn to feed the mule, with a little left over to sell and feed his family; and hell, look at the great world he and his generation gave us ... TV, the computer or phone you're looking at ... A/C and hot running water ...
 
pcbjr said:
My grandfather did OK ... went through the '20s and 30s, drought and heat and little rain, walking behind a mule to grow just enough corn to feed the mule, with a little left over to sell and feed his family; and hell, look at the great world he and his generation gave us ... TV, the computer or phone you're looking at ... A/C and hot running water ...
Click to expand...

Not to mention he lived through the “Dust Bowl” which is probably one of the worst droughts to hit the US, at least since the year 1900. Look at this drought.

1549496289422.jpeg
 
snowlover91 said:
Not to mention he lived through the “Dust Bowl” which is probably one of the worst droughts to hit the US, at least since the year 1900. Look at this drought.

View attachment 15198
Click to expand...
You see that little brown spot is S GA? Yup ... Depression mentality ... we need some of that off-and-on today for so many reasons ... save and use ... but more importantly, to thank God for how absolutely lucky we really are ...

Off the soap box ...
 
pcbjr said:
You see that little brown spot is S GA? Yup ... Depression mentality ... we need some of that off-and-on today for so many reasons ... save and use ... but more importantly, to thank God for how absolutely lucky we really are ...

Off the soap box ...
Click to expand...

What amazes me is there are people who want to completely change our energy sources to something unsustainable (wind and solar) based on computer modeling of what the climate may do. That's another topic for another day but let's just say the seasonal and other computer models haven't been good this year outside 4-5 days...

Don't get me wrong I'm all for advances in science and energy efficiency but right now wind farms and solar energy just isn't practical for supplying the type of power that is needed to sustain the way of life people have in the US or Europe. Wind farms take up vast amounts of land, kill birds, have possible health side effects and are entirely reliant upon the wind to produce energy. In the winter there are many regions that see reduced sunlight hours or no sunlight at all. What "backup" power supply will there be for areas like this when there is no/reduced sun and little wind? How will hospitals or large factories be powered in the event of a failure or inability to deliver adequate energy from these "green" energies? What if a hail storm damages the solar panels? It's one thing for politicians and others to talk about green energy but it's another entirely to transform an entire power grid to a new "fuel" source that is reliable and dependable. This doesn't even factor in the need for all the cars, trucks and other transport methods that rely upon fossil fuels to convert to some alternative energy source and the challenges involved with that.
 
Stormdoc said:
So when is caring about her grandchildren’s future idiotic? I guess you don’t expect to have any? Quite the Fox News junkies on this blog.
Click to expand...
Typical response for lefty socialists whose mantra seems to imply, "but think about the children" with the underlying correlation bring "Fox news junkies don't care about their children or grandchildren". Just such a lazy sophomoric response based purely on emotionalism, which oddly enough is from the same people who want us to think their science is or should be our God. There's the ticket, let's all become utopian socialist like the incredibly successful Socialist Venezuela who has more oil than we do, oh wait, they can't even feed their people oops. You see in a socialist nation, the people are told everyone will be equal in our society only the ruling socialist will be more equal than everyone else as they bankrupt the country. Please allow us (it won't be for long if the Socialdems gain total control) to have out one network while you have 6
 
MichaelJ said:
Typical response for lefty socialists whose mantra seems to imply, "but think about the children" with the underlying correlation bring "Fox news junkies don't care about their children or grandchildren". Just such a lazy sophomoric response based purely on emotionalism, which oddly enough is from the same people who want us to think their science is or should be our God. There's the ticket, let's all become utopian socialist like the incredibly successful Socialist Venezuela who has more oil than we do, oh wait, they can't even feed their people oops. You see in a socialist nation, the people are told everyone will be equal in our society only the ruling socialist will be more equal than everyone else as they bankrupt the country. Please allow us (it won't be for long if the Socialdems gain total control) to have out one network while you have 6
Click to expand...
can both of you guys just leave politics out of it? You guys are automatically discounting each other's argument because you both believe each other has a political agenda behind it. This leads to mindless confrontation, non-objective, and doesn't achieve anything at all. This is a question of science....
 
