Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists

[BOHICA]

2 minutes ago, Catman said:

Fuck me.  I believe what you're tring to refer to is population density. Which is an important issue but totally unrelated.

 Let me reiterate this fact: 1/3 of all farmland is used to grow crops for livestcock. Then there is grazing land.  these factors ts are well documented.  I already posted a link. Unlike you I'm not making things up, I'm referring to documented well reviewed, accurate research.

There is really only 1 argument you or any other denier has is science in general is some kind of illuminati.

http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pdf

Every time you actively grow something it sequester carbon.  Old mature plants dont sequester carbon at the rate growing plants....  so just the need of growing to feed livestock sequesters all the carbon it uses to raise the cow.  A cow doesnt produce more carbon it uses carbon on the earth is a finite material that we dont magicslly produce more of...

see i eat a steak.  Which is  a carbon then i go poop and that poop goes into my septic system and locked away from the atmosphere and doesnt create warming.  Eventually my poop over time will be possibly made into oil....

see in your city you eat some brussel sprouts.  You go poop and it goes into a large community poop system above ground and processed with harsh chemicals and gases from the holding ponds and escape into the atmosphere warming the planet.  The power needed to pump your shit throught out your skyscrapes is astronomical as well.  Your not moving water up to the top of a skyscraper to flush your poop for free.  Many hp electric motors pump that water up 100's of feet just to flush your poop too street level pumps and systems that take it to a holding pond to evaporate toxins into the atmosphere....  see a cow poops on the grass it eats as it is fertilizer and ends up on my plate to have me lock all that carbon away in the earth for a very long time!!!

 

nevermind how much heat a city release into the atmosphere.

[02sled]

Those high density urban centres = good for the environment but those cows in the field = badAs I drive home from the cottage toward Toronto I see this huge wonderful yellow dome of haze over the city. Every summer there are smog alerts where people with respiratory problems are advised to cut activities or even stay indoors. As I drove from Lake Forest California to Laguna Beach I could taste the air. So far all much better for the environment than cows in a field. As I drove back toward Los Angeles to catch a flight home I saw a similar yellow haze dome over the city only much larger than Toronto and I could taste that air as well. 

As for growing vegetables on the apartment roof in the high density urban setting, it figures you would like that. Those would be the last vegetables I would ever want to eat.

Data centres in major urban centres, particularly those in proximity of major highways test their air quality regularly and filter their air coming in to screen air borne toxins that would corrode circuit boards. But hey let's worry about cattle farts. After all fewer cattle in NA will solve world hunger don't you know.  

[Catman]

16 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Every time you actively grow something it sequester carbon.  Old mature plants dont sequester carbon at the rate growing plants....  so just the need of growing to feed livestock sequesters all the carbon it uses to raise the cow.  A cow doesnt produce more carbon it uses carbon on the earth is a finite material that we dont magicslly produce more of...

see i eat a steak.  Which is  a carbon then i go poop and that poop goes into my septic system and locked away from the atmosphere and doesnt create warming.  Eventually my poop over time will be possibly made into oil....

see in your city you eat some brussel sprouts.  You go poop and it goes into a large community poop system above ground and processed with harsh chemicals and gases from the holding ponds and escape into the atmosphere warming the planet.  The power needed to pump your shit throught out your skyscrapes is astronomical as well.  Your not moving water up to the top of a skyscraper to flush your poop for free.  Many hp electric motors pump that water up 100's of feet just to flush your poop too street level pumps and systems that take it to a holding pond to evaporate toxins into the atmosphere....  see a cow poops on the grass it eats as it is fertilizer and ends up on my plate to have me lock all that carbon away in the earth for a very long time!!!

 

nevermind how much heat a city release into the atmosphere.

Where is the scientific proof to back up this "theory"?

You just made that up lmfao 

[BOHICA]

Just now, Catman said:

Where is the scientific proof to back up this "theory"?

You just made that up lmfao 

Pumping water up to flush your poop and pump it to the holding pond?  Water weighs 62.4 lbs per cubic foot.  It takes massive amounts of energy to pump your water to the roof to water the tomatoe plant.  You need to make massive holes in copper rich ore country just to make the windings in electric motors to pump that water to send poop on its way or water a plant.

