Climate Change Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
/ Climate Change Discussion #281  
"No one disagrees with the notion that global warming is occurring, but to discount the fact that it has anything to do with that giant flaming ball of fire in our sky that we can barely look at without being blinded is ignorance unparalleled.

How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns? Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun and other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?"


Thanks Bird, about the best read on the subject. :)
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #282  
IH3444, it's a well known fact that the Sun could care less about whether there is life on Earth or not......global warming will certainly occur when it turns into a SuperNova! :D
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #283  
Quote from IH3444: How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns? Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun and other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?"


I wont pretend to be Al, but Id say it says that we are in a natural warming cycle. Id say it does not say anything about the extent of our unnatural contribution to the phenomenon as exhibited on Earth.

In reading from the attached websites I am very troubled to see that hysteria, and religion, ~catalyzed by ego and greed are usurping the true scientific pursuit.

Im sittin here on a cold day oxidizing carbon stored in wood and releasing it into the atmosphere to keep the house warm. Is it better for the Earth if I keep it warm and toasty - - or just tolerable? I actually want to know.
Larry
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #284  
New coastlines. Okay. So what? I think some people have this sudden tsunami image in their heads when they think about this. Even if GW is real, even if it is my fault, the rising tide is going to be an event that encompasses not decades, but centuries! (At least according to the much ballyhooed UN report). So its going to take years and years. There will be sudden catastrophic events too. Maybe more than usual. But not that much more. Anyone remember Bangladesh in the 1970's? Its going to take a while to top that. The world will have time to adapt. Will terrible things happen in the meantime? You betcha. When have they not?

The fact remains that until some of the GW activists can show me the list of the good things that will happen due to their proposed global warming, I refuse to take them seriously. It exposes their agenda. And that's part of the reason no one wants to talk about the sun. If the sun is the cause of the alleged warming, then there will be no justification for the redistribution of wealth in the west (no one expects China and India to give a flying flip about GW.)
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #285  
N80 said:
New coastlines. Okay. So what?

A lot of IF's in the GW equation, but your comments brought to my mind the images of Katrina. It didn't take centuries for that, and here again - what if mankind was responsible for that?

I think we have a responsibility to ensure that we are doing our best NOT to contribute to our own demise.

-Mike Z.
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #286  
Don't forget that Katrina, at the time of landfall, was not an uber-hurricane. It was a pretty average Gulf Coast hurricane. Most of the horrors from Katrina came from where it hit and who it hit. New Orleans had been patiently waiting for that storm, and doing nothing to prepare for it for decades. Couple that with a population that had grown so totally dependant on the government and welfare that it couldn't even manage to leave when told to leave, and a response by local, state and federal governments that was inadequate in some cases and criminal in others and you get what you got. So yes, mankind _was_ responsible for the Katrina disaster, but no one's SUV or gassy cow had anything to do with it.

My uncle, who lives in the French Quarter rode the storm out. Virtually no damage to his home. Had phone service back within a day or two. Streets flooded but not into his home. The problem was lower lying neighborhoods, inadequate levis and an almost unbelievable willingness for the poor to sit there despite all warnings to the contrary and no one came to help them. Not the mayor, not the governor, not the president. And they had days to do it in, and in many cases, they only needed to go as far as the French Quarter.

Similar case with Andrew. A huge amount of the damage in Andrew resulted in shoddy building codes and standards. The roofs on those slap dash, cookie cutter suburban homes that go on as far as the eye can see where barely attached.

When _much_ stronger hurricanes come ashore in less populated places (I remember several around Eglin AFB in the 90's) the damage is tremendous, but it just isn't to a significant number of humans or things because the humans and things aren't there. No one conjure up these storms to defend global warming.

And this is one of the main points in an Atlantic Monthly article I read a few years ago. If GW is a fact, then there is little we can do to stop it (which is _exactly_ what the current UN report says, though the GW people want to skip over that part) then the way we prepare for and respond to the changes is what's important. It is more important in places like central America where more and more people are moving into previously uninhabited coastal areas. These are the places where the huge human tragedies will occur. Not becuase of GW, but because they are there, on the coast and will have no warning systems, no FEMA, no US Coast Guard, Nat'l Guard, etc. In the US it won't matter. It certainly doesn't keep the folks in California from building their homes in areas prone to mudslides and wildfires or people on the East Coast from building MacMansions a foot or two above the spring high tide. FEMA will take care of them.
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #287  
N80 said:
The fact remains that until some of the GW activists can show me the list of the good things that will happen due to their proposed global warming, I refuse to take them seriously. It exposes their agenda.

George,

While it's obvious that you and I are on the same side, it's also pretty obvious that you are allot smarter than I am. It's been a pleasure reading your posts and following along with your logic. You explain this much better than I ever could hope to.

