Ice Loss

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Ice Loss

Ice Loss15-09-2017 23:42
L8112 ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	I know the climate change deniers on here will be outraged that I am using facts and citing where these figures are coming from, but we live in the era of Donald Trump and 'fake news', there is very little anyone can say to convince you otherwise. You cling to your belief system because it is a part of your identity. Our education system has failed, as evidenced in these forums. Back to the topic at hand.. It is important to note that 'Climate Change' is not monitored via surface and air temperatures or even water temperatures for long term trends in Chaotic data. Ice loss is the definitive measure of long term trends in global climate change. Thus, the arguments you hear going back and forth on the news about which way the air temperature trends have wandered this or that way are useless pandering to distract you. This typically comes from individuals ignorant of planetary climate models, in this case, Earth, which has been well broken down into various systems all of which are interdependent. The most important of these is the thermohaline system, which includes the Gulf Stream for instance. The Gulf Stream rides for thousands of miles atop the surface of the ocean carrying warm current to Western Europe, deposits warm air, submerges to thousands of meters, and takes several decades as very dense cold water to makes its way back to the Gulf. Thus, there is a delay of nearly half a century in the Gulf Stream alone if there is a significant change to the thermohaline system. One who is ignorant, and merely looking at surface temperature maps isn't going to make this departure apparent, and favoring oil prices, cry hoax. Even sea temperature isn't considered until you map out the differential between the surface and the bottom, thousands of meters below the surface, which is not done to date. A thermometer on a buoy doesn't do it. In climate change we monitor ice, its recession and/or relocation. When ice melts, the albedo, the reflectivity of Earth changes, causing a runaway effect, which is sudden, drastic, and changes Earth's currents of hot and cool flows. This has happened before, 650 million years ago, and caused a Snowball Earth effect leading to a complete freezing of the entire planet. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain more than 99 percent of the freshwater ice on Earth. The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends almost 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), roughly the area of the contiguous United States and Mexico combined. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice. The Greenland Ice Sheet extends about 1.7 million square kilometers (656,000 square miles), covering most of the island of Greenland, three times the size of Texas. The Arctic has lost 40% of its year round ice. The Antarctic, which represents 91% of the Earth's ice, has lost 20% of its ice. That figure, however, is still in debate as the overall shape of Antarctica has shifted, representing a shift in the ice pattern. The Earth's surface ice on land can be divided into two categories, excluding seasonal snow: These are the three large ice sheets of Greenland, West Antarctica, and East Antarctica and the aggregate of all other glaciers and ice caps, including those surrounding the ice sheets but not connected to them. The Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets are by far the largest category, containing 12 per cent and 87 per cent of land ice volume, respectively. Glaciers and ice caps contain only about 1 per cent of global land ice volume. In sea level equivalent terms, if completely melted, Antarctica, Greenland, and the category of glaciers and ice caps would raise sea level by approximately 57 meters, 8 meters, and 0.7 meters, respectively. However, while the glaciers and ice caps are a very small source of potential sea-level rise, their rate of contribution to sea level currently exceeds the rates of both Antarctica and Greenland. The volume of glaciers and ice caps is poorly constrained by observations, with a range of estimates of total volume varying by more than a factor of five (Meier et al. 2007, Pfeffer et al. 2008). From the National Snow and Ice Data Center (last updated November 2015) InSAR observations from 1992 to 2006 mapped the ice flow for most of the Antarctic coastline, and detected different patterns of ice flux into the ocean in East and West Antarctica. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses led to a near-zero loss of 4 ± 61 gigatons per year. In West Antarctica, more widespread glacier losses increased ice sheet loss by 59 percent over a decade. In 2006, the estimated loss was 132 ± 60 gigatons. Along the Antarctic Peninsula, losses increased by 140 percent, to 60 ± 46 gigatons in 2006 (Rignot et al. 2008). Rignot and colleagues published a high-resolution digital mosaic of Antarctic ice flow speed in 2011 (Rignot et al. 2011). Based in InSAR measurements acquired between 2007 and 2009 the mosaic was compiled from 900 satellite tracks and more than 3,000 radar data orbits. The map of ice flow speed revealed a complex pattern where fast glacier flow near the coast extended well inland in narrow tributary bands. The next year, Rignot and Mouginot published another comprehensive, high-resolution map of Greenland based in radar interferometry data from 2008 and 2009 showing that Greenland's 100 fastest glaciers drain 66 percent of the ice sheet area, and marine-terminating glaciers drain 88 percent of the ice sheet area (Rignot and Mouginot 2012). West Antarctica has three major drainage basins where glaciers reach the ocean: the Ross Sea Embayment, the Weddell Sea Embayment, and the Amundsen Sea Embayment. A study of ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment used ice-velocity measurements derived from Landsat and radar interferometry, and previously documented ice thickness to estimate the total discharge from 1973 to 2013. The study found that ice discharge increased by 77 percent since 1973, half of that occurring from 2003 to 2009 (Mouginot et al. 2014). From 1997 to 2003, volumetric methods showed that average loss of ice in Greenland was 80 ± 12 cubic kilometers per year. This is compared to roughly 60 cubic kilometers per year for 1993 through 1994. About half the increased ice loss was from higher summer melt. The rest of the loss resulted from the velocities of some glaciers outstripping those needed to balance upstream snow accumulation (Krabill et al. 2004). Later research showed Antarctica and Greenland have both lost overall mass at about 120 gigatons of ice per year. The suspected triggers for accelerated ice discharge on both continents include surface warning and melt runoff, ocean warming, and circulation changes. Over the 21st century, the team predicted, ice loss would counteract snowfall gains predicted by some climate models (Shepherd and Wingham 2007). Recently an improved radar altimetry study confirms and extends earlier measurements (Flament and Rémy 2012). The European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 mission has enhanced Antarctic ice sheet monitoring by including areas closer to the poles than earlier satellites, and by acquiring better data in moderately sloping areas, including ice sheet margins where most of the ice loss occurs. CryoSat-2 observations taken between November 2010 and September 2013 indicate annual ice sheet mass losses of 134 ± 27 gigatons in West Antarctica, 3 ± 36 gigatons in East Antarctica, and 23 ± 18 gigatons on the Antarctic Peninsula. The Amundsen Sea showed the largest signal of ice loss (McMillan et al. 2014). Greenland normally experiences a quick melt and refreeze, in July 2012 97% of Greenland experienced a long term thaw. The sum Greenland loss is approximately 30%. The global total sum current loss of permanent ice is approximately 50% between Antarctica and Greenland of the 99% global scale and irreversible.
