Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Golly; here "I" thought that the "I- anything" meant it was a pure post without the benefit of Pat's input!:thumbsup:

I really didn't care what his reference was, iSaw the opportunity and iRan with it!:thumbsup:

 

[Tollster]

I agree totally with ya'll, how could the lefty's ever believe a world world population of 7,026,663,968, many still chinking stones much as the flintsones did, could possibly be damaging the atmosphere. Let alone with such a small percentage of weather keeping. They really must be nuts!

 

[EE_Bota]

I agree totally with ya'll, how could the lefty's ever believe a world world population of 7,026,663,968, many still chinking stones much as the flintsones did, could possibly be damaging the atmosphere. Let alone with such a small percentage of weather keeping. They really must be nuts!

Perhaps you can be more clear about what you think is actionable regarding population growth.

 

[tcreeley]

Fair enough, Newbury. I don't know which of us is older, you or me, but I have seen wrongdoing in the name of nearly everything, so I can't assign that to entire classes, or systems, since no class or system seems to be immune.

No, it is not assigned to a class. It is a matter of setting a priority. Which results in the greatest degree of harm- that is the one addressed 1st. Assessing the harm as this forum shows- is an impossibility- from GMO's to global warming.

The consensus is that the weather is been disrupting business as usual- re storms and high heat Is any future planning required to minimize this potential pattern? -tornado proof building, flood management, energy infrastructure improvements, shifting agricultural production out of drought zones, re-zoning coastal areas for storm damage?

I am assuming the tbn consensus on these questions is no. But I thought I would raise it.

 

[EE_Bota]

The consensus is that the weather is been disrupting business as usual- re storms and high heat Is any future planning required to minimize this potential pattern? -tornado proof building, flood management, energy infrastructure improvements, shifting agricultural production out of drought zones, re-zoning coastal areas for storm damage?

Can't you decide all those things for yourself? Make up your own mind, and stop waiting for more consensus, or more likely, more government.

 

[tcreeley]

Can't you decide all those things for yourself? Make up your own mind, and stop waiting for more consensus, or more likely, more government.

I've decided, as you can guess!
But I suppose: Is any future planning required to minimize this potential pattern? -tornado proof building, flood management, energy infrastructure improvements, shifting agricultural production out of drought zones, re-zoning coastal areas for storm damage? is meaningless to you! - What I expected!

 

[toppop52]

The actual number of, or more accurately the amount of life sustaining material needed by carbon based life forms has changed virtual zero since 100 million years ago. Dinosaurs were here then along with reptiles and who knows what else, the earth was much warmer and volcanoes were very active and the atmosphere was nearly identical in pollutants. How would AGW proponents explain that?

 

[EE_Bota]

I've decided, as you can guess!
But I suppose: Is any future planning required to minimize this potential pattern? -tornado proof building, flood management, energy infrastructure improvements, shifting agricultural production out of drought zones, re-zoning coastal areas for storm damage? is meaningless to you! - What I expected!

You've decided about AGW obviously, but have you decided whose job it is to do your planning to assure your survival and prosperity. Do we need to reach consensus about whether you need a tornado shelter or whether solar would be good for you? Your overall statements are not that meaningful to me, but I am trying to draw you out to get you to say exactly what in the heck you want from the rest of us. If you just want to chat, that's fine, but you are typically churning for change, but I disagree frequently with the changes you wish to make. So, it is not odd that I would want you to say explicitly what your future tornado cellar has to do with me.

Some of you folks who say you share the consensus don't act like it. You imply others who have eyes and ears and use both to observe you are dumb. If it is real, do real things, and if it is just a desire to express your ideological dogma, "as you were."

 

[tcreeley]

You've decided about AGW obviously, but have you decided whose job it is to do your planning to assure your survival and prosperity. Do we need to reach consensus about whether you need a tornado shelter or whether solar would be good for you? Your overall statements are not that meaningful to me, but I am trying to draw you out to get you to say exactly what in the heck you want from the rest of us. If you just want to chat, that's fine, but you are typically churning for change, but I disagree frequently with the changes you wish to make. So, it is not odd that I would want you to say explicitly what your future tornado cellar has to do with me.

Some of you folks who say you share the consensus don't act like it. You imply others who have eyes and ears and use both to observe you are dumb. If it is real, do real things, and if it is just a desire to express your ideological dogma, "as you were."

