|
SwiftVets.com Service to Country
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
jwb7605 Rear Admiral
Joined: 06 Aug 2004 Posts: 690 Location: Colorado
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Never mind:
Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8398
Everybody's OK now ... the excessive warming caused by burning too much fossil fuel will be offset by the oncoming mini ice age, which, of course, will make everything level off to perfect.
For a while, I was really worried.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
JN173 Commander
Joined: 10 May 2004 Posts: 341 Location: Anchorage, Alaska
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PhantomSgt wrote: | Imagine the rings on a tree stump that tell the story of a seasons growth for a tree. A long growing season will mean a larger space between rings (warmer temperatures). Core samples of ice from glaciers record the same type of data on the climate of NA or elsewhere. Warmer seasons less ice. Colder seasons result in more ice pack. Track this for several tousand years and you can create a pretty accurate model.
|
It has been my understanding that the "ice pack" in glaciers is a function of annual snow fall. It may be only anecdotal evidence, but my 32 years of working in the arctic has convinced me that snow fall of any significant accumalation is most likely to occur at relatively warm temps of 20 to 32 degrees F. _________________ A Grunt
2/503 173rd Airborne Brigade
RVN '65-'66 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Essayons Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 05 Apr 2005 Posts: 81 Location: Philadelphia area
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Global warming – actually ocean warming - is a prelude to the start of the next ice age.
Hmmm. Bet that got your attention.
References: http://www.iceagenow.com/ and http://www.pvbr.com/Issue_1/global.htm
A short background: During the 1960s the prevalent theory was we were headed into a new glacial age based on the 100,000 year glacial and interglacial periods (10,000 years interglacial and 90,000 years glacial) that the earth has experienced over hundreds of thousands of years. The reasons for these cycles was ill understood and during the 1970s the theory of Global Warming started to take hold and was given validity by Carl Sagan and his collaboration on computer models that predicted Global Warming.
Sagan’s computer model had one great flaw; it did not include coverage of the oceans when predicting the future. 70+ percent of the earth‘s surface is covered by water. BIG mistake.
Hey, let’s face it, NOAA can’t give accurate forecasts three days from now. Computer models that tell us that we are headed towards Global Warming and rising ocean levels that will inundate the low lying areas of coastal regions is/has to be suspect.
We are about 11,000 years into the interglacial period of warm temperatures that have historically lasted 10 to 12 thousand years. But, hey, history may not repeat itself. Phew, we are home free!
Don’t bet on it. Carbon Dioxide is a key component of the argument for Global Warming. For the proponents of Global Warming it is the key element. Industrial nations spew far too much CO2 into the atmosphere thus creating a greenhouse effect – Global Warming.
Sounds like a slam dunk analysis. But it ignores the oceans contributions to CO2 entry into our atmosphere.
Recent research has shown unusual volcanic activity in the earths oceans. Warming oceans release large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Cold oceans are a CO2 “sink.” Warm oceans are a CO2 "source."
We are at about 370 ppm for CO2 content in our atmosphere. Far above the 300 ppm that predicts an ice age.
The predictions of more violent storms, volcanic and earthquake activity that are predicted by Global Warming advocates is real but the reason is 180 degrees opposed to reality.
Warming oceans release more moisture into the atmosphere. This produces more rain and snow fall.
The Artic and Antarctic snow packs are increasing in depth. Some glaciers are receding but most are increasing.
We, as willing followers of our supposed elite and erudite academic scientists, rely on AP reports of Global Warming.
Simple logic dictates that the added weight of increased snow packs in Antarctica and the Artic will force tectonic plate faults to move (earthquakes) and increase volcanic activity (squeeze the magma to the earth’s surface).
Please read the referenced sources and draw your own conclusions. They state a 75 to 225 year period before we enter the next glacial age. One can draw the conclusion that we are 20 years from the onset of the next glacial age.
Global Warming is a hoax. It is a precursor to the next ice age.
My interpretation.
Regards,
Dick _________________ Essayons - Let us try - the code of the Army Engineer. Sappers First, the code of the Combat Engineer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1579 Location: Penna
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is how stupid it has become. What's next, fines for farts? A ban on beans?
Maybe this is a manifestation of mad cow disease on humans. It causes liberalism.