16-09-2017 02:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	L8112 wrote: I know the climate change deniers on here will be outraged that I am using facts and citing where these figures are coming from, but we live in the era of Donald Trump and 'fake news', there is very little anyone can say to convince you otherwise. You cling to your belief system because it is a part of your identity. Our education system has failed, as evidenced in these forums. Okay. We've now established that you don't like Trump and have decided to use an inversion fallacy concerning the news. L8112 wrote: Back to the topic at hand.. Now back to the Church of Global Warming scripture. L8112 wrote: It is important to note that 'Climate Change' is not monitored via surface and air temperatures or even water temperatures for long term trends in Chaotic data. Okay. So you can't use surface, air, or water temperatures. I'll discard any attempt of your use of them in the future. L8112 wrote: Ice loss is the definitive measure of long term trends in global climate change. Oops. You just used surface and water temperature. Discarded. L8112 wrote: Thus, the arguments you hear going back and forth on the news about which way the air temperature trends have wandered this or that way are useless pandering to distract you. Here we actually agree. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. L8112 wrote: This typically comes from individuals ignorant of planetary climate models, Models aren't data. L8112 wrote: in this case, Earth, which has been well broken down into various systems all of which are interdependent. It doesn't matter how you 'break it down'. Models are not data. L8112 wrote: The most important of these is the thermohaline system, which includes the Gulf Stream for instance. The Gulf Stream rides for thousands of miles atop the surface of the ocean carrying warm current to Western Europe, deposits warm air, submerges to thousands of meters, and takes several decades as very dense cold water to makes its way back to the Gulf. Thus, there is a delay of nearly half a century in the Gulf Stream alone if there is a significant change to the thermohaline system. One who is ignorant, and merely looking at surface temperature maps isn't going to make this departure apparent, and favoring oil prices, cry hoax. Ah. Back to a reference based on a bad movie. Too bad you don't know what causes ocean currents to flow in the first place. L8112 wrote: Even sea temperature isn't considered until you map out the differential between the surface and the bottom, thousands of meters below the surface, which is not done to date. Actually, it has been done. Robotic instruments and deep-sea submersibles have done it. L8112 wrote: A thermometer on a buoy doesn't do it. It doesn't need to. Water temperature much deeper than 30m is pretty constant. [quote]L8112 wrote: In climate change we monitor ice, its recession and/or relocation. Oops. There you go again using surface measurements. Discarded. L8112 wrote: When ice melts, the albedo, the reflectivity of Earth changes, Okay. So what else is new? L8112 wrote: causing a runaway effect, Ah. Using the unstable argument routine. Instability in a system is the only way to cause a 'runaway' effect. If the system were unstable, it would ALREADY HAVE HAPPENED. It would not have returned to where it is, either! L8112 wrote: which is sudden, drastic, and changes Earth's currents of hot and cool flows. Oddly enough, emissivity does not effect the ocean currents. Water is water. L8112 wrote: This has happened before, If it did, then HOW DID IT GET BACK TO AN UNSTABLE POINT??? L8112 wrote: 650 million years ago, You do not know the conditions of 650 million years ago. No one was there to measure it. Are you referring to the ice ages? The last one ended about 11700 years ago, if you assume the orbital calculations to be accurate (so far they are). L8112 wrote: and caused a Snowball Earth effect leading to a complete freezing of the entire planet. Not even the ice ages freeze the entire planet. L8112 wrote: The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain more than 99 percent of the freshwater ice on Earth. ALL ice is freshwater, twit. Aren't you forgetting about northern Canada? Siberia? The Arctic? The tops of mountains? Seasonal snow? Seasons in general? L8112 wrote: The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends almost 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), roughly the area of the contiguous United States and Mexico combined. Include a good chunk of Canada and I'll believe you. L8112 wrote: The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometers (7.2 million cubic miles) of ice. No one knows the volume of ice in Antarctica or anywhere else. Argument from randU. L8112 wrote: The Greenland Ice Sheet extends about 1.7 million square kilometers (656,000 square miles), covering most of the island of Greenland, three times the size of Texas. That's about right for the size of Greenland. L8112 wrote: The Arctic has lost 40% of its year round ice. Argument from randU. Not necessarily an indication of global warming either. Did you know there a volcanic range under the Arctic sea that has recently been active? L8112 wrote: The Antarctic, which represents 91% of the Earth's ice, has lost 20% of its ice. Argument from randU. These numbers don't mean anything. 20% of WHAT? From when to when? L8112 wrote: That figure, however, is still in debate as the overall shape of Antarctica has shifted, representing a shift in the ice pattern. The continent has not changed shape or size recently, dumbass. L8112 wrote: The Earth's surface ice on land can be divided into two categories, excluding seasonal snow: These are the three large ice sheets of Greenland, West Antarctica, and East Antarctica and the aggregate of all other glaciers and ice caps, including those surrounding the ice sheets but not connected to them. Why are you ignoring seasonal snow? Doesn't the seasonal snow increase in one hemisphere while the other hemisphere is moving into spring? You also seem to be ignoring Russia. That's a pretty good sized land mass. Does it not count? How about Canada? Northern Canada is a pretty good sized land mass too. Does it not count? What about the Continental divide in North and South America? Does it not count? What about the Alps, or any other mountain ranges? L8112 wrote: The Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets are by far the largest category, containing 12 per cent and 87 per cent of land ice volume, respectively. Glaciers and ice caps contain only about 1 per cent of global land ice volume. In sea level equivalent terms, if completely melted, Antarctica, Greenland, and the category of glaciers and ice caps would raise sea level