In Maine- there is little happening as a result of higher tems. More AC's and a few smaller tornadoes- but that is all.
We are not losing the power for weeks at a time- don't even in the winter. The power companies do a good job of keeping lines clear. Has all of WV gotten their power back? We don't have mile wide tornadoes starting in January- for the whole summer. Hurricanes are rare here- Tropical storms don't do any damage here- unlike the last one. Our roads don't buckle in the heat. Local potato farmers the last 3 years have been building irrigation ponds and installing more systems for their fields after the drought of a couple of years ago left some fields dry. There are no 3 digit temps to worry about. But are folks living where that is happening- planning and adjusting to deal with it (like our potato farmers) or are they looking the other way and ignoring it? I think NOAH came up with a new series of tornado warnings- but could be wrong.
.....How can you lose the power in the summer for how many weeks? That is just dumb.

 

[EE_Bota]

.....How can you lose the power in the summer for how many weeks? That is just dumb.

Probably a combination of bad weather and deferred maintenance. I'd hate to call it dumb since kicking them when their are down does nothing for them or me.

 

[tallyho8]

.....How can you lose the power in the summer for how many weeks? That is just dumb.

Parts of New Orleans lost power for over a year after Katrina. I wouldn't say it was dumb but just that it shows how long recovery can be after a catastrophic event and that restoring power may not be the first priority after such an event.

 

[atgreene]

In Maine- there is little happening as a result of higher tems. More AC's and a few smaller tornadoes- but that is all.
We are not losing the power for weeks at a time- don't even in the winter. The power companies do a good job of keeping lines clear. Has all of WV gotten their power back? We don't have mile wide tornadoes starting in January- for the whole summer. Hurricanes are rare here- Tropical storms don't do any damage here- unlike the last one. Our roads don't buckle in the heat. Local potato farmers the last 3 years have been building irrigation ponds and installing more systems for their fields after the drought of a couple of years ago left some fields dry. There are no 3 digit temps to worry about. But are folks living where that is happening- planning and adjusting to deal with it (like our potato farmers) or are they looking the other way and ignoring it? I think NOAH came up with a new series of tornado warnings- but could be wrong.
.....How can you lose the power in the summer for how many weeks? That is just dumb.

Irene last summer we lost power for 108 hours, strongest wind gust was 28 mph on my meter. The Ice Storm of '98 we were without power for 3 weeks, some parts of town for over a month. When I bought my auto generator 2 years ago, we lost power in August 4 times for a total of 36 hours. I got tired of listening to my pto generator run all night to power the a/c's. Pretty typical to loose power overnight here for at least 12 hours after a strong storm. The last year or so they have done a better job trimming back, but it's already starting to grow back.

 

[patrick_g]

Writing NOAH is shouting the name of the dude who built the Ark. NOAA is an abbreviation for the Gov guys concerned with the ocean and atmosphere.

Changes in temperature don't have to be huge to cause biologic problems. Consider fever or chills, how many degrees above or below the center of the white arc on your personal heat gauge before you are suffering?

Confusion is the enemy of action. If enough people can be kept confused there will be no beneficial action taken. So far I have not witnessed any unifying effect from this thread. On the contrary, it seems to have more strongly polarized those whose minds were mostly made up and confused the rest.

To deny that man has had a detrimental effect on the natural environment is abysmal ignorance. How much and to what end is the appropriate universe of discourse as well as what if anything should or could be done about it.

Until or unless the debate rises above political agendas, wishful thinking, and denial, little or no good will come from all the rhetoric.

Has anyone observed any beneficial outcome from the discussions here over the long life of this thread? If yes, then please point them out to the rest of us less observant ones.

If anyone has made a significant change in their beliefs/position on the issues due to this thread, please share that.

Pat

 

[patrick_g]

Writing NOAH is shouting the name of the dude who built the Ark. NOAA is an abbreviation for the Gov guys concerned with the ocean and atmosphere.

Changes in temperature don't have to be huge to cause biologic problems. Consider fever or chills, how many degrees above or below the center of the white arc on your personal heat gauge before you are suffering?

Confusion is the enemy of action. If enough people can be kept confused there will be no beneficial action taken. So far I have not witnessed any unifying effect from this thread. On the contrary, it seems to have more strongly polarized those whose minds were mostly made up and confused the rest.

To deny that man has had a detrimental effect on the natural environment is abysmal ignorance. How much and to what end is the appropriate universe of discourse as well as what if anything should or could be done about it.

Until or unless the debate rises above political agendas, wishful thinking, and denial, little or no good will come from all the rhetoric.

Has anyone observed any beneficial outcome from the discussions here over the long life of this thread? If yes, then please point them out to the rest of us less observant ones.

If anyone has made a significant change in their beliefs/position on the issues due to this thread, please share that.

