"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

budman111 said:
Interesting subject, Kilimanjaro has never held much water in it's glaciers and that summer melting has never been much a source of water as such but I do agree with you, There is a 'natural' temperature rise peaking, just like there was a sustained global sub zero temperature age that peaked about the period 1645–1715, aptly named the 'mini ice-age' which will come back around again in its inevitable swing in another X amount of centuries, its 'mostly' propaganda about controlling us.
f19a81e8173a95ac96abdedfe42d8b13.jpg
Click to expand...
That was due to a volcano that put cubic miles of fine particles into the stratosphere, where they stayed for years. It happened again with Krakatoa in 1811.

Human caused global warming is totally different.
 
budman111 said:
Interesting subject, Kilimanjaro has never held much water in it's glaciers and that summer melting has never been much a source of water as such but I do agree with you, There is a 'natural' temperature rise peaking, just like there was a sustained global sub zero temperature age that peaked about the period 1645–1715, aptly named the 'mini ice-age' which will come back around again in its inevitable swing in another X amount of centuries, its 'mostly' propaganda about controlling us.
f19a81e8173a95ac96abdedfe42d8b13.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL

Where did that "5000" number in 1970 come from?

I love how simple minded science denial has become. Pick one number from some study, pick another number from a different study and start banging the drum.

Nobody is very certain about how many polar bears there are today. Maybe as many as 40,000. But the 5000 counted in 1970 was dead on accurate, I'm sure.

Like climate science, studying bears, especially polar bears is complicated. As described in this article:
https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears The bit I posted from the article (below) will probably be too long for a science denier to read. They get by on shorter sentences and memes. They already know the answer, so why should they go to the trouble to learn the details?

Where’s that bear?
There are 19 subpopulations of polar bears in the world, of which 13 can be found in Canada. The southern Beaufort Sea population, shared with Alaska, and the northern Beaufort Sea population, both of which are off the coasts of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, are either in or predicted to decline. A small population in Viscount Melville Sound, off the northern coasts of Victoria and Banks islands, could increase with changing sea ice conditions. M’Clintock Channel, off eastern Victoria Island, has seen polar bear numbers drop from about 900 to less than 300 over the past three decades. Lancaster Sound, off Baffin Island’s northern coast, is home to a declining population. The Gulf of Boothia population, off the northwestern end of Baffin Island, is stable. Foxe Basin is home to one of Canada’s largest polar bear populations, estimated at more than 2,500 animals in 2010. Norwegian Bay polar bears, south of Axel Heiberg Island and west of Ellesmere Island, are genetically different from all other polar bears worldwide, and their population status is unknown. Although the health of the western Hudson Bay population is the subject of debate, southern Hudson Bay, home to the most southerly polar bear population in the world, is relatively stable. Canada shares three of its populations with Greenland: the Baffin Bay and Kane Basin groups are both decreasing in numbers, while the Davis Strait population has increased in the past few decades but may now be in decline. The status of Greenland’s other two populations, in east Greenland and the Arctic Basin, is unknown. Russia is home to four populations of polar bears. The Barents Sea population, shared with Norway and Greenland, is healthy, while the status of the Kara Sea and Laptev Sea populations is unknown. The Chukchi Sea polar bears, shared with Alaska, could be in decline, though their current status is unclear.

Research in motion
Scientists study and count polar bears using two methods: capture-recapture and aerial survey. Capture-recapture, though dangerous because of the researchers’ proximity to the bear, helps determine the health and range of a population. Scientists take skin and blood samples, measure the bear’s height and weight and use ear tags to identify the country of capture. In an aerial survey, researchers in helicopters count bears along a predetermined line. This method can be tricky, as polar bears blend in well with the ice and bears in dens or behind ridges can be missed.