by approximately 57 meters, 8 meters, and 0.7 meters, respectively. Argument from randU. You don't know the volume of either. You also are apparently not away that melting sea ice (such as around Antarctica) doesn't change sea level, or even the estimated amount of water in the worlds oceans, or the fact that melting ice does not have to reach the sea, or the sheer amount of energy that would have be added to melt that much ice. L8112 wrote: However, while the glaciers and ice caps are a very small source of potential sea-level rise, their rate of contribution to sea level currently exceeds the rates of both Antarctica and Greenland. The Arctic ice cap is incapable of changing sea level at all. It is floating ice. L8112 wrote: The volume of glaciers and ice caps is poorly constrained by observations, with a range of estimates of total volume varying by more than a factor of five (Meier et al. 2007, Pfeffer et al. 2008). From the National Snow and Ice Data Center (last updated November 2015) Now come the wild guesses by various people to be used as 'data'. L8112 wrote: InSAR observations from 1992 to 2006 mapped the ice flow for most of the Antarctic coastline, and detected different patterns of ice flux into the ocean in East and West Antarctica. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses led to a near-zero loss of 4 ± 61 gigatons per year. In West Antarctica, more widespread glacier losses increased ice sheet loss by 59 percent over a decade. In 2006, the estimated loss was 132 ± 60 gigatons. Along the Antarctic Peninsula, losses increased by 140 percent, to 60 ± 46 gigatons in 2006 (Rignot et al. 2008). Another estimate (guess). L8112 wrote: Rignot and colleagues published a high-resolution digital mosaic of Antarctic ice flow speed in 2011 (Rignot et al. 2011). Based in InSAR measurements acquired between 2007 and 2009 the mosaic was compiled from 900 satellite tracks and more than 3,000 radar data orbits. The map of ice flow speed revealed a complex pattern where fast glacier flow near the coast extended well inland in narrow tributary bands. The next year, Rignot and Mouginot published another comprehensive, high-resolution map of Greenland based in radar interferometry data from 2008 and 2009 showing that Greenland's 100 fastest glaciers drain 66 percent of the ice sheet area, and marine-terminating glaciers drain 88 percent of the ice sheet area (Rignot and Mouginot 2012). Another estimate (guess). L8112 wrote: West Antarctica has three major drainage basins where glaciers reach the ocean: the Ross Sea Embayment, the Weddell Sea Embayment, and the Amundsen Sea Embayment. A study of ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment used ice-velocity measurements derived from Landsat and radar interferometry, and previously documented ice thickness to estimate the total discharge from 1973 to 2013. The study found that ice discharge increased by 77 percent since 1973, half of that occurring from 2003 to 2009 (Mouginot et al. 2014). Yeah...due to increasing ice in the Antarctic. L8112 wrote: From 1997 to 2003, volumetric methods showed that average loss of ice in Greenland was 80 ± 12 cubic kilometers per year. This is compared to roughly 60 cubic kilometers per year for 1993 through 1994. About half the increased ice loss was from higher summer melt. The rest of the loss resulted from the velocities of some glaciers outstripping those needed to balance upstream snow accumulation (Krabill et al. 2004). Later research showed Antarctica and Greenland have both lost overall mass at about 120 gigatons of ice per year. The suspected triggers for accelerated ice discharge on both continents include surface warning and melt runoff, ocean warming, and circulation changes. Over the 21st century, the team predicted, ice loss would counteract snowfall gains predicted by some climate models (Shepherd and Wingham 2007). Recently an improved radar altimetry study confirms and extends earlier measurements (Flament and Rémy 2012). Flow is not loss. Flow is flow. You are completely ignoring the ice gained on the continent of Greenland. L8112 wrote: The European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 mission has enhanced Antarctic ice sheet monitoring by including areas closer to the poles than earlier satellites, and by acquiring better data in moderately sloping areas, including ice sheet margins where most of the ice loss occurs. CryoSat-2 observations taken between November 2010 and September 2013 indicate annual ice sheet mass losses of 134 ± 27 gigatons in West Antarctica, 3 ± 36 gigatons in East Antarctica, and 23 ± 18 gigatons on the Antarctic Peninsula. The Amundsen Sea showed the largest signal of ice loss (McMillan et al. 2014). CryoSat-2 is not capable of measuring ice volume. It has some problems with its technique of measurement. It shows good promise as a usable technique, but it's not ready for prime time yet. L8112 wrote: Greenland normally experiences a quick melt and refreeze, in July 2012 97% of Greenland experienced a long term thaw. The sum Greenland loss is approximately 30%. The global total sum current loss of permanent ice is approximately 50% between Antarctica and Greenland of the 99% global scale and irreversible. Gee. Greenland still looks ice covered to me. So does Antarctica. Argument from randU. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-09-2017 02:27
L8112 ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	"Now come the wild guesses by various people to be used as 'data'." Yep you don't know ding-dong about anything related to climate science. Sorry bud, its like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a 4 year old. You don't understand, therefore its not true. That is your reasoning, pretty pathetic. You have been exposed as a pseudo intellectual. I provided open web sources backing up what I am saying, you have provided nothing, other than crying like child because you don't understand. You obviously do not know how climate models are developed, which leads me to believe you also have a very limited mathematical background. Because of this, you simply do not have the mental tools to deal with hard science, which is based upon mathematics. Edited on 16-09-2017 02:35
16-09-2017 02:48
L8112 ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	"Flow is not loss. Flow is flow. You are completely ignoring the ice gained on the continent of Greenland." Cite this, instead of pulling claims out of your ass, or at least put them in context. There are thousands of glaciers, of which only a select few have gained ice, while the vast majority have been retreating for decades. If you are talking about ice gains in greenland within the past year, you have to compare them to global ice trends over the last several decades.