All I know is that these crazy hot days in the middle of winter is getting worrisome. There’s still a lot of warming yet to be realized. When these giant glaciers start snapping off left and right flooding the coast line all hell is going to break loose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
All I know is that these crazy hot days in the middle of winter is getting worrisome. There’s still a lot of warming yet to be realized. When these giant glaciers start snapping off left and right flooding the coast line all hell is going to break loose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Really? When will this happen exactly? We have heard nothing but gloom and doom from Al Gore acolytes who have been predicting the diappearance of the arctic Ice (forget the largest chunk of ice in Anarctica which is just fine thank you) in 2014 2015 2016, 2017, 2918, 2019 etc etc etc.. Guess what, it is STILL here even as the world has warmed (their words not mine) virtually every year. If the models of all of this catastrophic Greenhouse Effect, uh Global Warming, uh Climate Change, uh Climate Extremes are so accurate, how come they can't tell us the exact year, or heck even the exact decade, or even the century? Open your brains folks and allow some common sense to filter in. Personally I think Climate Change is the most accurate description of this particular warming phenomenon because that is what Climate does and always has done, change
 
The global warming hysteria (read: extreme proclamation after extreme proclamation) is the number one enemy of the movement. But it sure does fit with the culture of everything having to be the worst or the most extreme thing ever. It certainly doesn't create an environment of high intellectual debate and discovery. Instead, it stirs up emotion and eventually, apathy. And that is because it has become a political football that inevitably polarizes people along stark political lines. That's probably by design. The more we get angry with each other, the better it is for those in power, who "seemingly" care about what happens to the planet, the economy, geopolitical stability, healthcare, we the people, and a whole other slew of items they couldn't care less about.

You want to get into a heated argument with someone? Talk about immigration or climate change. You very well might come to blows. It's really unfortunately that people can't discuss such issues without losing their minds and trying to work toward an answer to a difficult question. But it's an artifact of the political climate we live in. It only gets worse from here.
 
There is strong evidence to suggest global warming is indeed caused by man but I am definitely against the sensationalism and alarmism that politicians and the media like to concoct. It is detrimental to the cause and arms deniers. No, the world isn’t going to end in 12 years (looking at you, AOC).
 
mydoortotheworld said:
There is strong evidence to suggest global warming is indeed caused by man but I am definitely against the sensationalism and alarmism that politicians and the media like to concoct. It is detrimental to the cause and arms deniers. No, the world isn’t going to end in 12 years (looking at you, AOC).
Click to expand...

No it’s more like a slow cancer that can take decades to do its dirty work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Old enough to see the devastation in my lifetime. If you think otherwise you’re just delusional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Theirs a whole lot worse things to worry about at this point like how are we going to feed 9 billion people by 2030. Were already taking up a lot of our land that we can use for farming with industry and if we were to put in solar panels and wind turbines that would take up even more land that we can’t spare.
 
Round Oak Weather- Zeb said:
Theirs a whole lot worse things to worry about at this point like how are we going to feed 9 billion people by 2030. Were already taking up a lot of our land that we can use for farming with industry and if we were to put in solar panels and wind turbines that would take up even more land that we can’t spare.
Click to expand...

Global warming would make that more difficult. Natural processes will cull the population for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Global warming would make that more difficult. Natural processes will cull the population for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Seems like global warming would allow more places to support growing.

@Round Oak Weather- Zeb We have enough money and food to feed the world’s population. The problem is the greed and corruption and evilness of mankind. If all of that were replaced by benevolence, there would be zero hungry people on the planet.

Has it occurred to anyone that many of the problems we face could be solved if the political will was there to solve them? Unfortunately, there are way too many people in power who are controlled by power and money, whether it’s direct influence and pressure or their desire for more. And many of these problems are more beneficial to that paradigm than the solutions. It isn’t rocket science. But it’s something you won’t hear on Fox or CNN. Just fall in line and think red and blue and it’s all good (or bad, depending on what color you like).
 
