Hoboken Breakfast Nuggets – 1/4/2010

1/4/2010:

Good Morning Hoboken – enjoying the frigid first Monday of the new decade yet??

hoboken-breakfast-nuggets-logo

Jets in Playoffs! Play Cincy again next week!

Amazing, at least one New York NFL Football team gets to extend their season by at least one game!

The NY Jets followed through on their Joe Namath style guarantee that they’d win last night – by crushing the Cincinnati Bengals 37-0. The two teams meet again next week, this time in Cincinnati. Your guess on the outcome?

2010 NFL Playoffs - Jets vs. Bengals:

  • Jets Win - advance to next round! (63%, 103 Votes)
  • Bengals Win - Jets go home! (37%, 60 Votes)

Total Voters: 163

Loading ... Loading ...

NY Jets 2010 NFL Playoffs Cincinnati Bengals

Find a wallet at the Black Bear?

A Hoboken411 reader lost a wallet at Black Bear this past New Years Eve – bummer: “On NYE I lost my black with silver C’s Coach wristlet wallet. In it I had my license, debit card, and some other ID cards as well as $30 cash. Reward more than the cash in the wallet will be given (I just need my license back mostly!) Thank you for any help you can give!”

I asked her if she called both Black Bear as well as the Hoboken Police – and she did, with no luck.

lost coach wallet hoboken nj new years eve

Keep your mittens, scarves (and possibly shovels) handy!!

Yep, it’s safe to say we’re in the midst of winter now!

For the next several weeks – an arctic dome of frigid air is going to be “locked in” over the northeastern part of the country – and that just plain sucks!

On the bright side, most weather systems that may come our way in the near future, will likely be SNOW!

Keep that in mind later in the week – as the weather nerds are talking about the possibility of a big snow event for the NYC Tri-State area – but of course, that can completely change as we go through the week… but I’ll be on it!

Cold weather pattern northeast United States January 2010

Science Update on human carbon dioxide

Just to keep you abreast of some of the “environmental news” that’s out there – here’s one recent study that shows that:

  1. Most carbon dioxide produced by human activity gets absorbed by the earth
  2. And there has been no real change in the past 150 years.

But you can just keep listening to Al Gore if you feel like it…

Al Gore Global Warming Scam

HAVE A GREAT WEEK EVERYONE!!!

Leave a Reply

15 Comments on "Hoboken Breakfast Nuggets – 1/4/2010"

MidnightRacer
Member

The claim is that CO2 increased during human’s industrial age from 280 ppm to 315 ppm (1958) and to 387 ppm today.

If humans are responsible for 5% of all CO2 (plant food) into the atmosphere, then that would represent an increase in CO2 of about 1%, whereas the increase by nature is 136%. If humans were all to die, what impact would it have to stop a cycle?

The article in the beginning of this thread

“No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

points at the problem of AGW theorists. Once you examine the data, it contradicts the models. The hypothesis is that humans are causing global warming, yet the results contradict the premise and the AGW crowd claims the science is settled? From the IPCC lead scientists who trick up data, try to ban from publication scientists whose work contradicts theirs, and climate models attempting to pretend to be evidence when they’re mere faulty models, we see a trend in contaminating the natural sciences with political science.