16-09-2017 02:59
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	L8112 wrote: "Flow is not loss. Flow is flow. You are completely ignoring the ice gained on the continent of Greenland." Cite this, instead of pulling claims out of your ass, or at least put them in context. There are thousands of glaciers, of which only a select few have gained ice, while the vast majority have been retreating for decades. If you are talking about ice gains in greenland within the past year, you have to compare them to global ice trends over the last several decades. While nightmare is out of his depth in most cases he has made a point that you haven't addressed: If you claim that the climate is part of an unstable system it will already have destroyed itself. The entire "science" of climate change is hinging on the point that somehow it can be unstable and just accidentally fall back to a stable point. Sorry, do not call anyone else stupid when you make a claim like that. And if ONE glacier gains ice over time (Say for instance that one that Obama stood in front of in Alaska that has been advancing) your entire global warming idealism is thrown out the window.

16-09-2017 03:15
L8112 ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	"The entire "science" of climate change is hinging on the point that somehow it can be unstable and just accidentally fall back to a stable point." No, thats not what I am saying. If you take a snapshot out of say, surface and air temperatures at any given moment in time, it can appear chaotic, (not able to isolate a mathematical model out of it) when it is not compared to long term observed trends. Nature is not chaotic, you are correct. What has happened is a chaotic variable has been introduced to a non-chaotic system. This chaotic variable is human created commerce. The construct reality of Commerce is from the mind, chaotic, a few millennia old, and limited in scope to Earth. It is not part of nature. As of now there is no mathematical system that can accurately model commerce. In an attempt to find a truly random system we have looked at the distant explosions of supernovae, the falling of raindrops, all of which were found to not be 'random'. Commerce however is the exception, it is the driving force behind the chaotic collapse of earths ecosystems. Nature, which is billions of years old, non-chaotic, is restoring order by stomping on us like a bug, and so the planet will be a freeze dried sterile lifeless ball, once the extinction event is complete-non chaotic. You can kick and cry and scream that global warming is a hoax, because you get a rush over perceiving you are in the 'know' about this global conspiracy that 97% of scientists are in on...all the while the Holocene extinction continues to push forward, regardless of if you believe it is happening. 30,000 species per year... Edited on 16-09-2017 03:23
16-09-2017 06:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	L8112 wrote: "Now come the wild guesses by various people to be used as 'data'." Yep you don't know ding-dong about anything related to climate science. There is no such thing as 'climate' science. The word 'climate' is not specifiable in time. Science has no branch based on an undefined phrase such as 'climate change'. L8112 wrote: Sorry bud, its like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a 4 year old. You don't understand, therefore its not true. I understand quantum mechanics and what it does. You don't have to explain it to me. L8112 wrote: That is your reasoning, pretty pathetic. So you have decided to deny science, mathematics, and logic. Your decision to stay with scripture taught in the Church of Global Warming is already known. L8112 wrote: You have been exposed as a pseudo intellectual. Is this vague phrase meant to be another insult? L8112 wrote: I provided open web sources backing up what I am saying, Not authoritative. The news is not an authoritative source of anything but the latest gossip. You might at least try to not use newspapers as science textbooks. L8112 wrote: you have provided nothing, other than crying like child because you don't understand. Argument of the Stone. You obviously have not read any of my posts. L8112 wrote: You obviously do not know how climate models are developed, I could care less. Models are not data. They are a way to manufacture what are essentially random numbers. L8112 wrote: which leads me to believe you also have a very limited mathematical background. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that does not understand random numbers, probability math, or statistical math. L8112 wrote: Because of this, you simply do not have the mental tools to deal with hard science, Science isn't hard or soft. It simply is. L8112 wrote: which is based upon mathematics. WRONG. Science is not mathematics. Mathematics is not science. They are two completely separate things. Science is an open system. It is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Mathematics is a closed system, created by us to do certain useful tasks. Science is just the theories. It has no inherent ability to predict, only describe. Mathematics, being a closed system, has the power of prediction, and with it, the formal proof. Certain branches of mathematics lose that power of prediction because they stem from random number mathematics. That includes probability and statistics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-09-2017 06:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	L8112 wrote: "Flow is not loss. Flow is flow. You are completely ignoring the ice gained on the continent of Greenland." Cite this, instead of pulling claims out of your ass, or at least put them in context. There are thousands of glaciers, of which only a select few have gained ice, while the vast majority have been retreating for decades. If you are talking about ice gains in greenland within the past year, you have to compare them to global ice trends over the last several decades. Argument from randU. You are just making shit up again. BTW, ice is lost through sublimation as well, not just melting. I guess you are unaware of aircraft buried under the mounting ice in Greenland. One was recovered, and is still flying today. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-09-2017 06:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: L8112 wrote: "Flow is not loss. Flow is flow. You are completely ignoring the ice gained on the continent of Greenland." Cite this, instead of pulling claims out of your ass, or at least put them in context. There are thousands of glaciers, of which only a select few have gained ice, while the vast majority have been retreating for decades. If you are talking about ice gains in greenland within the past year, you have to compare them to global ice trends over the last several decades. While nightmare is out of his depth in most cases he has made a point that you haven't addressed: If you claim that the climate is part of an unstable system it will already have destroyed itself. The entire "science" of climate change is hinging on the point that somehow it can be unstable and just accidentally fall back to a stable point. Sorry, do not call anyone else stupid when you make a claim like that. And if ONE glacier gains ice over time (Say for instance that one that Obama stood in front of in Alaska that has been advancing) your entire global warming idealism is thrown out the window. Thanks for the backhanded compliment, dude. At least its better than the outright insults I've been getting from you for awhile now. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-09-2017 06:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	L8112 wrote: "The entire "science" of climate change is hinging on the point that somehow it can be unstable and just accidentally fall back to a stable point." No, thats not what I am saying. You said EXACTLY that, liar. L8112 wrote: If you take a snapshot out of say, surface and air temperatures at any given moment in time, it can appear chaotic, (not able to isolate a mathematical model out of it) when it is not compared to long term observed trends. Oooooo. Here comes your favorite buzzword! L8112 wrote: Nature is not chaotic, I don't think this word means what you think it means. L8112 wrote: you are correct. You ignored what his argument was! Argument of the Stone. L8112 wrote: What has happened is a chaotic variable has been introduced to a non-chaotic system. This chaotic variable is human created commerce. Commerce is nowhere near chaotic as nature. Commerce has known dependent variables, and a known result. That result satisfies what commerce is for. You are attempted an obtuse form of the argument of Karl Marx. This is not surprising, since the Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx. L8112 wrote: The construct reality of Commerce is from the mind, chaotic, a few millennia old, and limited in scope to Earth. So is weather, dumbass. L8112 wrote: It is not part of nature. It IS part of nature. Not only Man, but many animals have commerce. You can even teach monkeys to use money (commerce is not money). L8112 wrote: As of now there is no mathematical system that can accurately model commerce. Actually there is. Have you heard of the Austrian Economic theory? It quite accurately predicts what will happen and how prices are set in free markets. It sure beats the Keynesian Theory, which has not been able to predict anything! L8112 wrote: In an attempt to find a truly random system we have looked at the distant explosions of supernovae, the falling of raindrops, all of which were found to not be 'random'. It is obvious you do not understand the mathematics of random numbers. ALL of these sources can be used to generate random numbers, under the right circumstances. You can, in fact, determine just how random a random number is mathematically. L8112 wrote: Commerce however is the exception, it is the driving force behind the chaotic collapse of earths ecosystems. Commerce is part of Earth's ecosystem. For one, WE are part of Earth's ecosystem. So are other animals. Anything that needs materials to build a nest, provide for food, etc. that other animals are willing to steal is a valuable commodity. That means items of value are important to animals. They will guard them, work to obtain them, steal them from each other, go to war over them, even trade for them. That IS commerce. L8112 wrote: Nature, which is billions of years old, non-chaotic, is restoring order by stomping on us like a bug, and so the planet will be a freeze dried sterile lifeless ball, once the extinction event is complete-non chaotic. Since you have resigned to yourself to this fate, WTF are you doing here??? Why are you putting effort into anything??? L8112 wrote: You can kick and cry and scream that global warming is a hoax, because you get a rush over perceiving you are in the 'know' about this global conspiracy that 97% of scientists are in on. Do you know where this number comes from and how it was obtained? Unbelievably bad math. Argument from randU. L8112 wrote: ..all the while the Holocene extinction continues to push forward, regardless of if you believe it is happening. 30,000 species per year... Argument from randU. You don't know how many species went extinct or how many were newly discovered. You might try looking at actual records from those who have found the new species. One that goes 'extinct' is only assumed extinct. We really don't know. Such an assumption is known as an argument of ignorance fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 16-09-2017 06:44
16-09-2017 17:17
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	L8112 wrote: Nature is not chaotic, you are correct. What has happened is a chaotic variable has been introduced to a non-chaotic system. This chaotic variable is human created commerce. That is a statement that is so far out of touch with reality that I simply wouldn't know where to start. Weather is chaotic and not a non-chaotic system. Commerce??? You don't have the vaguest idea of the history of the world is do you? You are sick enough to believe that somehow man is an outsider on the Earth.
16-09-2017 17:34
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:.... insults I've been getting from you for awhile now. I never insult "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight". I describe very accurately. Example: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
21-09-2017 05:37
L8112 ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	k Edited on 21-09-2017 05:43
21-09-2017 06:00
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Greenland still looks ice covered to me. AGW denier liar whiners often say this. One AGW denier liar whiner said (without binoculars, any science equipment or any prescribed flight path), that his observations from a jetliner 6 miles high in the air indicated Greenland had not lost any Ice Sheet mass. He told this story straight, with no indication that he laughed at himself for being a dumbass..... AND repeated his story multiple times.
21-09-2017 17:58
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	L8112 wrote: k I said that weather is chaotic. Do you know what that means? That a convection source can happen ANYWHERE. That hurricane formation cannot be either predicted or their paths known other than generally. Your idea that weather and hence climate isn't chaotic is false. The single controlling factor in climate is energy input from the Sun. It's getting warmer? That's because the energy received by the Sun is higher. This is a variable that's both predictable and not predictable. We know what occurs from the Milankovitch Cycles but we do not know what causes variations in the Sun's output. We do know that our own Sun is a great deal more stable than most others in the universe but that is purely relative. It is not "stable" in terms of our weather or climate and that is something we have to deal with and not pretend that man is having some effect on the climate.

25-09-2017 23:34
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	L8112 wrote: k By the way, I apologize for making harsh comments on your posting. This is supposed to be a discussion group and I allow my temper to get away from me not from your postings but from the nutcakes that post here. My entire point is that you seem to have chaotic and ordered systems reversed.
26-09-2017 01:11
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: I apologize "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" remains an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
26-09-2017 01:16
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: The single controlling factor.....is the Sun. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" seldom has enough sun on it to keep it under control.