Changing environment
Warming temperatures are affecting the range of polar bear populations, shrinking their habitat and eventually, scientists fear, their numbers. While some northern bears may benefit from a more readily available diet, southern bears could find that food sources such as seal are more difficult to hunt and that human-bear encounters occur more frequently. Melting sea ice forces polar bears to fast for longer periods of time, impacting reproduction rates and the overall health of a population. Warming temperatures also increase human traffic, bringing pollution that impacts the health of both the bears and their prey.

Debating actual numbers is not very useful in predicting what will happen. There is no question that the habitat and food sources for polar bears is being disturbed. In the near future, polar bears will either have to live differently or die. They might not go extinct. On this, I can agree with climate science deniers.
 
ginjawarrior said:
nope im an advocate of burning our nuclear waste rather than burying our head in the sand and ingoring the waste we have

im also an advocate of getting off of our CO2 habit in a sensible and pragmatic way. you might not realise this but everybit of CO2 that is pumped out everyday has a duration in our atmosphere longer than the waste from the power plants i advocate... and quite obviously AGW is affecting EVERY FUCKING WHERE IN THE WORLD QUITE DRAMATICALLY ALREADY AND HASNT EVEN GOT CLOSE TO FINISHING YET<<

im also an advocate of not damaging the already stressed enviroment by taking more over than we need to..

but of course excatly like the denialists the pipedreamers cant comprehend that
Click to expand...
The reactor you talk about is still in the development stages and has been stuck there for decades. It is not commercially available and may never be. You are the nuclear pipe dreamer. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But you live in a glass house and continue to cast stones. Not very smart of you.

China is looking at building a next gen reactor but the design still uses uranium and still will produce waste. What you dream about and castigate others for not "believing" is so far out in the future that it is irrelevant to the AGW you are shouting about. Solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel are developed and commercially available today.

Some countries might need nuclear power to fully kick the fossil fuel habit. The US does not.

In any case, in the far future when Gen IV reactors might be available, manufacturing and distributing nuclear fuel will create low level nuclear waste. This is why I'm calling you a proponent of nuclear waste. But also, high pressure, high temperature vessels holding molten nuclear material is only called safe because we haven't built one and had an accident yet.
 
Fogdog said:
The reactor you talk about is still in the development stages and has been stuck there for decades. It is not commercially available and may never be. You are the nuclear pipe dreamer. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But you live in a glass house and continue to cast stones. Not very smart of you.

China is looking at building a next gen reactor but the design still uses uranium and still will produce waste. What you dream about and castigate others for not "believing" is so far out in the future that it is irrelevant to the AGW you are shouting about. Solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel are developed and commercially available today.

Some countries might need nuclear power to fully kick the fossil fuel habit. The US does not.

In any case, in the far future when Gen IV reactors might be available, manufacturing and distributing nuclear fuel will create low level nuclear waste. This is why I'm calling you a proponent of nuclear waste. But also, high pressure, high temperature vessels holding molten nuclear material is only called safe because we haven't built one and had an accident yet.
Click to expand...

And yet we seem to be awfully good at having accidents with the low tech we already have!

Fukushima has made the news recently by admitting that there is a leak measuring over 530 Sieverts on the site, enough to fry even hardened robots in less than 2 hours. As if that's not bad enough, they've been unable to stop 300 tons of highly irradiated water from leaking into the Pacific Ocean every day.

This is a glimpse of a future with nuclear power. Surely we can do better.

In fact, we already have; turns out that solar power is officially less expensive than fossil fuel based electrical generation, today.

So WTF do we need nukes for, other than mass murder or the extinction of life as we know it?
 
ttystikk said:
And yet we seem to be awfully good at having accidents with the low tech we already have!

Fukushima has made the news recently by admitting that there is a leak measuring over 530 Sieverts on the site, enough to fry even hardened robots in less than 2 hours. As if that's not bad enough, they've been unable to stop 300 tons of highly irradiated water from leaking into the Pacific Ocean every day.

This is a glimpse of a future with nuclear power. Surely we can do better.

