Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

duanester

Polar Vortex Displacement

Recommended Posts

What is this "polar vortex displacement" you speak of? Izzat a new way of saying it's gonna be a hard winter?

 

 

 

 

:geezer:

 

It's just another way of saying 'grab your coat - you may need it'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it weakens I believe folks down south catch a draft, Up north we are used to it, I mean if it's 30 below, what difference would it be at -40 :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my part of the world, we don't do vortexs. It is always la nina or el nino. Nothing in between. Last winter they said it was el nino. We were supposed to be extremely cold and dry. We were fairly dry, but unusually warm. At my elevation (3500 ft)we got almost no real snow (just a couple real dumpers that didn't last long), up in the mountains (5000 ft plus) we got the most snow that we've had in six years. Irrigation water this year was just barely below average. Anyhow, part way through the winter they changed their minds and said we morphed from an el nino to a la nina. Whatever. This winter they are saying we are deeply into a la nina and it will be cold and extremely wet... but lower than average snow falls. Sure. Could happen. What I'm sure of is that come spring, I'll be able to look back and say "It was what it was."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically it'll affect Europe's as well, 30 year study suggests this vortex is inching towards Europe.

 

Done lot's of research on climate change, for years i have blamed these occurrences on planetary shift via Axial Tilt.

 

On Climate change.

 

Sure it's understandable when it's 120 F in some desert during day, while at night the temp drops to single digits, What i mean is it's a place with no trees, no rain, barely a weather forecast, hence desert!

 

Area's with dense forest's absorb substantial amounts of CO2, Of course in return we get rich O2, Simply isn't enough trees to absorb excess CO2, Basically Summers are hotter, Winter's colder like that desert from day to night.

 

Excessive CO2 cause's a greenhouse affect, this extra heat is bad because polar ice melt's quicker sending super cold fresh water south through the mid Atlantic Current.

 

The horrible storms says it all.

 

 

 

This water essentially keeps us warm too, the trees that are gone would have served being an insulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm... not quite. You will find a desert anywhere that on any given day the variation between the days low temp and the days high temp exceeds 35 degrees on average. At least that was what I was taught in school. I just googled it and found it said 20 degrees Celsius. Seeing as how I think in Fahrenheit and a 20 degree Celsius variation is equal to almost 36 degrees Fahrenheit I'm saying that's close enough. Deserts reflect heat. The more desert the earth has... the colder it will be. Increase in areas of deserts do not cause global warming... it is the solution. Historically when there appears to be a warming trend, deserts increase. When there is a cooling trend, forests and grasslands increase.

 

Forests "trap" heat. The do not insulate us, but they do hold the heat. All green plants convert light to sugars through photosynthesis. They use CO2 and sunlight and convert that to sugars and release O2. They store the carbon as wood (in the case of trees) or cellulose (in the case of grass). This only happens in sunlight. The plant still lives when it is dark so when there is no sun, photosynthesis does not occur but the plant continues to live and lets off moisture and CO2 - pretty much just like animals. The plant lives on the sugars in manufactures, so in actuality, it gives off CO2 24 hrs a day, but when the sun shines and it is storing sugar (photosynthesis) it converts more CO2 to O2 than it produces. So us animals are actually living off the excess sugars and O2 they make. Likewise, if us animals didn't make an abundance of CO2, then they would only make enough for themselves and there would be nothing stored so there would be no large trees, etc.

 

When the sugars are digested, whether from fruit that is consumed by a human, or grass that is consumed by a cow or sheep, or bacteria that feeds on rotting bark or leaves... the consumption process reaps energy (the sunlight component) and releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. This is why in older forest are actually oxygen neutral, or in the case of true old growth forest, oxygen negative. They give off more CO2 than they do O2. This is because much of the tree is shaded by the density of forest and therefore photosynthesis cannot occur on the shaded portions of the tree, and there are millions of bacteria converting rotten bark, leaves, old wood, etc. back to CO2... more than the forest can use and store.

 

CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas... but what does that really mean? The greenhouse effect would be the complete stabilization of weather trends and temperatures. Historically cold places would get warmer and historically hot places would get colder. This effect would continue until the entire earth was the exact same temperature. Obviously, this would significantly effect life on earth. There would be no wind. The climate would be humid... but there would be no rain.