The comment of yours that I quoted really does cut right to the core of the re real agenda. Those who are accusing man of Global Warming and all the horror that will happen, have never told us what might happen as a result that could be positive.

My earlier post about more rain was a serious one. If we have more water on the planet, and the planet is warmer, won't we have more rain? Would it be reasonable to expect better yields out of farms? Longer growing seasons with more water. Will the dry deserts begin to flourish because of more rain? Will more land become available for people to live, farm and grow crops that were previously under glaciers or covered in snow for much of the year?

The lost coastlines will just relocate further in if they have to. Holland has proven that levis work. I'm sure that will be part of the solution if it becomes needed. But so far, Katrina has reminded us that the worse years for Huricanes was in the 1030's. Last year was one of the very best. If we look at this evidence, Global Warming has resulted in fewer and weaker huricanes.

New Orleans was a known disaster waiting to happen. Bill Clinton increased spending to an all time high to do repairs and upgrades to the levis. Nothing was done because the the Army Corps of Engineers was tied up in court proving that certain bird, fish and plants wouldn't be harmed in upgradig the levi. George Bush increased funding for the Levis above Clintons level and the same thing happened. It was no secret that the levi system would fail. Every report ever made predicted it. What is a suprise is that nobody did anything to deal with it, or even follow the plans that they had already drawn up for when it happened.

How could anybody connect the Levi failures to Global Warming is just beyond me. It's grasping at straws and borderline criminal misderiction in my opinion. There is not relevance from one to the other.

Eddie
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #288  
Dennis Miller said it best:

If there is a hole in the atmosphere, and heat rises, then the heat should go out through the hole - you can’t have it both ways.

MYTH : Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming
FACT: Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.


MYTH : There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #290  
Larry, this is the best advice I can give you about your wood stove...:D YouTube - Crazy World of Arthur Brown Fire

***********************************************
Tallyho, the Katrina disaster was in the making for decades. The Army Corp of Engineers had battled the Sierra Club and lost in court to reinforce the leeves. Before that they battled the EPA I believe it was, and lost to reinforce the leeves. Now all of a sudden it's the goverment's fault that people decided to live in areas which were below sea level, and risk , then experience the extreme hardships that those decisions resulted in. Kinda reminds me of people sueing the tabacco companies for them contracting bad health due to smoking. The goverment labeling warning about smoking was begun in the 60's. We make our choices and must live, or die by the results of those decisions. A word to the wise is usually suficent, everyone else must experience it to learn. Blaming someone else for our troubles is a basic human nature.......I don't hear anyone belly aching in upper state New York about being burried under 12 plus feet of snow, and it being the goverment's fault. :eek:

********************************************************************************
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
 
Last edited:
/ Climate Change Discussion #291  
tallyho8 said:
Most of what you said here is true but I must disagree with some of your Katrina falacies.

Tallyho,

I learned more about why people didn't evacuate Katrina reading your post than I have from the news media since it happened!!!! What you say makes allot of sense. I had no idea about the previous evacuations, nor did I consider what was inolved with evacuating. I know that I've never done it and hopt to never have to.

It seems to me that the finger pointing got so severe, that the media totaly forgot to report what actually happened. They focused on the dead and wild stories that were later proven to be false, and ignored the basics of the entire event. National Geographic did a show in what happened that broke it down very nicely. From the time Katrina started to form to the aftermath. It was very imformative and it's where I learned that the Levi's broke during the storm. I'd heard in the news that they broke well after the storm. But that was just more bad coverage by the media.

It really makes more sense to me why the people didn't evacuate now that I've read your post. Thanks.

Eddie
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #292  
I feel I owe you an apoligy Tallyho, and appreciate the lenghty explaination about the evacuations, but many of those living in New Orleans are their by choice. It is low lands located near a highly active coastline. Your assesment of the city officals is very accurate, and I said the same thing 2 days before Katrina hit.
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #293  
IH3444 said:
Now all of a sudden it's the goverment's fault that people decided to live in areas which were below sea level, and risk , then experience the extreme hardships that those decisions resulted in. QUOTE]

What many fail to realize it that much of this area was NOT below sea level when our parents or grandparents moved here years ago. The land has been steadily sinking and eroding away due to actions taken by the feds which are too numerous to list here. National oil companies dug hundreds of canals through our wetlands which brought in saltwater intrusion and eroded away millions of acres of land that protected the area, between the New Orleans area and the Gulf. New Orleans is 50 miles closer to the Gulf than it was 75 years ago due to these actions.