In fact, we already have; turns out that solar power is officially less expensive than fossil fuel based electrical generation, today.

So WTF do we need nukes for, other than mass murder or the extinction of life as we know it?
Click to expand...
There might be a place for some of the newer types of designs that don't rely on water to cool them. Some day and not in the US. It's fine for governments to study the technology. Big energy companies want nuclear so they can maintain control of generation and distribution of power. A lot of the research and propaganda pushing for nuclear are coming from those sources.

What energy companies especially don't like are solar panels on people's roof tops. When I looked into solar panels for my barn's roof, I was surprised to learn that I could not qualify for a tax credit unless I hooked my panels to the grid and gave the energy company control of how much they would credit me for power generated from my panels. I'm waiting for costs to come down a bit more and will pay for my own installation so that I'm not tied to the whim of a faceless corporation.
 
Fogdog said:
There might be a place for some of the newer types of designs that don't rely on water to cool them. Some day and not in the US. It's fine for governments to study the technology. Big energy companies want nuclear so they can maintain control of generation and distribution of power. A lot of the research and propaganda pushing for nuclear are coming from those sources.

What energy companies especially don't like are solar panels on people's roof tops. When I looked into solar panels for my barn's roof, I was surprised to learn that I could not qualify for a tax credit unless I hooked my panels to the grid and gave the energy company control of how much they would credit me for power generated from my panels. I'm waiting for costs to come down a bit more and will pay for my own installation so that I'm not tied to the whim of a faceless corporation.
Click to expand...
You're gonna become real close friends with the 18650 battery ;)
 
Fogdog said:
Close enough. Within our lifetimes and those of our children. Trump's nuclear war that you want and nuclear winter afterward not to mention immediately stopping humans from burning of fossil fuels might bring the glacier back.
Click to expand...

I understand you're selfish and all but a "lifetime" is not "forever".
 
ttystikk said:
Derp.

The quality of your arguments have been declining of late.

Considering where they started, that's impressively bad.
Click to expand...


You feel this ===> "The one on top of Kilimanjaro has vanished, presumably forever." is a quality point to argue?

"Forever".

You win.
 
ttystikk said:
That was due to a volcano that put cubic miles of fine particles into the stratosphere, where they stayed for years. It happened again with Krakatoa in 1811.

Human caused global warming is totally different.
Click to expand...
You really don't have a clue do you, Krakatoa was 1883, what is the name of the other mystery volcano?,
didn't happen is my guess, your just making shit up, like your mates the climate scientists (I probably should stop calling them scientists )
Get a real job ttystikk , you're failing as a spokeswomen for global warming
 
"After I got fed up with my cable service, I discovered this thing called 'a life'. Turns out that having one is a lot more fun than watching someone else's. No couch potatoes, please!"

*Spends all day on a grow forum*

Post again, lover boy.
 
666888 said:
You really don't have a clue do you, Krakatoa was 1883, what is the name of the other mystery volcano?,
didn't happen is my guess, your just making shit up, like your mates the climate scientists (I probably should stop calling them scientists )
Get a real job ttystikk , you're failing as a spokeswomen for global warming
Click to expand...

another $0.12, earned the hard way.
 
budman111 said:
Interesting subject, Kilimanjaro has never held much water in it's glaciers and that summer melting has never been much a source of water as such but I do agree with you, There is a 'natural' temperature rise peaking, just like there was a sustained global sub zero temperature age that peaked about the period 1645–1715, aptly named the 'mini ice-age' which will come back around again in its inevitable swing in another X amount of centuries, its 'mostly' propaganda about controlling us.
f19a81e8173a95ac96abdedfe42d8b13.jpg
Click to expand...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...orth-Pole-heats-up-to-36-degrees-above-normal

yeah but the north pole warming is decimating the penguin population there

Screen_Shot_2015-11-29_at_4.04.39_PM.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top