 

However, what would not occur is what is referred to as global warming which is said to be the increase in temperature throughout the world. Everywhere is warmer, no place is cooler. This completely defies the scientific law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. On a smaller scale it seems to fly in the face of the law that says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must only change form. In order for everywhere in the world to become warmer, that energy must come from somewhere. A possible answer would be the abundance of stored energy being taken from the earth in the form of oil or natural gas.

 

So in response to duane's statement: If you thing summers are getting hotter and winters are getting colder, that is the exact opposite of the greenhouse effect, and also means you don't believe in global warming. You are apparently a proponent of a whole different climate change that the experts haven't hit us with yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well most of this heat radiates from the desert surface and super heats the air, At night this heat escapes into space which makes the temperature drop very low.

 

Excessive CO2 doesn't help things when it cause more heat.

 

Removing more trees doesn't help.

 

It doesn't help when we are having a polar shift, Just a theory.

 

Global warming is bad science, Climate change is the new science.

 

Put a satellite between our star and this planet and measure our orbital motion.

 

Sun spots don't help.

 

Not doing anything bout doesn't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suggest we remove more trees. I think trees are a good thing. Small shrubs and flowers might be even more beneficial. Ignoring the whole "carbon storage" part of the scenario, turf grass produces the most oxygen and also does a much, much better job of filtering out other "impurities" in the air.

 

Honestly, I think that the best thing we can do is remove suburbs. If people want to live in town... then live in town. Stack them up in high rises. Let's build total community complexes. Let's put things like grocery stores on the first floor. Retail spaces that have fair sized deliveries on a daily basis. Also that might be a good place for recreational facilities, specifically swimming pools. Then put doctors offices, lawyers, other businesses that don't have alot of need for large deliveries on the second floor. Schools, churches, art galleries, maybe restaurants on the third floor. Living spaces can be in the rest of the floors. Go ahead and grow plants on the roof. The idea is to create a complete living environment in the building. Reduce, if not completely eliminate the need for anyone to need to leave the building. Commuting is the problem. People need to live where they work. Besides, a dense, compact building is much more efficient to heat and cool. Large ball fields, parks, greenspaces need to separate the large "community" buildings. Manufacturing space should be in fairly close proximity to one or more of these community buildings. Obviously, workers for these businesses would live in the closes building. Perhaps we would even have trams between factories and the buildings. We could put photo-voltaic cells on the walls of the buildings that would generate enough power to operate the tram, elevators, and maybe even the ventilation system.

 

For the record, I want you all to be comfortable in these spaces. I will remain in the country, and I can't think of any reason why you would need to come visit me. Stay in your building! I will remain somewhere that I can't even see your buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh they can survive that. It's one degree below the temperature of Hot Pocket that has been microwaved.

 

That appears to be the forecast for Omaha Nebraska. Here is Right Now weather in Arizona:

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more inclined to believe the temperatures in your post. Primarily because it says Accuweather in the upper right corner - so it's far more credible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tropical vegetation found beneath ice Greenland, so many assume CO2 levels were at the highest 25 million years ago.

 

I call BS, Plants may be able to survive in complete darkness for months at a time but lush green "tropical" plants were found.

 

The planet must have tilted off it's axis, possibly from an impact or something that happens time and time again.

 

At the poles ice is miles deep, Much of it is above sea level, this suggests some gravity forced this water north to south, if all of this ice melted everything would be submerged except high ground, Islands!

 

I can see how our Moon role in gravity pulling and and pushing water controlling our tides, It's possible a Lunar impact caused the excess ice caps.

 

More to come :woot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if Chicxulub impact could have caused a Polar shift?

 

 

What i find strange is we are on a rotating rock somewhere with other rocks blazing by and our greatest worries are the amount we pay in taxes or what we'll cook tonight.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea Shells found on Mountains well above Sea level.

 

Sure Plate Tectonics, Everest is a big hill, the stuff on it aged well younger, Everest way older.

 

Almost 30,000ft above Sea level, It's possible an Asteroid could cause Tsunami's way above 30,000ft, strong enough to Power Wash everything in it's path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.. the Thanksgiving miracle is over. I see that you have posted words. Am unable to ascertain if you were attempting sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad, I meant, Wondering how Sea Shells are on top of a Mountain, Maybe a Tidal Wave caused it, I wonder what caused the wave.

 

Well, I guess it's not really important, Keeps walking by oblivious to my surrounding :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A possible explanation:

 

Genesis chapter 6;

 

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...