Our main flooding came from the destructive actions of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet channel which the feds built here in the 1960s against fierce protest. This was a multi-million dollar pork barrel project that the huge majority of people in the area did not want and which has done nothing but lose huge sums of money over the years. Warnings, protests and court actions over the years to get this canal closed before it flooded the area fell on deaf ears. This one canal, which serves no useful purpose whatsoever, caused all the flooding in St Bernard Parish where 100% of the homes were underwater, many of them well above sea level, and it caused almost all of the flooding in Orleans Parish. Though the purposes this canal was built for were never utilized, and only one business in the area has much use for it, and it alone has caused billions of dollars in damages to the area, the feds have still not said if they will close it and it remains open to flood the area again in the next major hurricane. :eek: Though virtually 100% of the people in the area want this destructive canal closed, no amount of protests and lawsuits have been able to convince the feds to close it and no one except one small business benefitting from it.

Blaming New Orleanians for New Orleans flooding is like blaming the victims of the Trade Towers for being there when the planes hit because they knew it was the prime terrorist target in the world.:mad:

Though I have never lived in New Orleans, I have lived in it's suburban area for 61 years and I know New Orleans is far from being a perfect city and has attracted many of the worst class of people over the last half century. The estimated 10,000 looters who looted basically every place in the city, stealing billions of dollars in goods, loading it in their cars, then running away to other cities to hide and do destruction there, have caused the image of New Orleanians to be disgraced throughout the world, and this has caused many to believe that there are nothing here but poor worthless bums and thieves who don't deserve to be helped. But every major city (and minor ones too) have a certain percentage of these types.

And to make matters worse, the news media has only shown the oldest, poorest, part of the flooded areas of the city. The truth is that the oldest, poorest parts of the city did not flood because they were built on the highest ground. All the newest and most expensive subdivisions are the ones that flooded, including the Lakeview area where all the upper-income white people lived who paid 90% of the property taxes that kept the city operating.

The Downtown and French Quarter areas, which are all the tourists ever see, are all back to normal and in full operation for our Mardi Gras season which is in full swing now, so if any of you have been wanting to come down and join the world's largest? celebration and eat the world's best food, the door is open.:D :D :D

EDITED (after last post) IH3444 I was busy writing this lengthy post while you made your last post. No apology is necessary because many just believe what they hear in the media. People who have lived in an area for generations tend to not leave their family, friends and roots to move elsewhere in fear of a calamity hitting. Do people move out of California from fear of earthquakes, or out of the midwest for fear of tornados, or out of New York for fear of blizzards? Yet, these are natural disasters. The thing that sets Katrina apart in the New Orleans area is that 90% of the damage was caused by man-made projects that the local population could not control and they choose to stay and fight for what was theirs and file lawsuits and protest in the hope that these canals could be closed before the Big One.
 
Last edited:
/ Climate Change Discussion #294  
Quote: Dennis Miller said it best:

If there is a hole in the atmosphere, and heat rises, then the heat should go out through the hole - you can’t have it both ways.


On its surface this appears to be a good explanation to the link in #290.
To think a little deeper - Heat itself does not have any preferential direction other than toward a cooler area. Rise of heat is due to density differences in materials that can move. This natural convection is driven by gravity.

The hole, the ozone one?, would not contribute to heat rise in that way. Interesting tho, it may provide a very clear avenue for Antarctica to radiate heat into space. That might be one of the keys to this seemingly self contradicting puzzle we keep running into.
larry
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #296  
QUOTE=N80
I really didn't say it was easy. I said it was easier than not evacuating in the face of such a storm in such a place.

65% of the population did evacuate. 35% did not evacuate (I am one) because they could not or would not for various reasons.

Quote
There had been countless models of what would happen to NO in the event of a major hurricane. Mother nature brought no surprises to the table in this one except that it could have _easily_ been much worse than it was. Most models looked worse than what actually happened.

Models depict what will happen to California in an earthquake. Do you expect all of them to move also?

Quote
First off, I live in SC and lived on the SC coast for many years. I lived on the Florida coast for many years too. So I'm intimately familiar with the hurricane drill. Fact is, in any circumstance it is highly improbable that the full 20 million, or even a tenth of that, would need to move at the same time, in the same direction.

So who gets to pick who can go and who has to stay?

Quote
But it is better to complain about the travails of evacuation than to expect someone in a chopper to pull you off a roof or feed you MRE's in a football stadium. But you make your decisions and you live or die by them when in the face of a hurricane

90% of the people killed in Katrina were elderly senior citizens at home or in nursing homes who had no way to evacuate and no one to assist them.

Quote
New Orleans, and the entire state of Louisiana have the richest history of political corruption in the US. It preceded Huey Long by decades and continues at this very moment.

I AGREE.

Quote
Louisiana is a black hole for federal money.

Louisiana is a good excuse for the feds to claim that's where the money is going while 10% of it comes down here and 90% stays in the pockets of Washington Bureaucrats.