[Catman]

36 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Those high density urban centres = good for the environment but those cows in the field = badAs I drive home from the cottage toward Toronto I see this huge wonderful yellow dome of haze over the city. Every summer there are smog alerts where people with respiratory problems are advised to cut activities or even stay indoors. As I drove from Lake Forest California to Laguna Beach I could taste the air. So far all much better for the environment than cows in a field. As I drove back toward Los Angeles to catch a flight home I saw a similar yellow haze dome over the city only much larger than Toronto and I could taste that air as well. 

As for growing vegetables on the apartment roof in the high density urban setting, it figures you would like that. Those would be the last vegetables I would ever want to eat.

Data centres in major urban centres, particularly those in proximity of major highways test their air quality regularly and filter their air coming in to screen air borne toxins that would corrode circuit boards. But hey let's worry about cattle farts. After all fewer cattle in NA will solve world hunger don't you know.  

A. Learn to read and

B. Great, your fucking drive home from the cottage now disproves thousands of scientists and study for over 100 years.

C. your friends cattle ranch is 25-50% less size than recommended

D. you're an idiot

 

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Catman

[BOHICA]

13 minutes ago, Catman said:

Where is the scientific proof to back up this "theory"?

You just made that up lmfao 

Made up what???  the amount of energy expended to pump a liquid that weighs 62.4 lb per cubic foot through out buildings.  It takes massive holes in the earth just to get all the copper needed for the windings of the electric motors utilized in a sky scraper.

[Catman]

23 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Pumping water up to flush your poop and pump it to the holding pond?  Water weighs 62.4 lbs per cubic foot.  It takes massive amounts of energy to pump your water to the roof to water the tomatoe plant.  You need to make massive holes in copper rich ore country just to make the windings in electric motors to pump that water to send poop on its way or water a plant.

Garbage and human excrement is a big issue but that doesn't disprove anything I've been talking about.

Livestock production of methane in particular is a far greater issue.

Human waste represents 3-5% of total  green house  gas emissions, far less than the 25% for animal agriculture or the 15% from transportation based based emissions.

http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/spc/Waste&ClimateChange/Waste&ClimateChange.pdf

 

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

Edited December 12, 2016 by Catman

[BOHICA]

11 minutes ago, Catman said:

Garbage and human excrement is a big issue but that doesn't disprove anything I've been talking about.

Livestock production of methane in particular is a far greater issue.

Human waste represents 3-5% of total  green house  gas emissions, far less than the 25% for animal agriculture or the 15% from transportation based based emissions.

http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/spc/Waste&ClimateChange/Waste&ClimateChange.pdf

 

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

In the US agriculture including livestock and human food other then livestock is only 9% of US global warming emissions

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[Rod]

Dammit it's cold here 

[ckf]

2 minutes ago, Sludgey said:

Dammit it's cold here 

Warm here tonight compared to last night. Last night at this time it was -2F, 15F now.

[Rod]

6 minutes ago, ckf said:

Warm here tonight compared to last night. Last night at this time it was -2F, 15F now.

Was -30 the other night. 

[02sled]

34 minutes ago, Catman said:

A. Learn to read and

B. Great, your fucking drive home from the cottage now disproves thousands of scientists and study for over 100 years.

C. your friends cattle ranch is 25-50% less size than recommended

D. you're an idiot

 

 

I read just fine. You however are such a mental midget it is almost painful to read your imaginary BS numbers you pull out of your head. 

Your stupidity continues to shine. Thousands of scientists didn't start to study climate change over 100 years ago. Read what you tried to say. 

You need to quit relying on crap that you think you understand but don't. Recommended size for cattle based on where? Texas, Ontario, Alberta? You do realize there are huge variables on raising cattle but then again likely not. How fertile is the pasture they are turned out in and how fast does it grow? How rocky is it? Rocky fields have less to eat. Does the pasture get seeded regularly? Is it a feed lot operation rather than pasture. Then given it's about 14 or 15 months from calving to market with most calving happening very early in the year there will be a lot of time when the pasture simply doesn't have any growth and is even covered in snow. Could be why they rely on hay as well. But of course the mental midget you are knows better than the person raising beef for somewhere between 30 to 40 years.

There are lots of scientists that have their own proof this global warming is bunk. The difference is they aren't after funding to keep the employed researching solutions for global warming. The more someone sells the gw theory the more money they can get 

[ckf]

4 minutes ago, Sludgey said:

Was -30 the other night. 

Speak American, what's that in Fahrenheit

[Rod]

23 minutes ago, ckf said:

Speak American, what's that in Fahrenheit

Very cold 

[ckf]

Just now, Sludgey said:

Very cold 

[sledderj]

19 minutes ago, Sludgey said:

Very cold 

 

It's been -22ish here but the wind has been up.  Mid -30 windchills.  