Round Oak Weather- Zeb said:
Theirs a whole lot worse things to worry about at this point like how are we going to feed 9 billion people by 2030. Were already taking up a lot of our land that we can use for farming with industry and if we were to put in solar panels and wind turbines that would take up even more land that we can’t spare.
Click to expand...

This issue already has a solution (or at least a first step) that ties back to the overall topic at hand here. Meat production is absurdly inefficient and unsustainable in practically every aspect, and cutting down on the amount of meat humans consume would allow for much higher efficiency in available calories. I feel like I should directly clarify: I am not suggesting the entire world go vegan. That would be ridiculously impossible (and something I couldn't even imagine myself being capable of). But people can and should be cognizant about the amount of meat products they eat in their day to day life, and when they could easily go without.

The Youtube channel "Kurzgesagt-- In a Nutshell" probably gives a much better argument than I could try to in this video. The video's a bit cheesy at times, but overall does a great job hitting on a number of important subjects on the meat industry: the huge amount of resources meat production consumes, the cruelty in animal treatment, and on the other hand why meat is so appealing and hard to give up and the misleading nature of organic foods. They suggest a similar immediate solution to the one I said above: "taking a meat-free day per week already makes a difference." I highly suggest anyone curious check out the video, but here are the most relevant statistics (citations in the video):

83% of farmland (26% of Earth's total land area) is used for livestock, including both pastures and land for feed crops.

Animals are highly inefficient at converting proteins and calories fed to them into meat (e.g. cows convert 4% protein, 3% calories they eat, and 1kg steak requires 25kg grain)

Up to 3.5 billion additional people could be fed if all crops going towards meat were eaten by humans (looking at the source, this does not include converting freed up pasture land into additional farm land).

Animal products make up about 18% of the calories we consume (This lacked a citation, but I believe it can be calculated from the rest of the sources/stats in the video)

The meat industry accounts for 15% of all GHG emissions (the EPA lists agriculture closer to 9%, although the video may be considering transportation of food, and/or the EPA is a US statistic whereas this number is likely a global statistic. It could also have to do with how "emissions" are being calculated, e.g. volume of GHG emitted vs. CO2 equivalent).
 
RVD said:
This issue already has a solution (or at least a first step) that ties back to the overall topic at hand here. Meat production is absurdly inefficient and unsustainable in practically every aspect, and cutting down on the amount of meat humans consume would allow for much higher efficiency in available calories. I feel like I should directly clarify: I am not suggesting the entire world go vegan. That would be ridiculously impossible (and something I couldn't even imagine myself being capable of). But people can and should be cognizant about the amount of meat products they eat in their day to day life, and when they could easily go without.

The Youtube channel "Kurzgesagt-- In a Nutshell" probably gives a much better argument than I could try to in this video. The video's a bit cheesy at times, but overall does a great job hitting on a number of important subjects on the meat industry: the huge amount of resources meat production consumes, the cruelty in animal treatment, and on the other hand why meat is so appealing and hard to give up and the misleading nature of organic foods. They suggest a similar immediate solution to the one I said above: "taking a meat-free day per week already makes a difference." I highly suggest anyone curious check out the video, but here are the most relevant statistics (citations in the video):

83% of farmland (26% of Earth's total land area) is used for livestock, including both pastures and land for feed crops.

Animals are highly inefficient at converting proteins and calories fed to them into meat (e.g. cows convert 4% protein, 3% calories they eat, and 1kg steak requires 25kg grain)

Up to 3.5 billion additional people could be fed if all crops going towards meat were eaten by humans (looking at the source, this does not include converting freed up pasture land into additional farm land).