Quote
My main point was that Katrina was not and is not a result of global warming in the scope of the damage and death it caused.

I AGREE.

Quote
The natural force of the storm itself isbest illustrated by the French Quarter. The storm hardly damaged it at all.

Winds did not do the damage. The damage was done by the water that flowed from the Gulf to the city up the Federally constructed MRGO canal that none of us wanted in the first place and that we can't get the feds to close down. I DO NOT blame New Orleans Katrina damage on GW. I DO blame New Orleans Katrina damage on the feds for refusing to close their conduit of the floodwaters that caused the damage. (They can not close it down without admitting it was the cause of the damage thus exposing themselves to billions of dollars in lawsuits)
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #297  
Seems like the only ones who did good by Katrina were the attorneys? They stand to make billions in profits off of GW over the coming decades... :eek:
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #298  
tallyho8 said:
65% of the population did evacuate. 35% did not evacuate (I am one) because they could not or would not for various reasons.

And presumably the death toll was highest amongst those who did not evacuate. And presumably most of the human tragedy, and thus media hoopla, centered around those who did not evacuate. The object lesson is for the 35%, not the 65%.

Models depict what will happen to California in an earthquake. Do you expect all of them to move also?

If they had two, three or four days notice then yes I would expect them to move. I don't understand your point. The people who suffer the most and subsequantly 'cost' the most are those who stay.

And if it all comes down to making choices, I'm fine with that, but no one today expects anyone to suffer from making a bad choice. Which is absurd. I've had to make the decision more than once.

So who gets to pick who can go and who has to stay?

I'm not sure what the point of that question is. I'm sure you know how it actually works right? If you think the storm is going to kill you or your family and some elected (or nepotistic appointee) tells you its okay to stay and you do, whose fault is it if you get hurt? If they tell you to leave and you don't, whose fault is it if you are hurt? In my mind both answers are the same.

90% of the people killed in Katrina were elderly senior citizens at home or in nursing homes who had no way to evacuate and no one to assist them.

And we would agree that that is shameful. Who is the current mayor of NO?

Louisiana is a good excuse for the feds to claim that's where the money is going while 10% of it comes down here and 90% stays in the pockets of Washington Bureaucrats.

He says/she says. That's why we need to be more careful who we give our money to.

Winds did not do the damage. The damage was done by the water that flowed from the Gulf

That is precisely my point. I witnessed the aftermath of Hugo. Along highway 17, the Francis Marion National Forest was miles of mature long leaf pines. After Hugo for miles inland, north and south, as far as you could see, those pines were broken off about fifteen feet up. That sort of force could have, and will hit NO one day. The same amount of rain, bigger tidal surge plus wind damage like Hugo. My point is that in the face of that sort of possibility (and Katrina was that strong up until the last minute) people cannot afford to stay. That is the one thing that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I DO blame New Orleans Katrina damage on the feds for refusing to close their conduit of the floodwaters that caused the damage.

I don't remember the details but I think you know it was not a simple 'wrong' decision. The water has to go somewhere. But regardless, part of my point is that you can't rely on the mayor or Uncle Sam. I think the property damage beef is very different from the loss of life beef. But object lesson number two is that if you rely on the government to protect you or save you from every one of life's situations, you will be disappointed most of the time. And who is the new mayor of New Orleans?
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #299  
N80 said:
And presumably the death toll was highest amongst those who did not evacuate. And presumably most of the human tragedy, and thus media hoopla, centered around those who did not evacuate. The object lesson is for the 35%, not the 65%.
Even if 100% of the people had evacuated this would not have diminished the billions of dollars of losses.:(

WHOA! I just realized that this discussion has turned into an argument and I use TBN for relaxation and discussion with my friends. I think it would be best for me to not try to defend New Orleans anymore and also because it is no longer the New Orleans that I lived by and loved and grew up by and now I am ashamed of defending it anyway. Please excuse me if I refrain from any further discussion on this topic in this forum. Besides, it's time for me to go clean my horse stalls and I can just put up with so much in one day.:rolleyes:
 
/ Climate Change Discussion #300  
I didn't think we were arguing. In fact, we agreed on more than we disagreed. And I didn't think your points were manure, and I apologize if mine smelled that way. But sometimes manure makes a pretty good fertilizer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Marketplace Items

(4) Trail Quest 225/75R/15 Tires and Rims (A64047)
(4) Trail Quest...
2012 Kia Optima Sedan (A61569)
2012 Kia Optima...
generator trailer (A61569)
generator trailer...
2004 John Deere 4720 (A60462)
2004 John Deere...
2014 FVCG TRAILER (A61567)
2014 FVCG TRAILER...
New/Unused Wolverine 72in Quick Attach Tiller (A61166)
New/Unused...
 
Top