 

[02sled]

In a bit of perspective-40 C = -40 F so the very cold at -30 C would be about right 

[Catman]

1 hour ago, 02sled said:

I read just fine. You however are such a mental midget it is almost painful to read your imaginary BS numbers you pull out of your head. 

Your stupidity continues to shine. Thousands of scientists didn't start to study climate change over 100 years ago. Read what you tried to say. 

You need to quit relying on crap that you think you understand but don't. Recommended size for cattle based on where? Texas, Ontario, Alberta? You do realize there are huge variables on raising cattle but then again likely not. How fertile is the pasture they are turned out in and how fast does it grow? How rocky is it? Rocky fields have less to eat. Does the pasture get seeded regularly? Is it a feed lot operation rather than pasture. Then given it's about 14 or 15 months from calving to market with most calving happening very early in the year there will be a lot of time when the pasture simply doesn't have any growth and is even covered in snow. Could be why they rely on hay as well. But of course the mental midget you are knows better than the person raising beef for somewhere between 30 to 40 years.

There are lots of scientists that have their own proof this global warming is bunk. The difference is they aren't after funding to keep the employed researching solutions for global warming. The more someone sells the gw theory the more money they can get 

Since you have such a hard time comprehending I'll break it out point blank for you

- thousands of scientists study climate change

- climate change has been studied for over 100 years in science.

- the specifics of your questions are fucking irrelevant. Some cattle are grass fed organic, some are grain fed factory style, and lots inbetween.  the fact is it takes 1.5 to 2 acres to raise and feed a cow calf pair according to the usda. I'm certain some can use more and some use less and it all depends on where they are what kind of farm they want and are able to run. Your example using 1 friend's ranch is totally fucking irrelevant! fuck you're dumb!

- which scientists?  where is their funding from?

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1097070.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjwj5Gn9e3QAhUCRiYKHSbfBtAQFggvMAE&usg=AFQjCNG_0kCSxTEJj9_29XVnhDZ6L6fMbA&sig2=BYFtLTlSFtMBtjoCjiakIA

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/grass-fed-beef-is-just-as-bad-for-the-environment-as-grain-fed/&ved=0ahUKEwjJhb7h8-3QAhUI-GMKHSRUAWoQFghJMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGzfC2LtfIIx9fg-LTyggD94Q2SHw&sig2=xiYwsDUk75bNXwF0Rhzpng

 

 

[ArcticCrusher]

8 hours ago, ckf said:

Speak American, what's that in Fahrenheit

About the same.

[ArcticCrusher]

6 hours ago, Catman said:

Since you have such a hard time comprehending I'll break it out point blank for you

- thousands of scientists study climate change

- climate change has been studied for over 100 years in science.

- the specifics of your questions are fucking irrelevant. Some cattle are grass fed organic, some are grain fed factory style, and lots inbetween.  the fact is it takes 1.5 to 2 acres to raise and feed a cow calf pair according to the usda. I'm certain some can use more and some use less and it all depends on where they are what kind of farm they want and are able to run. Your example using 1 friend's ranch is totally fucking irrelevant! fuck you're dumb!

- which scientists?  where is their funding from?

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1097070.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjwj5Gn9e3QAhUCRiYKHSbfBtAQFggvMAE&usg=AFQjCNG_0kCSxTEJj9_29XVnhDZ6L6fMbA&sig2=BYFtLTlSFtMBtjoCjiakIA

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/grass-fed-beef-is-just-as-bad-for-the-environment-as-grain-fed/&ved=0ahUKEwjJhb7h8-3QAhUI-GMKHSRUAWoQFghJMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGzfC2LtfIIx9fg-LTyggD94Q2SHw&sig2=xiYwsDUk75bNXwF0Rhzpng

 

 

You need to go go back much farther than 150 years to study the effects of climate change.  Perhaps we should start shooting citiods, since they seem to be the main culprits according to the phD scientists who are begging for grant money.  Lol.

[02sled]

7 hours ago, Catman said:

Since you have such a hard time comprehending I'll break it out point blank for you

- thousands of scientists study climate change

- climate change has been studied for over 100 years in science.

- the specifics of your questions are fucking irrelevant. Some cattle are grass fed organic, some are grain fed factory style, and lots inbetween.  the fact is it takes 1.5 to 2 acres to raise and feed a cow calf pair according to the usda. I'm certain some can use more and some use less and it all depends on where they are what kind of farm they want and are able to run. Your example using 1 friend's ranch is totally fucking irrelevant! fuck you're dumb!

