tcreeley
Elite Member
Tasty!
Global Warming?
- Thread starter Bird
- Start date
- Views: 365935
- Status
Tasty!
tcreeley
Elite Member
Are you willing to plan for future climate problems?
tcreeley
Elite Member
What we have had recently is two low level hurricane/tropical storms that are so large, and intense that they have contributed a major amount of damage. Just think if they had been Cat 4 or 5 hurricanes and as large as Sandy. Sandy was so big - it sucked in a cold front from Canada. The old hurricanes of our youth were never this large and wide ranging.
tcreeley
Elite Member
Simplistic response
tcreeley
Elite Member
Re: @ robert Brown....???
You are not exactly a disinterested observer! I wouldn't worry about it. Do what ever you want.
You are not exactly a disinterested observer! I wouldn't worry about it. Do what ever you want.
tcreeley
Elite Member
It is time we address and plan for global warming disasters- before the fact, not after they happen.
In a purely tractor world- we'd call that regular maintenance. If we actually addressed the causes of global warming - that would be preventative maintenance. Is this a radical concept- that is difficult to understand?:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
this BS of comparing hurricanes by the amount of damage is absurd, the houses in the 60's built on the barrier islands were tiny cottages many just sat on blocks or poles, now tremendous mansions are being built on the same shifting sand and far more are there to boot. a hurricane of the exact same magnitude will do hundreds of times more damage same as tornadoes and wildfire. And in the case of New Orleans the Army core of Engineers are to blame the levies are destroying the marshes so now the hurricanes hit with full force instead of being softened by extensive marsh land. I guess it makes good news propaganda to talk about how much more severe the storms are now.
Tollster
Veteran Member
Agreed, my post reflects to its overall size.
madmax12
Veteran Member
tcreeley said:
A yes response requires so much more explanation...delving into subjects not quite suited to this thread, though required for a comprehensive reply.
Short answer, yes. But what I mean will probably vary considerably from your yes.
You still buying ice cream? That gave the thread a more appealing pull, for me.
toppop52
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 13,416
- Location
- Eastern Shore of Maryland
- Tractor
- Massey Ferguson 1723, Cub Cadet 1864
If I use TC's logic....it's been 7-10 degrees below normal for a week now here, quick, get out the Wooley Mamouth repellent! :laughing:
Others ; explain why global cooling, fairly dramatic cooling, between 1950-1972 was not the harbinger of an ice age, yet warming over roughly the same relative time is **** coming to earth? Why will the dire predictions all come true, when the violent hurricane seasons prediction has been such a flop, nobody is about to repopulate Greenland, there are no current plans for nudist beaches in Antarctica and they're still selling winter coats at Macey's?
Careful guys, the mutants created by the summer heat, even sounds weird to say, a hot summer, wow! Anyway, those heat monsters are coming or y-o-u! :laughing:
Others ; explain why global cooling, fairly dramatic cooling, between 1950-1972 was not the harbinger of an ice age, yet warming over roughly the same relative time is **** coming to earth? Why will the dire predictions all come true, when the violent hurricane seasons prediction has been such a flop, nobody is about to repopulate Greenland, there are no current plans for nudist beaches in Antarctica and they're still selling winter coats at Macey's?
Careful guys, the mutants created by the summer heat, even sounds weird to say, a hot summer, wow! Anyway, those heat monsters are coming or y-o-u! :laughing:
bcjmmac
Silver Member
A little clean up at the stacks & reduced sulphur helped that one. Other panic du jour from the 70s was the approaching ice age. Some scientists are still predicting a cooling period in the near future due to a cyclical cycle that they believe we are entering/about to enter (don't have a link handy but believe it has to do with our position relative the center of the milky way//galactic dust clouds but could also be due a cyclical lessening of the suns output, etc).
wcampbell47
Platinum Member
Interesting - this thread has been going for right at 7 years. Bird casually posted something about global warming in Nov 2006. In South Texas in the late 70's we had below freezing temps for 10 days straight and again a similar thing in '89. Then we had 12" of snow on the beach in 2005. Those of us that were born before 1990 have seen a few "cycles" of different weather. Just saying.
newbury
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 14,845
- Location
- From Vt, in Va, retiring to MS
- Tractor
- Kubota's - B7610, M4700
Re: @ robert Brown....???