26-09-2017 01:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: L8112 wrote: k By the way, I apologize for making harsh comments on your posting. This is supposed to be a discussion group and I allow my temper to get away from me not from your postings but from the nutcakes that post here. My entire point is that you seem to have chaotic and ordered systems reversed. Your temper tends to get away from you a lot. Apologies don't mean much if you keep committing the error. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-09-2017 17:32
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	L8112 wrote: "Flow is not loss. Flow is flow. You are completely ignoring the ice gained on the continent of Greenland." Cite this, instead of pulling claims out of your ass, or at least put them in context. There are thousands of glaciers, of which only a select few have gained ice, while the vast majority have been retreating for decades. If you are talking about ice gains in greenland within the past year, you have to compare them to global ice trends over the last several decades. Why are you posting here if you aren't willing to do research of your own? CITE THIS? When the records of this growth are public? https://www.iceagenow.info/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-record-rate/ Why did you not look this up? While a lot of information is purposely being hidden the records can be found.
26-09-2017 21:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: L8112 wrote: "Flow is not loss. Flow is flow. You are completely ignoring the ice gained on the continent of Greenland." Cite this, instead of pulling claims out of your ass, or at least put them in context. There are thousands of glaciers, of which only a select few have gained ice, while the vast majority have been retreating for decades. If you are talking about ice gains in greenland within the past year, you have to compare them to global ice trends over the last several decades. Why are you posting here if you aren't willing to do research of your own? CITE THIS? When the records of this growth are public? https://www.iceagenow.info/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-record-rate/ Why did you not look this up? While a lot of information is purposely being hidden the records can be found. Models are not data, dumbass. These are not 'records'. They are random numbers. Argument by false authority. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2017 00:22
L8112 ★☆☆☆☆ (115)	"Models are not data, dumbass. These are not 'records'. They are random numbers. Argument by false authority." can you do your village-idiot tap dance for me? I love it when you get fired up and spend a lot of time meticulously crafting a reply that I DO NOT GIVE TWO F UCKS ABOUT. So please, continue to waste your time. Edited on 28-09-2017 00:32
28-09-2017 01:59
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	L8112 wrote: "Models are not data, dumbass. These are not 'records'. They are random numbers. Argument by false authority." can you do your village-idiot tap dance for me? I love it when you get fired up and spend a lot of time meticulously crafting a reply that I DO NOT GIVE TWO F UCKS ABOUT. So please, continue to waste your time. I though we went through this before - nightmare is a dope. The growth of the Greenland ice sheets is a MEASURED growth and they are predicting continued growth with the expected weather patterns. These are not "models" per se'. People do not use animal dung for fertilizer in the US and it's against the law in much of the world since it breeds diseases. Nightmare knows nothing about what and how sewage is treated and what the result is. My brother has worked in a sewer plant half of his working life and is about to retire well off at 59. The man that started me in electronics at 10 was his boss. If you had done your homework you would have been able to have those answers on hand. Stop the juvenile blame game when you don't know what you're talking about.
28-09-2017 02:17
GasGuzler ☆☆☆☆☆ (39)	Wake wrote: L8112 wrote: "Models are not data, dumbass. These are not 'records'. They are random numbers. Argument by false authority." can you do your village-idiot tap dance for me? I love it when you get fired up and spend a lot of time meticulously crafting a reply that I DO NOT GIVE TWO F UCKS ABOUT. So please, continue to waste your time. I though we went through this before - nightmare is a dope. The growth of the Greenland ice sheets is a MEASURED growth and they are predicting continued growth with the expected weather patterns. These are not "models" per se'. People do not use animal dung for fertilizer in the US and it's against the law in much of the world since it breeds diseases. Nightmare knows nothing about what and how sewage is treated and what the result is. My brother has worked in a sewer plant half of his working life and is about to retire well off at 59. The man that started me in electronics at 10 was his boss. If you had done your homework you would have been able to have those answers on hand. Stop the juvenile blame game when you don't know what you're talking about. Then you haven't been in the Midwest to take a whiff in farm country on a windy spring day! The NOP regulation (§205.203(c)(1)) specifies that "raw" fresh, aerated, anaerobic, or "sheet composted" manures may only be applied on perennials or crops not for human consumption, or such uncomposted manures must be incorporated at least four months (120 days) before harvest of a crop for human consumption, if the crop contacts the soil or soil particles (especially important for nitrate accumulators, such as spinach). If the crop for human consumption does not contact the soil or soil particles (e.g. sweet corn), raw manure can be incorporated up to 90 days prior to harvest. Biosolids, sewage sludge, and other human wastes are prohibited. Septic wastes are prohibited, as well as anything containing human waste. Edited on 28-09-2017 02:39
28-09-2017 02:42
GasGuzler ☆☆☆☆☆ (39)	You really should see one of these babies in action. It's quite the sight! Attached image:
28-09-2017 03:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: L8112 wrote: "Models are not data, dumbass. These are not 'records'. They are random numbers. Argument by false authority." can you do your village-idiot tap dance for me? I love it when you get fired up and spend a lot of time meticulously crafting a reply that I DO NOT GIVE TWO F UCKS ABOUT. So please, continue to waste your time. I though we went through this before - nightmare is a dope. The growth of the Greenland ice sheets is a MEASURED growth Nope. No one is measuring it. The closest we can get is comparing ice sheet extent. Since the ice sheet advances to the coast every winter, there is really nothing to measure. Wake wrote: and they are predicting continued growth with the expected weather patterns. Measurement is not capable of prediction. Wake wrote: These are not "models" per se'. They ARE models 'per se'. They ARE indeed models for real.