DailyDirt: Out With A Whimper
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
Our planet’s environment is in a delicate balance with the ecosystem that’s largely invisible. We have a thin ozone layer protecting everything from harmful UV rays. Plants seem to be doing a great job of supplying breathable oxygen. It’s a bit concerning when human activity throws off something in the atmosphere on a large scale, but we might be able to do something about it. The first step, though, is admitting that we have a problem.
- Snow-dwelling algae on glaciers might be a problem someday. Pink snow looks a bit unusual, but the algae that grows on frozen ice in a visible amount — is also making that snow melt faster. And we probably don’t want glaciers melting any faster than usual in the next few decades.
- What ever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? The use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) has been significantly reduced, and the hole is expected to heal itself by 2050 — thanks to the Montreal Protocol passed in 1987.
- The reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution has had a tangible effect on soil acidity — finally. It’s taken over two decades for regulations aimed at curbing acid rain (by limiting sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fueled power plants) to start showing some positive results in the environment.
After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.
Filed Under: acid rain, algae, cfcs, climate change, environmental damage, hfcs, montreal protocol, nitrogen oxide, ozone hole, pollution, sulfur dioxide
Comments on “DailyDirt: Out With A Whimper”
Ok, so maybe global warming will “heal itself” too? Anyone remember when people were worried about the next ice age?
Re: The latest news - the blank sun will give us a
(wait for it) (wait for it) a mini ice age by the turn of the decade.
By and by, anyone know where all the transition forms are?
Oh god,don’t tell me techdirt is jumping on the climate hysteria bandwagon?
The CAWG (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis has never been elevated to theory since not a single climate model has ever been validated which they openly admit in every single IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mindex.shtml
Conflating the minuet effect that CO2 has on the atmosphere with the environment (except for a slight increase in plant growth) is yet another example of how politicized science has become since most of the time it’s to gain access to the seemingly endless climate funds.
To be old enough
Wow, I remember 1978 like it was yesterday. Many in post-2000 that are ‘most-respected-climatologists’ now, were (if old enough), yelling ‘NEXT ICE AGE IN 10-YEARS!’ then. Of course, as a nation, we spent over 200-years worried about ‘hell freezing over’ far more than it taking over, too. (if you want ‘research’, then you might want to look up the efforts of Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt and others who planned as late as 1920 to create ‘carbon generation plants’ to do nothing more than burn coal to fill the skies with smoke, to ‘warm the planet’).
That we decided, as a nation, to scare each other with ‘global warming’ before ‘global cooling’ only tells me that given a century, we’ll probably claim to succeed so well at ‘cooling’, than then we’ll have to turn to ‘warming it’ then, all under the actual guise of PROFIT GENERATION EFFORTS. What a total scam, and yet the sheep can’t see it for what it is.
Well, actually it was non-climatologists that were screaming bloody murder back in the 70s…
Nevertheless, conflating environmental destruction with the CAWG hypotheses has never been validated. Yet they keep insisting it to be true despite every one of their predictions failing starting with Mann’s Hockey Stick climate model which completely fell apart after post-hiatus 1998 when global average tempruatures and CO2 rates officially deviated from one another. Yet alarmist extremists still insist on using it as a valid point of reference.
All the while they actively combat skeptics aka ‘deniers’ for questioning the mainstream narrative (only to fail and be investigated themselves such as Rico21) and claim that we’re all corrupted by the oil and gas industries despite the fact that the creators of the industries have divested everything in fossil fuels followed by investing,such as the Rockefellers, everything into so-called renewables despite the fact that it produces 60 thousand times more waste and releases toxins into the atmosphere that are 30,000 times more potent than co2:
http://www.solarindustrymag.com/online/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html
Shall I go on? The rabbit hole goes even deeper…
Re: Re:
It is easily summarized like this:
Humans do nothing, dare act on nothing on any significant scale, unless there is either power or wealth to drive it. Thus, with this grand underlying rule (whether it is architecture, technology, government, or what have you), you simply have to ask, ‘if this is a fixed rule for mankind, where is the power or wealth to be gained in ‘renewable energy’?
The answer is what you stated, Dog. With an ‘alternative’ this unique, this nasty and this resource-intensive, it means you must have wealth and power to initially play, knowing that eventually, you’ll have to clean up the mess you made, which will take extensive investments to support such a large-scale structure-effort. Thus, you have answered the ‘Renewable Energy’ equation perfectly.