Animal products make up about 18% of the calories we consume (This lacked a citation, but I believe it can be calculated from the rest of the sources/stats in the video)

The meat industry accounts for 15% of all GHG emissions (the EPA lists agriculture closer to 9%, although the video may be considering transportation of food, and/or the EPA is a US statistic whereas this number is likely a global statistic. It could also have to do with how "emissions" are being calculated, e.g. volume of GHG emitted vs. CO2 equivalent).
Click to expand...
What I think needs to really be pushed is local grown agriculture and better facilities for processing of the meat for these facilities because it has been proven that grass based anything is better for us and the environment around us. Im in college right now for AG business and want to see more food grown locally. This is off topic from climate change I was giving an example of one of our problems we could be facing in the nxt 10-15 years over 100 years down the road.
 
Rain Cold said:
Seems like global warming would allow more places to support growing.

@Round Oak Weather- Zeb We have enough money and food to feed the world’s population. The problem is the greed and corruption and evilness of mankind. If all of that were replaced by benevolence, there would be zero hungry people on the planet.

Has it occurred to anyone that many of the problems we face could be solved if the political will was there to solve them? Unfortunately, there are way too many people in power who are controlled by power and money, whether it’s direct influence and pressure or their desire for more. And many of these problems are more beneficial to that paradigm than the solutions. It isn’t rocket science. But it’s something you won’t hear on Fox or CNN. Just fall in line and think red and blue and it’s all good (or bad, depending on what color you like).
Click to expand...

No it will make farming more difficult as it will take decades or even centuries if you count possible feedbacks before the climate stabilizes and becomes less erratic after we stop adding CO2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The gorilla in the room is the massive amount carbon stored in the permafrost which is left over from the last ice age. If that gets released it could double or even triple the amount of CO2 in the air pushing the planet towards a Cretaceous like climate which is uninhabitable for humans. If it wasn’t for the permafrost we could probably go carbon neutral soon and settle into a Pliocene like climate which would be habitable and stable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I like every ones ideals on here, but I myself do not buy into Global Warming. That just my take on it, as i see many have other ideals on the subject.
 
BHS1975 said:
The gorilla in the room is the massive amount carbon stored in the permafrost which is left over from the last ice age. If that gets released it could double or even triple the amount of CO2 in the air pushing the planet towards a Cretaceous like climate which is uninhabitable for humans. If it wasn’t for the permafrost we could probably go carbon neutral soon and settle into a Pliocene like climate which would be habitable and stable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So ... all we can do, is perhaps put a big refrigerator north of the arctic circle, running on oil from ANWAR no doubt, to "save" us from permafrost with CO2 that's been there, naturally, since before Noah?

EDIT:

I must ask - Why when Greenland damn near thawed in the late 900's throgh the early 1100's, and it was cultivated and used for grazing, did the world not end then?
 
Last edited:
I think it's important to note that the climate has changed numerous times over the course of the history of the earth, naturally, as a result of various internal and external influences. A great example is the Sahara Desert. This area actually used to be filled with lakes, rivers, grass and trees. Over time the climate changed drying out this area and turning it into the vast desert it is now. It's interesting to read up on the history of the Sahara Desert and various theories out there as to what exactly caused such a drastic change.
 
Stormlover said:
View attachment 15570
Click to expand...
This cartoon highlights my concern precisely, just in the other direction. Here is the scientist trying to explain a complex problem, while the little boy is basically “poo-pooing” the whole issue and the scientific community at large, which is my bigger concern. If a significant majority of the experts who study the climate are at least at a consensus that AGW is a legitimate concern, why are out policy makers and the public in large so strongly push back or just deny there could be any problem? Sure,there are very reasonable reasons and data that one can use to debate the issue, as some of our posters do admirably well, but the disconnect between the science and how the average Americans feels about it is alarming to me. This utter distrust of science has been ongoing for centuries (see Galileo and biologicall evolution), and the same arguments were used to try to disprove scientists concerns about leaded gasoline and CFCs affecting ozone this past century. So this cartoon simply shows how much a lack of trust their remains between the average person and scientific thought in general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top