Those Pesky Calculations Again
- coaledsweat
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 13766
- Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
- Location: Guilford, Connecticut
- Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
- Coal Size/Type: Pea
Seems like they goofed on cement CO2.
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-cement-materials-overlooked-substantial-carbon.html#jCp
http://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-cement-materials-overlooked-substantial-carbon.html#jCp
- coaledsweat
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 13766
- Joined: Fri. Oct. 27, 2006 2:05 pm
- Location: Guilford, Connecticut
- Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
- Coal Size/Type: Pea
- BunkerdCaddis
- Member
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun. Jan. 18, 2015 10:26 am
- Location: SW Lancaster County
- Stoker Coal Boiler: Bairmatic-Van Wert
- Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Van Wert VW85H
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: Saey Hanover II working when I feel the desire, Waterford 105 out on vacation, Surdiac Gotha hiding somewhere
- Coal Size/Type: pea/nut/rice/stove-anthracite, nut/stove bit when I feel the urge
- Other Heating: oil fired hydronic
Dang Climate Change isn't very predictable... we need more money spent on gov't research to get to the bottom of this...
- SWPaDon
- Member
- Posts: 9857
- Joined: Sun. Nov. 24, 2013 12:05 pm
- Location: Southwest Pa.
- Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1600M
- Coal Size/Type: Bituminous
- Other Heating: Oil furnace
Heres some 'non-government' figures:
Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/24/antarctic-sea-ice-has-not-shrunk-in-100-years/
Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/24/antarctic-sea-ice-has-not-shrunk-in-100-years/
according to nasa ( goverment) it even got bigger at least Antartica
but the Arctic
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/1/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm
but the Arctic
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/1/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm
-
- Member
- Posts: 8601
- Joined: Sat. May. 24, 2008 4:26 pm
- Location: Chester, NY
- Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: LL AnthraKing 180K, Pocono110K,KStokr 90K, DVC
- Hand Fed Coal Stove: Invader 2
- Baseburners & Antiques: Wings Best, Glenwood #8(x2) Herald 116x
- Coal Size/Type: Rice,
- Other Heating: Heating Oil CH, Toyotomi OM 22
Those pesky facts again... it'a not man , it's not CO2, it's the sun ... read everything done by Piers Corbyn.
pierce corbin..
thanks for having me look into him
interesting fellow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
thanks for having me look into him
interesting fellow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
- SWPaDon
- Member
- Posts: 9857
- Joined: Sun. Nov. 24, 2013 12:05 pm
- Location: Southwest Pa.
- Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1600M
- Coal Size/Type: Bituminous
- Other Heating: Oil furnace
Here's a little trivia for you:joeblack5 wrote:according to nasa ( goverment) it even got bigger at least Antartica
but the Arctic
Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/1/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-antarctic-sea-ice.htm
Are Undersea Volcanoes a Cause of Melting Sea Ice?
http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/Are-Undersea-Volcanoes-a-Cause-of-Melting-Sea-Ice-2014-09-11
I'm certain there's a few things in there that they 'forgot' to mention. Oh......wait, the actual technology to research it has only been available for a few years..........yet they know everything there is to know about the Earth and warming/cooling
- SWPaDon
- Member
- Posts: 9857
- Joined: Sun. Nov. 24, 2013 12:05 pm
- Location: Southwest Pa.
- Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1600M
- Coal Size/Type: Bituminous
- Other Heating: Oil furnace
Here's some more interesting info:
Seismic monitor:
http://ds.iris.edu/seismon/
Now lets compare that to a picture of known volcanoes around the world. Look closely around Alaska, most of the volcanic activity is undersea.
And if you look closely at the seismic monitor above, you will notice that the area in question has been active for the past 2 weeks and the past 5 years.
Another thing to take note of, is the line in the picture I posted, just happens to be the Pacific Tectonic Plate.
Seismic monitor:
http://ds.iris.edu/seismon/
Now lets compare that to a picture of known volcanoes around the world. Look closely around Alaska, most of the volcanic activity is undersea.
And if you look closely at the seismic monitor above, you will notice that the area in question has been active for the past 2 weeks and the past 5 years.
Another thing to take note of, is the line in the picture I posted, just happens to be the Pacific Tectonic Plate.
Nice info,
And indeed the researchers mentioned that this would contribute to the melting of the arctic ice but also that the effect has to be better studied and that that by itself is not enough to explain the melting.
Regarding the hope of clobal cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
If my reality would see future cooling for a very long time... iceage.... then I certainly would not burn my fire wood today.. might run out before winter is over.
So better leave it in the ground and start insulating your house.
And indeed the researchers mentioned that this would contribute to the melting of the arctic ice but also that the effect has to be better studied and that that by itself is not enough to explain the melting.
Regarding the hope of clobal cooling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
If my reality would see future cooling for a very long time... iceage.... then I certainly would not burn my fire wood today.. might run out before winter is over.
So better leave it in the ground and start insulating your house.
- SWPaDon
- Member
- Posts: 9857
- Joined: Sun. Nov. 24, 2013 12:05 pm
- Location: Southwest Pa.
- Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1600M
- Coal Size/Type: Bituminous
- Other Heating: Oil furnace
Your right in that undersea volcanoes 'may not' be the only cause. But one needs to consider the wind along with that because the wind can pick up the heated air and carry it inland for a long ways.joeblack5 wrote:And indeed the researchers mentioned that this would contribute to the melting of the arctic ice but also that the effect has to be better studied and that that by itself is not enough to explain the melting.
The point is, there is too much that we humans 'don't know', to definitively say one way or another. Seems like almost every week now, reports come out about things the scientists never knew before. Just like with satellite observations, while it's great that we have them, we have only had them for a very short time span. The antarctic expedition that I posted earlier is a good example, it's the best information that we actually have, because NASA and NOAA are constantly 'changing the data' to try and prove something, therefore they can't be trusted as they've become politicized.
- Sunny Boy
- Member
- Posts: 25707
- Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
- Location: Central NY
- Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
- Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
- Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
- Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace
Some of the "scientists" that predict glo-bull warming are the same ones that were pushing the coming of another ice age back in the 1970's.
And that's not all they failed at. Of all the dire consequence deadlines and calamities predicted, not one has happened. Not, "no more snow in England", not, "an increase in hurricanes and tornados in the USA" and Gore's "climate tipping point" came and went years ago. In fact just the opposite of their predictions has happened - we've had fewer hurricanes and tornados since they made those "settled science" predictions.
Seems the only thing they get right is causing fear and anxiety to help them keep their government and UN funded jobs.
Paul
And that's not all they failed at. Of all the dire consequence deadlines and calamities predicted, not one has happened. Not, "no more snow in England", not, "an increase in hurricanes and tornados in the USA" and Gore's "climate tipping point" came and went years ago. In fact just the opposite of their predictions has happened - we've had fewer hurricanes and tornados since they made those "settled science" predictions.
Seems the only thing they get right is causing fear and anxiety to help them keep their government and UN funded jobs.
Paul