-------------------------------
War on climate change targets flatulent cows
Toby McDonald
BRITISH scientists are fighting climate change by reducing the harmful greenhouse gases produced by flatulent cows.
Researchers claim that by altering the diet of cows they can cut the animals’ emissions of methane — a contributor to global warming — by up to 70%. Scientists and green groups concerned about climate change have traditionally focused their efforts on cars, lorries, power stations and factories that burn fossil fuels and produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide.
But a study by French scientists published this year warned that flatulent farm animals must shoulder some of the blame.
There are 1.4 billion cows worldwide, each producing 500 litres of methane a day and accounting for 14% of all emissions of the gas.
Carbon dioxide is by far the biggest contributor to climate change, but methane has 23 times the warming potential of CO2 so reducing its emission is also considered important.
In Scotland, where there is a greater concentration of agriculture than in other countries, cows produce 46% of all methane emissions.
Now scientists at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen say they have developed a diet that has done the most to reduce the amount of methane produced by cows.
They introduced a food additive, a mixture of organic sugars and a bacterium developed at the institute, into the cows’ diet. It is based on fumaric acid, a naturally occurring chemical essential to respiration of animal and vegetable tissues.
“In some experiments we got a 70% decrease in methane emissions, which is quite staggering,” said John Wallace, a biochemist at the institute who is leading the research team. In total about 14% of global methane comes from the guts of farm animals. It is worth doing something about.”
The study has received £150,000 funding from Scottish Enterprise, the government agency, and a 12-month commercial and scientific evaluation of the additive is under way. Wallace said if the tests were successful, the treatment would have a significant impact on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Cows need to ferment their low-grade food, such as hay and grass, to get any energy from it and the main by-product is methane.
Between 9% and 12% of the energy that a cow consumes is converted into methane, depending on diet, barn conditions and whether the cow is producing milk. The problem of wind is an expensive one for farmers — producing methane instead of milk or beef means that 10% of cattle feed is wasted. _________________ 8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 972 Location: GUAM, USA
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GM Strong wrote: | This is how stupid it has become. What's next, fines for farts? A ban on beans?
Maybe this is a manifestation of mad cow disease on humans. It causes liberalism.
-------------------------------
War on climate change targets flatulent cows
Toby McDonald
BRITISH scientists are fighting climate change by reducing the harmful greenhouse gases produced by flatulent cows.
Researchers claim that by altering the diet of cows they can cut the animals’ emissions of methane — a contributor to global warming — by up to 70%. Scientists and green groups concerned about climate change have traditionally focused their efforts on cars, lorries, power stations and factories that burn fossil fuels and produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide.
But a study by French scientists published this year warned that flatulent farm animals must shoulder some of the blame.
There are 1.4 billion cows worldwide, each producing 500 litres of methane a day and accounting for 14% of all emissions of the gas.
Carbon dioxide is by far the biggest contributor to climate change, but methane has 23 times the warming potential of CO2 so reducing its emission is also considered important.
In Scotland, where there is a greater concentration of agriculture than in other countries, cows produce 46% of all methane emissions.
Now scientists at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen say they have developed a diet that has done the most to reduce the amount of methane produced by cows.
They introduced a food additive, a mixture of organic sugars and a bacterium developed at the institute, into the cows’ diet. It is based on fumaric acid, a naturally occurring chemical essential to respiration of animal and vegetable tissues.
“In some experiments we got a 70% decrease in methane emissions, which is quite staggering,” said John Wallace, a biochemist at the institute who is leading the research team. In total about 14% of global methane comes from the guts of farm animals. It is worth doing something about.”
The study has received £150,000 funding from Scottish Enterprise, the government agency, and a 12-month commercial and scientific evaluation of the additive is under way. Wallace said if the tests were successful, the treatment would have a significant impact on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Cows need to ferment their low-grade food, such as hay and grass, to get any energy from it and the main by-product is methane.
Between 9% and 12% of the energy that a cow consumes is converted into methane, depending on diet, barn conditions and whether the cow is producing milk. The problem of wind is an expensive one for farmers — producing methane instead of milk or beef means that 10% of cattle feed is wasted. |
How many farting cows should I put in the back of my Tacoma to get free gas for it to run on?
_________________ Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1579 Location: Penna
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
3, unless you are having a good day, then you might be able to get by with 2. _________________ 8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|