MidnightRacer
Member
* tectonic movements should be mentioned in your graphic (lifting of continents), but yes millions of years ago sea levels were higher as less ice covered land masses. Too bad for AGW theorists humans weren’t around to be blamed. Whether it’s the warming or cooling periods even as recent as the GWP and LIA just a 800 and 150 years ago. Depending on which era you want to look at, Earth’s atmosphere has varied from 80% water vapor (greenhouse effect) and 10% CO2 (10,000 ppm), to today’s water vapor = 0.4% and CO2=0.0387% (387 ppm). If humans were around 65 million years ago with today’s industry, economies, and technologies during the time you say CO2 was a lot higher and the planet’s sea levels higher, what would they have done to stop the warming cycle? If they all killed themselves, what impact would that have had to stop the cycle of warming? Humans contribute somewhere around 5% of the CO2 into the atmosphere (40% of that total is absorbed naturally by the Earth), whereas natural sources contribute somewhere around 95%. In nature, animals and microbes’ consumption of vegetation contribute 220 gigatonnes of CO2/year (CO2 is plant food, so 440 Gt of CO2 are absorbed by plant photosynthesis per year), oceans contribute 330 Gt of CO2 per year, while humans contribute 26.4 Gt of CO2 per year (in comparison). And for the other greenhouse contributors; volcanoes (eruptions) and ocean floor activity release the methane (and volcanoes over years slowly release sustained… Read more »
YipYap
Member

Midnight – during the Late Cretaceous period when CO2 levels were believed to be higher than they are today, there was a shallow sea covering most of the East Coast of the US. There was no snow and ice at the poles, the earth was amuch hotter place 65 million years ago.

Here is a drawing that is based upon where Ocean Fossils from that period have been found, far inland from today’s Ocean shorelines.

comment image

MidnightRacer
Member

During the Global Warming Period (ending 1300’s), Greenland reflected its name – vikings used the continent for farming and settlement. CO2 at 250 ppm didn’t account for that warming period. The ice returned a bit later during the Little Ice Age. No change in levels like anything the above article predicts to flood NYC.

Even as CO2 increased from 250 ppm to 315 ppm at the end of the LIA, and 385 ppm today, we haven’t seen NYC flood still.

Ice ages and warming periods have come and gone, Greenland and Antarctica (used to be tropical) have had no or little ice to being entirely covered by ice.

NYC’s Central Park was carved by (look at the gauges in the brown rocks) glaciers over a mile high and then melted – yet why are we not underwater?

MidnightRacer
Member

V = pi*(r^2)*h = mass x density

When we’re talking ice bergs (in reviewing the experiment above), an ice berg floating in the ocean is ~12% above and ~88% below the water. Given that ice is 9% less dense than water, it also takes up 9% more space than water in its ice state (molecules and ice lattice expand during liquid to solid conversion). Given that 88% of an iceberg is underwater, consideration has to be given to density and water displacement.

Ice floats because it’s less dense (weighs less) than the water that it displaces. But the conversion back to liquid from solid provides no change in water level. Same reason why ponds freeze with ice at the top. Same reason why when you fill an ice tray with water and put it in the freezer it grows upward (taking more space/volume), and when it melts returns to the lower level in the ice trays as originally poured (very slight evaporation not significant).

Are all those climate models correct about NYC and the planet being flooded from melting ice? Or do all those “scientific” predictions miss a simple lesson in physics and chemistry?

YipYap
Member

Mindnight cumon now everyone knows the glacial ice in Greenland is sitting on land and slowly sliding into the North Atlantic, it is responsible for about 50 mm rise in sea level for the last 100 years.

In response to MidnightRacer who said:
V = pi*(r^2)*h = mass x density

When we’re talking ice bergs (in reviewing the experiment above), an ice berg floating in the ocean is ~12% above and ~88% below the water. Given that ice is 9% less dense than water, it also takes up 9% more space than water in its ice state (molecules and ice lattice expand during liquid to solid conversion). Given that 88% of an iceberg is underwater, consideration has to be given to density and water displacement.

Ice floats because it’s less dense (weighs less) than the water that it displaces. But the conversion back to liquid from solid provides no change in water level. Same reason why ponds freeze with ice at the top. Same reason why when you fill an ice tray with water and put it in the freezer it grows upward (taking more space/volume), and when it melts returns to the lower level in the ice trays as originally poured (very slight evaporation not significant).

Are all those climate models correct about NYC and the planet being flooded from melting ice? Or do all those “scientific” predictions miss a simple lesson in physics and chemistry?

wpDiscuz