Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Years ago we were supposed to stop using aerosol cans because we were going to have global freezing. I think it was in the 80's.
Huh? You are getting your stories mixed up, CFCs in aerosol eat our ozone and were banned. They were worried about having larger holes in the ozone layer which certainly wouldn't cause freezing.
Zoisite,
You show the plateau glacier on the top of Mount Kilimanjaro.
Do you dispute any of the following --
#1 The air temperature where this glacier is located on top of the mountain never in recent decades has reached above freezing. It has shrunk in recent years, but they haven't recorded a temperature above freezing there.
#2 Scientists say that the glacier has appeared, disappeared, and reappeared for centuries - going back all the way to over 13,000 years before the Second Industrial Revolution.
#3 Scientists are saying that the glacier is shrinking on the plateau due to increased solar radiation from the sun impacting the vertical face of the glacier - not due to increasing temperatures, which are always above freezing at the plateau - this is completely out of man's control.
I do believe that man impacts our environment and adversely. I just don't see it with what you are showing on the top of the mountain with the glacier on the plateau. I think there are better examples.
I think it's pointless to dispute or agree with any of that since I have no intention of researching it, Kilimanjaro's past is the past and its past is not important to me. My point was directed at the OP, that the glacier and snows of Kilimanjaro are gonenow and that disproves the OP's post. The OP should double check facts before making stupid knee-jerk threads like this one just to stir the pot.
Makes no difference to me if the glacier was on a plateau, a peak, a caldera (as in this case, it's a caldera since that mountain is a volcano) or on the moon or what have you. It's gone now. Just like so many other vitally important glaciers have already disappeared preternaturally in the past few years and many more vitally important glaciers are disintegrating even more rapidly now.
Malaria isn't a tropical issue, it's a development issue, in colder periods NYC had malaria. Eradication was facilitated by improvement of sanitation, not climate change.
No, it was facilitated by DDT.
The resulting environmental conditions will be a thriving ground for mosquitos and such diseases. DDT wouldn't work in Africa.
Instead of seriously flawed deals like the Paris Accord, why don't we spend those same billions on acquiring REAL technology
to reverse CO2 output? Wouldn't that money be better spent supporting R&D?
Solar and wind just aren't going to do it.
What ever happened to hydrogen fuel cell research?
Humans are not going to regress to tiny homes, vegan diets, and exchanging their SUVs for solar golf carts. So we need BIG answers, not hypocritical liberals with their politicizing lectures.
Also, man-made climate change deniers and confused people in the middle aren't going to take lectures from limousine liberals with their hypocritical humungous carbon footprints anytime soon. Environmentalists and scientists need to expose them for what they are, and get real, or they won't be taken seriously.
Why would someone become motivated to exchange their SUV for a hybrid when those who are hysterical and lecturing us about oceans rising aren't taking it seriously enough to ditch their own private jets, yachts, multiple mansions, and gross carbon footprint?
There is R&D in carbon sequestration, I've already written about it here.
Solar and wind suck.
Hydrogen sucks (its lighter than Helium, capturing Hydrogen costs too much energy)
For the love of ****ing god, hybrids are NOT environmentally friendly. Toyota Camry is a cleaner car than the Prius.
As Al Gore ever been right on any of his predictions? Are the polar bears all dead yet?
I think Denmark keeps shooting them, but they are so abundant they can't be killed off. Polar bear population has almost tripled since the early 60's. Polar bears, are also bears, and can forage on land. Loss of ice won't kill off polar bears even if that were to happen (which it won't).
The North Pole does not have nearly as much ice as the South Pole. The ice on the North Pole is more likely to break up and reform during the various seasons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