\ They are not data. Wake wrote: People do not use animal dung for fertilizer in the US Yes they do! Most farms depend on it! Wake wrote: and it's against the law in much of the world since it breeds diseases. So, walking in a cow patty is gonna make you die, eh? Get out in the country sometime, dope. Wake wrote: Nightmare knows nothing about what and how sewage is treated and what the result is. Guess all that instrumentation was for nothin' eh? I guess it wasn't worth making the effluent from our plants around here clean enough to be potable water means nothing, eh? Wake wrote: My brother has worked in a sewer plant half of his working life and is about to retire well off at 59. The man that started me in electronics at 10 was his boss. So this is why you don't know electronics. Wake wrote: If you had done your homework you would have been able to have those answers on hand. Stop the juvenile blame game when you don't know what you're talking about. Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2017 04:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GasGuzler wrote: Wake wrote: L8112 wrote: "Models are not data, dumbass. These are not 'records'. They are random numbers. Argument by false authority." can you do your village-idiot tap dance for me? I love it when you get fired up and spend a lot of time meticulously crafting a reply that I DO NOT GIVE TWO F UCKS ABOUT. So please, continue to waste your time. I though we went through this before - nightmare is a dope. The growth of the Greenland ice sheets is a MEASURED growth and they are predicting continued growth with the expected weather patterns. These are not "models" per se'. People do not use animal dung for fertilizer in the US and it's against the law in much of the world since it breeds diseases. Nightmare knows nothing about what and how sewage is treated and what the result is. My brother has worked in a sewer plant half of his working life and is about to retire well off at 59. The man that started me in electronics at 10 was his boss. If you had done your homework you would have been able to have those answers on hand. Stop the juvenile blame game when you don't know what you're talking about. Then you haven't been in the Midwest to take a whiff in farm country on a windy spring day! The NOP regulation (§205.203(c)(1)) specifies that "raw" fresh, aerated, anaerobic, or "sheet composted" manures may only be applied on perennials or crops not for human consumption, or such uncomposted manures must be incorporated at least four months (120 days) before harvest of a crop for human consumption, if the crop contacts the soil or soil particles (especially important for nitrate accumulators, such as spinach). If the crop for human consumption does not contact the soil or soil particles (e.g. sweet corn), raw manure can be incorporated up to 90 days prior to harvest. Biosolids, sewage sludge, and other human wastes are prohibited. Septic wastes are prohibited, as well as anything containing human waste. Heh. Or anywhere in the farm country of Washington. We get that 'fresh fertilizer' odor too! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2017 04:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GasGuzler wrote: You really should see one of these babies in action. It's quite the sight! Here they mix it with water and put it in their sprinkler systems. Nothin' like that brown fountain! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2017 05:19
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzler wrote: You really should see one of these babies in action. It's quite the sight! Here they mix it with water and put it in their sprinkler systems. Nothin' like that brown fountain! Sure, they do that here too. Mostly the bigger operations with money for irrigation systems. Almost all the old timers use the tractor manure spreader though. Not a sprinkler to send the kids through on a hot day! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Attached image:
28-09-2017 06:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: GasGuzler wrote: You really should see one of these babies in action. It's quite the sight! Here they mix it with water and put it in their sprinkler systems. Nothin' like that brown fountain! Sure, they do that here too. Mostly the bigger operations with money for irrigation systems. Almost all the old timers use the tractor manure spreader though. Not a sprinkler to send the kids through on a hot day! Aw com'on. With all the shit kids give their parents? Just make 'em hose themselves off before coming in the house! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

28-09-2017 17:54
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	GasGuzler wrote: Wake wrote: L8112 wrote: "Models are not data, dumbass. These are not 'records'. They are random numbers. Argument by false authority." can you do your village-idiot tap dance for me? I love it when you get fired up and spend a lot of time meticulously crafting a reply that I DO NOT GIVE TWO F UCKS ABOUT. So please, continue to waste your time. I though we went through this before - nightmare is a dope. The growth of the Greenland ice sheets is a MEASURED growth and they are predicting continued growth with the expected weather patterns. These are not "models" per se'. People do not use animal dung for fertilizer in the US and it's against the law in much of the world since it breeds diseases. Nightmare knows nothing about what and how sewage is treated and what the result is. My brother has worked in a sewer plant half of his working life and is about to retire well off at 59. The man that started me in electronics at 10 was his boss. If you had done your homework you would have been able to have those answers on hand. Stop the juvenile blame game when you don't know what you're talking about. Then you haven't been in the Midwest to take a whiff in farm country on a windy spring day! The NOP regulation (§205.203(c)(1)) specifies that "raw" fresh, aerated, anaerobic, or "sheet composted" manures may only be applied on perennials or crops not for human consumption, or such uncomposted manures must be incorporated at least four months (120 days) before harvest of a crop for human consumption, if the crop contacts the soil or soil particles (especially important for nitrate accumulators, such as spinach). If the crop for human consumption does not contact the soil or soil particles (e.g. sweet corn), raw manure can be incorporated up to 90 days prior to harvest. Biosolids, sewage sludge, and other human wastes are prohibited. Septic wastes are prohibited, as well as anything containing human waste. It says "perennials" because the idea is to fertilize in the winter before there is any plant growth. You whiffing in the spring probably is fertilizing hay for the animals. You don't let the animals out onto a fertilized area either because they can become sick as well. Farming and ranching isn't a business for people that think that it is simple. Nightmare would shortly have nightmares. Imagine the look on his face when thinking that it is OK to have super-nitrogen rich "fertilizer" applied to his crops to see them die in one day.
28-09-2017 18:37
GasGuzler ☆☆☆☆☆ (39)	You have to read it carefully Wake. It speaks specifically to the consumable part of the plant. Crops that are in the ground or touch the ground(potatoes, cucumbers, carrots, onions.....)Manure can be used 120 days before harvest. Crops that don't touch the ground (corn, beans, tomatoes, sunflowers....) Manure can be used 90 days before harvest. That whiff in the spring is manure flying onto every corn and bean field in the county.