Just a few replies ranting against others
Acid rain (and smog) is an excellent example of man's effect on the environment and it's successful mitigation and recovery. Before "they" really started cutting down on air pollution in the 1980's and 1990's going outside in Washington DC during a summer day was swimming in smog. For decades I relied on acid rain to clean my cars. That's changed and I now use soap.
Sulfur emissions was one of the primary culprits
A good example of man induced environmental change due to pollution, man changing his pollution and the environment partially recovering.
Just a few replies ranting against others
Yes do not take INDIVIDUAL storms or events, be they cold fronts, droughts, storms or whatever. BUT do evaluate them in total.
DO NOT BLAME THE ARMY "core" (sic) OF ENGINEERS!. The CORPS of Engineers, like the ARMY does what it is told. It's the local politicians that request and demand projects, many of which the Corps fights, but must give in to. The Corps was saddled with the responsibility to maintain the Nations transportation and defenses with significant civil sides. The true Army engineers would probably prefer ALL the civil side be separated from the military and shoved into a different Department than the Department of Defense.
Whatever happened to acid rain. That was the panic du jour years ago.Guess it;s not cool anymore
Acid rain (and smog) is an excellent example of man's effect on the environment and it's successful mitigation and recovery. Before "they" really started cutting down on air pollution in the 1980's and 1990's going outside in Washington DC during a summer day was swimming in smog. For decades I relied on acid rain to clean my cars. That's changed and I now use soap.
Sulfur emissions was one of the primary culprits
Acid rain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A good example of man induced environmental change due to pollution, man changing his pollution and the environment partially recovering.
Loren49
Veteran Member
Loren49
Veteran Member
Whatever happened to acid rain. That was the panic du jour years ago.Guess it;s not cool anymore
Acid Rain - Causes, Effects, and Solutions
Although it was discovered in the 1800s, acid deposition did not gain significant public attention until the 1960s and the term acid rain was coined in 1972. Public attention further increased in the 1970s when the New York Times published reports about problems occurring in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire
If the pH of a lake drops below 4.8, its plants and animals risk death and it is estimated that around 50,000 lakes in the United States and Canada have a pH below normal (about 5.3 for water). Several hundred of these have a pH too low to support any aquatic life.
Damage to forests by acid rain is seen all over the world, but the most advanced cases are in Eastern Europe. It’s estimated that in Germany and Poland, half of the forests are damaged, while 30% in Switzerland have been affected.
Finally, acid deposition also has an impact on architecture and art because of its ability to corrode certain materials. As acid lands on buildings (especially those constructed with limestone) it reacts with minerals in the stones sometimes causing it to disintegrate and wash away. Acid deposition can also corrode modern buildings, cars, railroad tracks, airplanes, steel bridges, and pipes above and below ground.
What's Being Done?
Because of these problems and the adverse effects air pollution has on human health, a number of steps are being taken to reduce sulfur and nitrogen emissions. Most notably, many governments are now requiring energy producers to clean smoke stacks by using scrubbers which trap pollutants before they are released into the atmosphere and catalytic converters in cars to reduce their emissions. Additionally, alternative energy sources are gaining more prominence today and funding is being given to the restoration of ecosystems damaged by acid rain worldwide.
----------------------------
Acid rain is still with us, seems to be a result of human activities, and is being addressed to a point by government action. (scientists investigated the causes and continue to work on solutions.) Sound familiar? Actions that may reduce man's contribution to global warming will also help with the acid rain problem.
Loren
EE_Bota
Elite Member
Re: @ robert Brown....???
Although I appreciate your comments, and understand how you feel that way (being as human as you,) you know well that the science that would deal with how you feel about the weather, and whether you accurately remember the weather of the past, that is a science other than climatology.
Those of you who have chided others to stick to the science and have charged others with being scientifically illiterate should not now take liberties of your own.