- which scientists?  where is their funding from?

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1097070.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjwj5Gn9e3QAhUCRiYKHSbfBtAQFggvMAE&usg=AFQjCNG_0kCSxTEJj9_29XVnhDZ6L6fMbA&sig2=BYFtLTlSFtMBtjoCjiakIA

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/grass-fed-beef-is-just-as-bad-for-the-environment-as-grain-fed/&ved=0ahUKEwjJhb7h8-3QAhUI-GMKHSRUAWoQFghJMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGzfC2LtfIIx9fg-LTyggD94Q2SHw&sig2=xiYwsDUk75bNXwF0Rhzpng

 

 

Damn but you really are beyond stupid. Climate change has been studied for over 100 years. Yeah show me the scientific reports on man made climate change prior to 1916. Or are you going to claim that studying the ice age where most of North America was under 1.5 km thick ice qualifies. It sure wasn't man made but definitely extreme and then the subsequent thaw. All because of carbon right.

Cycles in nature aren't measured in decades or even a hundred years. Try thousands of years. They have been happening since time began and will continue no matter what. If you think we can change that you are insane.

So the scientists claimed man was destroying the ozone layer due to our carbon footprint and causing global warming. But wait, suddenly there's an unexplained miracle, the ozone layer is healing itself. The scientists who were convinced of the cause couldn't explain the cure. So now it's not global warming it's just climate change and no more mention of the ozone layer like we were being flooded with before.

Of course a blanket statement by a US government agency is the gospel for all situations. There are always variables. There are cattle operations where they never see a pasture. How can that be? Your bible says it isn't so.

Tell me again how reducing the number of cattle in North America is going to solve world hunger. Oh that's right. You haven't. You just said it would but never suggested how. 

What an idiot. Drink some more Kool-Aid 

[Catman]

1 hour ago, 02sled said:

Damn but you really are beyond stupid. Climate change has been studied for over 100 years. Yeah show me the scientific reports on man made climate change prior to 1916. Or are you going to claim that studying the ice age where most of North America was under 1.5 km thick ice qualifies. It sure wasn't man made but definitely extreme and then the subsequent thaw. All because of carbon right.

Cycles in nature aren't measured in decades or even a hundred years. Try thousands of years. They have been happening since time began and will continue no matter what. If you think we can change that you are insane.

So the scientists claimed man was destroying the ozone layer due to our carbon footprint and causing global warming. But wait, suddenly there's an unexplained miracle, the ozone layer is healing itself. The scientists who were convinced of the cause couldn't explain the cure. So now it's not global warming it's just climate change and no more mention of the ozone layer like we were being flooded with before.

Of course a blanket statement by a US government agency is the gospel for all situations. There are always variables. There are cattle operations where they never see a pasture. How can that be? Your bible says it isn't so.

Tell me again how reducing the number of cattle in North America is going to solve world hunger. Oh that's right. You haven't. You just said it would but never suggested how. 

What an idiot. Drink some more Kool-Aid 

In as early as 1896 Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius published works on greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. A Nobel Prize winner and later director of the Nobel institute.

Yes the ozone layer appears to be "healing", which is great and the reason is simple; we banned cfc's decades ago which was the primary driver of ozone layer depletion.  This doesn't change the fact man made greenhouse gases are trapped in our atmosphere causing global warming and climage change.

I've given you all the facts on livestock and the land used for not only their grazing but their feed and the water they use yet  you continue to ignore these facts because you're too thick headed and stupid to belive it's possible, let alone read anything I've posted which backs up these fact or better stull, research it yourself. 

Keep calling me dumb, please!   you're fucking retard!  read something! 

 

[Catman]

1 hour ago, ArcticCrusher said:

You need to go go back much farther than 150 years to study the effects of climate change.  Perhaps we should start shooting citiods, since they seem to be the main culprits according to the phD scientists who are begging for grant money.  Lol.

No fucking shit retard, learn to read; scientists have been studying the topic for over 100 years.

 

[Snoslinger]

2 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

About the same.

not really...

 

[ArcticCrusher]

15 minutes ago, Catman said:

No fucking shit retard, learn to read; scientists have been studying the topic for over 100 years.

 

You mean the same scientists who have been completely wrong over the past 75 years with their models?  Those ones?

3 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

not really...

 

Close enough.  Its fucking cold.