28-09-2017 18:56
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	GasGuzler wrote: You have to read it carefully Wake. It speaks specifically to the consumable part of the plant. Crops that are in the ground or touch the ground(potatoes, cucumbers, carrots, onions.....)Manure can be used 120 days before harvest. Crops that don't touch the ground (corn, beans, tomatoes, sunflowers....) Manure can be used 90 days before harvest. That whiff in the spring is manure flying onto every corn and bean field in the county. Tomatoes touch the ground. In fact the most commonly planted varieties have the entire crop under the leaves of the plant and lying on the ground. 90 days before a harvest is the time between April and July and that is a long time. This is animal fertilizer only and is almost entirely from cattle. This is not directly from the steer but is heaped at the end of the feedlot and months pass by before it is sold off. Remember, most of the family was farmers. They think me strange for being a scientist. As for the human part - I had my brother over for dinner last night and queried him again concerning the handling of the material and it was just as I said. The brown water can be sold to farms though it usually isn't except in drought years. The solids are hauled up to the landfill and left there for a couple of years to degrade because the nitrogen is so high that it would burn the crops. It isn't human waste used to fertilize crops but loam. You cannot differentiate between the landfill and any other dirt.
28-09-2017 19:07
GasGuzler ☆☆☆☆☆ (39)	Yeah, I don't know much about mass production tomatoes, just the farmers market type we get here. We grow them mostly with metal rings and let the vines crawl up....and they are GOOD, especially on a 1 lb. grilled ground beef pattie. Damn it...too early for lunch and now I'm hungry! And yes, the human waste is not permissible, you can see that on the last line of the manure rules.
28-09-2017 21:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: GasGuzler wrote: Wake wrote: L8112 wrote: "Models are not data, dumbass. These are not 'records'. They are random numbers. Argument by false authority." can you do your village-idiot tap dance for me? I love it when you get fired up and spend a lot of time meticulously crafting a reply that I DO NOT GIVE TWO F UCKS ABOUT. So please, continue to waste your time. I though we went through this before - nightmare is a dope. The growth of the Greenland ice sheets is a MEASURED growth and they are predicting continued growth with the expected weather patterns. These are not "models" per se'. People do not use animal dung for fertilizer in the US and it's against the law in much of the world since it breeds diseases. Nightmare knows nothing about what and how sewage is treated and what the result is. My brother has worked in a sewer plant half of his working life and is about to retire well off at 59. The man that started me in electronics at 10 was his boss. If you had done your homework you would have been able to have those answers on hand. Stop the juvenile blame game when you don't know what you're talking about. Then you haven't been in the Midwest to take a whiff in farm country on a windy spring day! The NOP regulation (§205.203(c)(1)) specifies that "raw" fresh, aerated, anaerobic, or "sheet composted" manures may only be applied on perennials or crops not for human consumption, or such uncomposted manures must be incorporated at least four months (120 days) before harvest of a crop for human consumption, if the crop contacts the soil or soil particles (especially important for nitrate accumulators, such as spinach). If the crop for human consumption does not contact the soil or soil particles (e.g. sweet corn), raw manure can be incorporated up to 90 days prior to harvest. Biosolids, sewage sludge, and other human wastes are prohibited. Septic wastes are prohibited, as well as anything containing human waste. It says "perennials" because the idea is to fertilize in the winter before there is any plant growth. You whiffing in the spring probably is fertilizing hay for the animals. You don't let the animals out onto a fertilized area either because they can become sick as well. Farming and ranching isn't a business for people that think that it is simple. Nightmare would shortly have nightmares. Imagine the look on his face when thinking that it is OK to have super-nitrogen rich "fertilizer" applied to his crops to see them die in one day. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! We use shit on fields of sweet corn here! That's food for human consumption! Why do you think farmers fertilize their fields with raw shit? They spread it with trucks and put it in their sprinkler systems. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-09-2017 21:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: GasGuzler wrote: You have to read it carefully Wake. It speaks specifically to the consumable part of the plant. Crops that are in the ground or touch the ground(potatoes, cucumbers, carrots, onions.....)Manure can be used 120 days before harvest. Crops that don't touch the ground (corn, beans, tomatoes, sunflowers....) Manure can be used 90 days before harvest. That whiff in the spring is manure flying onto every corn and bean field in the county. Tomatoes touch the ground. In fact the most commonly planted varieties have the entire crop under the leaves of the plant and lying on the ground. So? Wake wrote: 90 days before a harvest is the time between April and July and that is a long time. This is animal fertilizer only and is almost entirely from cattle. So? Wake wrote: This is not directly from the steer but is heaped at the end of the feedlot and months pass by before it is sold off. Nope. Directly from the steer. The stuff sold from feedlots is also used. It is also directly from the steer. It is not processed in any way (other than drying out some). Wake wrote: Remember, most of the family was farmers. They think me strange for being a scientist. I don't believe you are a scientist, and I don't believe anyone in your family was a farmer. You have shown a total lack of understanding of science and related mathematics. You have shown a total lack of understanding of crops farmers plant, how they fertilize them, how they harvest them, types of fertilizers and soils, etc. I don't believe your brother works in a sewage treatment plant. You show a complete lack of understanding what happens there as well. Wake wrote: As for the human part - I had my brother over for dinner last night and queried him again concerning the handling of the material and it was just as I said. The brown water can be sold to farms though it usually isn't except in drought years. The solids are hauled up to the landfill and left there for a couple of years to degrade because the nitrogen is so high that it would burn the crops. It wouldn't. The solids from a wastewater plant are either permanently put in a landfill, or roasted and sent to concrete makers. It makes a good fill for concrete sidewalks. Sometimes it is sold to farmers, but that is rare (and illegal). There are cheaper sources for shit. Wake wrote: It isn't human waste used to fertilize crops but loam. Loam isn't fertilizer. It doesn't come from any cattle waste either. Wake wrote: You cannot differentiate between the landfill and any other dirt. You certainly can! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 28-09-2017 21:51

Join the debate Ice Loss:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The new President elect of Haagen Dazs, demonstrating an ice cream filled donut	0	17-11-2023 14:07
Co2 ice samples	11	02-06-2022 22:44
Arctic sea ice cover	19	09-04-2022 08:29
New Ice age by 2030	140	04-04-2022 16:10
Arctic ice cover	2	02-04-2022 09:26