Pat

 

[toppop52]

To deny that man has had a detrimental effect on the natural environment is abysmal ignorance.

From a man who can't avoid a double post!:laughing: Just kidding, but I'm one of those abysmally ignorant backward hillbilly's. My stubbornness is born of the fact that you can't prove what you say. Oh sure, you can quote others who believe as you do, but there is no absolute proof, or even 75% proof that man has changed the climate worldwide in any appreciable manner. The fact that some of us refuse to believe a bunch of people repeating the same rhetoric from the same like minded sources doesn't make us ignorant of anything but the thought process that makes liberals feel they can just call us ignorant because they are so much superior in their own minds. Before you call me ignorant, explain the the Medieval Warming Period, the great Greenland/Iceland glacial melt of the 30's, The Little Ice Age, the fact that mars is warming at a similar rate to earth over the same time span your kind point to as AGW, etc, etc...

If man had nothing to do with those, and both the MWP and the 30's melt were warmer faster than now, how is it now it's man?Oh, I wholeheartedly agree there is abysmal ignorance at work, and a fantastic perpetration of hoax, it's just not us.

 

[EE_Bota]

Has anyone observed any beneficial outcome from the discussions here over the long life of this thread? If yes, then please point them out to the rest of us less observant ones.

If anyone has made a significant change in their beliefs/position on the issues due to this thread, please share that.

Pat

People who believe we need changes in our energy situation should start making those changes themselves.

I don't care to tell any of you what your reasons should be to change. I would like change and diversity. Those of you who fancy yourselves as understanding things, and who have means, it is not your words and belittlement that is needed so much as it is your example of change.

I can do better to "screw the Arabs." Now that's kind of a nasty expression...but it was chosen deliberately to test you all. In a diverse country, do people have to do what is right for EXACTLY the reason you say? How many of you are big enough to just let me do the right thing for the wrong reason and keep your mouth shut about the actual international oil trade, the markets, import/export patterns, fungibility of oil, refinery types and oil types. Could it be that much of it really is politics, and most are absolutely LOUSY politicians placing their own egos well above the goals they claim to desperately want?

I've learned that AGW debate has ruined its own usefulness as a motivator for change beyond all else. The folks who believe it are not acting on their own behalf sufficiently in my view, and seem to want to just control their detractors better politically. The detractors, they are more hardened against AGW and its theory advocates than ever before. I am not more hardened about the theory personally, but I am just as suspicious about the rank and file supporter of the theory as I ever was. This is America: Do it, don't wait on me, and I won't wait on you, and lets keep Climatologists like Pelosi and Boehner out of it.

 

[Egon]

In a time long ago where man did not exist some of the life forms so changed the earth that man could exist.

Of course living forms are not capable of changing the climate but it seems they did in this case and left proof of providence in their wake!

Passenger pigeons, has anyone seem a flock lately.

And the Cod; oh where did they go?

And now we hear some whales and salmon are not getting three squares a day.

Now the Buffalo in hoards used to roam far and wide but now they are few and locked behind fences. Why oh why is this?:confused3:

 

[toppop52]

I don't think anyone has said man's ability to effect species through contemporary hunting methods was in debate, do you recall such a debate? I don't. The problem is, any species you choose regardless of how great the numbers are, are a tiny, tiny, tiny spec of the environment worldwide.; So while man may well have the ability to hunt such strange creatures as bison, mute swan, and liberals into extinction, his ability to do that to the climate over a long period of time, even with nuclear weapons, is severely limited.Any more cutesie little animal stories? I love cutesie little animal stories!

 

[toppop52]

As for "life forms" changing the world so man could exist, who changed the world so they could exist to change the world so man could exist?

 

[Chuck52]

As for "life forms" changing the world so man could exist, who changed the world so they could exist to change the world so man could exist?

I suspect that Egon is referring to the theory that early life forms were responsible for changing the atmosphere by generating free O2 such that later oxygen-requiring life forms evolved. Aside from the religious connections, I don't know that there is a conservative vs liberal view on that theory. Care to create one?

The more general application to the current argument would be to point out the obvious: Mankind certainly can and does influence the environment, and by extension, the climate. The extent of the influence is open to debate. The existence of the influence is, as opposed to dear old HS's periodic postings, settled science.

I come back to this Never-Ending-Story periodically to make sure nothing has changed but the characters....and even the characters sometimes come back to life like those in the Young and the Restless. I keep waiting for Victor to marry his own great grandmother and beget his father, but they might be saving that for the last episode.

Chuck