If this was 1970 and Sandy came to shore,i would say yes, but when you look at all the weather changes total and compare those to the storms you remember growing up, then surmise your own answer. This year alone we can reflect on record snowfalls in alaska, record droughts in the midwest, then combine those with the current hyperstorm we just had. I refrain from calling it global warming, extreme weather I have never experienced in my life, not in the time keeping of weather...all one after another. I feel something has changed.
The big one's in this day and age typically spread the whole country, this one almost splits the northern hemisphere:
Although I appreciate your comments, and understand how you feel that way (being as human as you,) you know well that the science that would deal with how you feel about the weather, and whether you accurately remember the weather of the past, that is a science other than climatology.
Those of you who have chided others to stick to the science and have charged others with being scientifically illiterate should not now take liberties of your own.
EE_Bota
Elite Member
Re: @ robert Brown....???
Politicians are good at making the point they wish to make, while being found innocent of wrongdoing in the finer print. Their comments are not needed for the science, and generally, their past comments have been harmful to the reception of the science. These people are politicizing a storm, that's all they are doing. I wonder how Bloomberg feels about folks politicizing a generator.
I typically don't, since my casual studies of the literature seem to indicate to me that if all tobacco is eliminated, the people are going to be very surprised at the amount of "smoking related cancer" that remains.
Agreed... one-off events do not indicate either AGW or the lack of AGW. There are debates about whether the entirety of our weather data is enough to make a sound AGW decision, but I don't think there should be a debate about a whether given week or a given storm is indicative.
As I write this, I am confused. A minute ago, I thought I was replying to Loren, but the quote made it clear I was replying to Tollster. Now, on this editor screen, at the top the "Title:" field is "Re: @ robert Brown....???" Maybe this sort of thing is typical, but I simply haven't noticed.
Politicians are good at making the point they wish to make, while being found innocent of wrongdoing in the finer print. Their comments are not needed for the science, and generally, their past comments have been harmful to the reception of the science. These people are politicizing a storm, that's all they are doing. I wonder how Bloomberg feels about folks politicizing a generator.
I typically don't, since my casual studies of the literature seem to indicate to me that if all tobacco is eliminated, the people are going to be very surprised at the amount of "smoking related cancer" that remains.
Agreed... one-off events do not indicate either AGW or the lack of AGW. There are debates about whether the entirety of our weather data is enough to make a sound AGW decision, but I don't think there should be a debate about a whether given week or a given storm is indicative.
As I write this, I am confused. A minute ago, I thought I was replying to Loren, but the quote made it clear I was replying to Tollster. Now, on this editor screen, at the top the "Title:" field is "Re: @ robert Brown....???" Maybe this sort of thing is typical, but I simply haven't noticed.
EE_Bota
Elite Member
Have you fully accounted for the number of times the South takes the brunt of the storms?
EE_Bota
Elite Member
Re: @ robert Brown....???
You are an odd sort of scientist. We have come full circle. When I first cautioned you about confusing Maine's whether with AGW or GW, you said you weren't offering it as evidence, and you'd do what you want. I thought "fair enough." But now you are going outside of Maine (even though people disputed your observations of your own weather with official data) into tropical storms, all while keeping the same attitude.
You were the one who recently, in one of these threads, said "It's called the scientific method, look it up!" Well...
You present an issue for your fellows, who like you, are convinced of AGW. Will they, in view of all their claims of a desire to stick to science, allow you to skate by on things like this while only commenting negatively to those they disagree with? In other words, is the poor science you agree with proper science, but the poor science you disagree with improper science. Is this what's meant by "political science?"
You are an odd sort of scientist. We have come full circle. When I first cautioned you about confusing Maine's whether with AGW or GW, you said you weren't offering it as evidence, and you'd do what you want. I thought "fair enough." But now you are going outside of Maine (even though people disputed your observations of your own weather with official data) into tropical storms, all while keeping the same attitude.
You were the one who recently, in one of these threads, said "It's called the scientific method, look it up!" Well...
You present an issue for your fellows, who like you, are convinced of AGW. Will they, in view of all their claims of a desire to stick to science, allow you to skate by on things like this while only commenting negatively to those they disagree with? In other words, is the poor science you agree with proper science, but the poor science you disagree with improper science. Is this what's meant by "political science?"
- Status
