Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Climate Change.....it's All The Squirrels I Tell Ya!
37 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ingredients:
4 Arctic squirrels - skinned, gutted, and cut into pieces
8 large potatoes, quartered
2 pounds carrots, chopped
2 green bell peppers, chopped
8 onions, sliced
3/4 litres water
1/2 medium head cabbage
2 teaspoons salt
2 teaspoons ground black pepper
Directions:
In a slow cooker, place the squirrel meat, potatoes, carrots, green bell peppers, onions, water, cabbage, salt and ground black pepper.
Cover and cook on low setting for 8 hours. Long braising tenders the meat and drives off the accumulated gases from them.
4 Arctic squirrels - skinned, gutted, and cut into pieces
8 large potatoes, quartered
2 pounds carrots, chopped
2 green bell peppers, chopped
8 onions, sliced
3/4 litres water
1/2 medium head cabbage
2 teaspoons salt
2 teaspoons ground black pepper
Directions:
In a slow cooker, place the squirrel meat, potatoes, carrots, green bell peppers, onions, water, cabbage, salt and ground black pepper.
Cover and cook on low setting for 8 hours. Long braising tenders the meat and drives off the accumulated gases from them.
Let us pray at the court of Global Warming Fundamentalism....
The article is quaint but generally correct, permafrost melts dumps co2 into the atmosphere... it also dumps huge quantities of other gases into the atmosphere as well. Are they all Greenhouse Gases I hear you scream.., well yes they are every gas has certain greenhouse effect properties by nature. Which has the greater impact on the atmosphere I hear you ask....well it's not co2 because it's not the biggest gas by volume, water vapour. the way Water Vapor transitions through it's states ie ice, water, water vapour, steam etc has a bigger impact on the energy use within the atmosphere than the relative concentrations of co2. Key to Arthropogenic Global Warming is that CO2 is much easier to hype as a problem than water......
Anyway, concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere have fluctuated around the planet for ever, there are periods that concentrations have been massively higher than they are now and periods that they were much less. There are periods where atmospheric temperature was much higher but times it was much lower too...... its called the planet adapting to it's environment.
How do we know about all these fluctuations... well the self same ice cores that the AGW folk use to scare us tell us all this other info as well... they just don't talk about it.
We live in a capsule enclosed by an enviroment inside an atmosphere that's existed for 4 billion years plus. There are many geological and geographical global events from which the planet has continually stabilised itself over the millenia... why is there an assumption it won't do so again.
Physicists often talk about the conservation of energy ie total energy of a system can only change if energy is transferred into or out of the system.... there is research ongoing to confirm theories that say the same for co2, water etc etc... we still really don't know our planet properly and don't forget Global Warming is a theory.... theories have been hugely wrong in the past.
Oh yeah the UEA this wasn't hyped, it was a panic because there was proof in those emails that contradicted the alleged "best science" it was covered up and the researchers quashed, funding removed and the findings "lost"... it's all out there is you want to look...... now I've just started a night shift and can't be bothered with any more of this busmans holiday nonsense... any jokes anyone.
Look Climate Change is real it has been since the formation, evolution and growth of the Earth in it's perfect place in the Solar System. What is at debate is the AGW stuff are we killing the planet?? Who knows... until it happens... or maybe not....
The article is quaint but generally correct, permafrost melts dumps co2 into the atmosphere... it also dumps huge quantities of other gases into the atmosphere as well. Are they all Greenhouse Gases I hear you scream.., well yes they are every gas has certain greenhouse effect properties by nature. Which has the greater impact on the atmosphere I hear you ask....well it's not co2 because it's not the biggest gas by volume, water vapour. the way Water Vapor transitions through it's states ie ice, water, water vapour, steam etc has a bigger impact on the energy use within the atmosphere than the relative concentrations of co2. Key to Arthropogenic Global Warming is that CO2 is much easier to hype as a problem than water......
Anyway, concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere have fluctuated around the planet for ever, there are periods that concentrations have been massively higher than they are now and periods that they were much less. There are periods where atmospheric temperature was much higher but times it was much lower too...... its called the planet adapting to it's environment.
How do we know about all these fluctuations... well the self same ice cores that the AGW folk use to scare us tell us all this other info as well... they just don't talk about it.
We live in a capsule enclosed by an enviroment inside an atmosphere that's existed for 4 billion years plus. There are many geological and geographical global events from which the planet has continually stabilised itself over the millenia... why is there an assumption it won't do so again.
Physicists often talk about the conservation of energy ie total energy of a system can only change if energy is transferred into or out of the system.... there is research ongoing to confirm theories that say the same for co2, water etc etc... we still really don't know our planet properly and don't forget Global Warming is a theory.... theories have been hugely wrong in the past.
Oh yeah the UEA this wasn't hyped, it was a panic because there was proof in those emails that contradicted the alleged "best science" it was covered up and the researchers quashed, funding removed and the findings "lost"... it's all out there is you want to look...... now I've just started a night shift and can't be bothered with any more of this busmans holiday nonsense... any jokes anyone.
Look Climate Change is real it has been since the formation, evolution and growth of the Earth in it's perfect place in the Solar System. What is at debate is the AGW stuff are we killing the planet?? Who knows... until it happens... or maybe not....
Are we killing the planet? No. Are we having a destructive and likely irreversible effect on this planet's natural processes, most of which are seriously unstable to perturbation? Absolutely.
It saddens me that the debate has become so polarised to the point where the central issue no longer seems to get any attention. The UEA behaviour was awful and hasn't helped. Matt Ridley recently pointed out that the announcement that 2014 was "the hottest year on record" is true if you take the headline figure, but has the flaw that the difference was 0.01 degrees with a statistical error of 0.1, making it a shaky claim. But the hype and errors don't just come from one side, and "climate change deniers" (can't say I'm a fan of this phrase but I'll stick with it) seem only too happy to complain about conflicts of interest from one side while blithely assuming that any sceptical scientists are completely 100% honest all the time.
It's a nonsense, and it's sad, and in the meantime our planet and those who live in it will suffer. In the long run Earth will recover, with or without our help, but it will be an altogether different place on the other side.
It saddens me that the debate has become so polarised to the point where the central issue no longer seems to get any attention. The UEA behaviour was awful and hasn't helped. Matt Ridley recently pointed out that the announcement that 2014 was "the hottest year on record" is true if you take the headline figure, but has the flaw that the difference was 0.01 degrees with a statistical error of 0.1, making it a shaky claim. But the hype and errors don't just come from one side, and "climate change deniers" (can't say I'm a fan of this phrase but I'll stick with it) seem only too happy to complain about conflicts of interest from one side while blithely assuming that any sceptical scientists are completely 100% honest all the time.
It's a nonsense, and it's sad, and in the meantime our planet and those who live in it will suffer. In the long run Earth will recover, with or without our help, but it will be an altogether different place on the other side.
Thank you very much Slapshot. You obviously know your stuff and I'm pleased that it rather bears out my feelings that we should not be profligate with natural resources, but that the world is an entity which has coped with a lot of changes and will protect itself. Think I'm right in my summation - if not I apologise and will re-read.
Inasmuch as I don't believe in a scenario equivalent to the Day After Tomorrow film (great movie, science is crap), then I'd agree with that myself. The catch is that the planet "protects itself" on fairly long time scales, whereas humans care about shorter time scales. On such scales we have seen some significant changes already, and can expect more to come. The problem is that these are inevitably more uncertain than has been made out.
If there is one flaw from "my side" of the debate then it's by attaching far too much certainty to the predicted outcomes. And when the models change (mainly get better at running the calculations) and the predictions change with them, it looks bad. Shame, because that's how Science actually works. People make predictions and they improve and change them as necessary, even though the background model doesn't change significantly. Because Climate Change is wrapped up in politics so much, this gets more public attention and most of it negative, but it shouldn't be.
If there is one flaw from "my side" of the debate then it's by attaching far too much certainty to the predicted outcomes. And when the models change (mainly get better at running the calculations) and the predictions change with them, it looks bad. Shame, because that's how Science actually works. People make predictions and they improve and change them as necessary, even though the background model doesn't change significantly. Because Climate Change is wrapped up in politics so much, this gets more public attention and most of it negative, but it shouldn't be.
My view is very similar - ex geologist/glaciologist here - natural resource and pollution reductions, conservation of the ecosystems and all in it, yes, even down to regeneration of urban areas and not destroying greenfields in Europe or wherever.....
Climate change has always gone on - hottest year on record - humbug, should be defined as 'while accurate records have been kept' - there's evidence that the weather was considerably warmer in the 13thC and several times back to the last Ice Age. The world has taken bigger shocks than what our contribution has been and rebalanced - meteors, serious large super-volcanoes etc (Krakatoa was only a medium sized one) and my suspicion is that it will do it again. Science is revealing things by the month, today the announcement that freshwater underground has now been re-estimated upwards by over 100 times what we thought it was.....
So conservation and needless exploitation and anti-pollution yes, but not to fuel the debate of the Messianic doom and gloomers.
Climate change has always gone on - hottest year on record - humbug, should be defined as 'while accurate records have been kept' - there's evidence that the weather was considerably warmer in the 13thC and several times back to the last Ice Age. The world has taken bigger shocks than what our contribution has been and rebalanced - meteors, serious large super-volcanoes etc (Krakatoa was only a medium sized one) and my suspicion is that it will do it again. Science is revealing things by the month, today the announcement that freshwater underground has now been re-estimated upwards by over 100 times what we thought it was.....
So conservation and needless exploitation and anti-pollution yes, but not to fuel the debate of the Messianic doom and gloomers.
Here's good one for you, Slapshot.
At the latest global-warming beano in Lima they produced more CO2 than several small countries. But, never mind, they had a brilliant excuse;
///Jorge Alvarez, coordinator for the UN Development Programme, said the carbon emissions were so high because plans to run the summit on green energy did not work out. The conference has instead been powered by diesel generators///
Lol, as they say, you could not make it up.
At the latest global-warming beano in Lima they produced more CO2 than several small countries. But, never mind, they had a brilliant excuse;
///Jorge Alvarez, coordinator for the UN Development Programme, said the carbon emissions were so high because plans to run the summit on green energy did not work out. The conference has instead been powered by diesel generators///
Lol, as they say, you could not make it up.
Estimated to be over 21bln squirrels on the planet. Cows 1.5 bln.
Cow fart and other leakage = 750 litres a day of methane, CO2 and nitrogen
Squirrel farts = 8 litres a day owing to their veggie diet so not insignifcant.
Termites get top spot by the way for farting - so that is where we should really focus!
Cow fart and other leakage = 750 litres a day of methane, CO2 and nitrogen
Squirrel farts = 8 litres a day owing to their veggie diet so not insignifcant.
Termites get top spot by the way for farting - so that is where we should really focus!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.