BajaNomad

UPDATED: Saltwater intrusion on east coast (link)

 Pages:  1    3  

Pescador - 9-3-2015 at 09:58 AM

In 2006, warmist alarmist Al Gore claimed in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, that sea levels were rising so fast that the citizens of the Pacific nations would have to evacuate to New Zealand.
In 2007 Professor Mike Archer, Dean of Science at University of NSW said that there would be sharks in the middle of the street in Sydney, Australia?
And, Labor Minister Bob Carr claimed that the Pacific Island of Kiribati would be completely covered with water by 2030?

So we turn to data from the University of Colorado Monitoring for the past twenty years which verifies a 3.2 millimeter rise per year or 30 centimeters. They found sea levels had risen slowly over a long period of time and way before any influence from civilization.
Finally, the research on the Tarawa Atoll, part of Kiribati, shows no measurable rise in Mean Sea Level. The most populous atoll of Kiribati, Betio, has increased in size by a third over the past 60 years and an Auckland University study on 27 islands show they grew or stayed the same of the past 20-60 years.

David K - 9-3-2015 at 10:34 AM

Refreshing to hear good news about the earth for a change! Thank you!

wessongroup - 9-3-2015 at 11:01 AM

No argument about good news ... on the Environment ... as I've always loved the outdoors ... and Baja used to be a fave ... when a young'n up till around 30 ... which is well over 40 years ago

Dealing with findings from scientific investigation is responsibility of the Federal Government, here in the United States ... with Advise and Consent in operation at the highest levels of government

And in most cases, albeit convoluted and overpriced using this method, some degree of positives can be achieved

Was trying to find out the total tonnage of ALL hazards waste generation within the United States ... from when I was associated with that aspect of regulations back in 92 ...

Would appear the Chemical folks haven't changed too much ... from my association with same ...

Took till 93 to get some degree of accurate reporting on this

"[o] The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) continues its fight against the public's right-to-know. On April 30, CMA lost its lawsuit in U.S. District Court against EPA's addition of chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory; on June 27, CMA appealed."

And there has bee significant reduction in overall generation and/or disposal ... However, a signifiant amount of Hazardous Waste is now "Exported" under Federal Law to other Nations ...

Found this site which has used the FOIA to get some numbers ... which were NOT up on the Internet ... even at the Federal EPA, State EPA's ect

As the footprint left via manufacturing of goods and servicea is typically ... HAZARDOUS WASTE ... there are of course some exceptions ... but, they are far and few between

http://www.rtknet.org/db/brs/state

Hard to talk numbers, when some don't want to disclose those numbers ... for various reasons ... typically based on economics ... be it Government or Private Industry

We have made progress in handling Hazardous Waste and/or substances ... but, it is an ongoing thing ... cuz that is what we use to make a living with on this planet ... chemicals

It just comes down to HOW much one is dealing with on a Global Scale ... and that gets hard quickly

One might wonder why ... The Chemical Industry would not want to disclose this information, for planning purposes to protect Health and the Environment ... I always did :biggrin::biggrin:

And yes this would have something to do with environmental change ... which would include: Land, Air and Sea

Solid Waste numbers are easy to find ... Hazardous Waste ... not so much :):)

[Edited on 9-3-2015 by wessongroup]

Mexitron - 9-3-2015 at 11:15 AM

So are tide tables based on what sea levels were 30 years ago or on fluctuation from the current mean (which, granted, is the same on the US west coast anyway). That is, will it be a 10 foot tide or an 8 foot tide based on a new tidal mean?

wessongroup - 9-3-2015 at 11:26 AM

Hey this might help ... but, then it is from one of those Scientific kinda sites .. :biggrin::biggrin:

Is sea level the same all across the ocean?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html

Always something new to think about ... HUH :):)

What Happens To A Bridge When One Side Uses Mediterranean Sea Level And Another The North Sea?

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/what_happens_bridge_w...

Would appear Sea Level is dependent on "where" one is located on the planet :biggrin::biggrin:

and the difference aren't really that "big" only centimeters or millimeters ... so pretty hard to "eyeball" the difference by most

But, there would appear, based on using the latest technology ... there is in fact a measurable difference

And of course the next step in scientific investigation would be to monitor these levels over time and report back ... which I believe is what is being done at this time ... by many nations, which can only help in the long run

[Edited on 9-3-2015 by wessongroup]

Mexitron - 9-3-2015 at 01:11 PM

Thanks wessongroup:

"Local sea level" refers to the height of the water measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Tide stations measure local sea level. "Relative sea level trends" reflect changes in local sea level over time. This relative change is the one most critical for many coastal applications, including coastal mapping, marine boundary delineation, coastal zone management, coastal engineering, sustainable habitat restoration design, and the general public enjoying their favorite beach.



bezzell - 9-3-2015 at 04:31 PM

Maybe the sea level rise is just volume displacement!? :O

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/photos-pacific-ocean-pla...

wessongroup - 9-3-2015 at 04:41 PM

Lots of factor's involved with that much of anything thing which isn't "static" ... just the measurement of something that large would seem a bit difficult in "real time" ... even with the techogolgy we currently use ... water does tend to "move around" in various "phases" .... and add in all the others factors which influence the characteristics of the physical state of what we call the "ocean" ... It really does boggle the mind

But, overall it would appear we continue to gain more knowledge about water everyday ... which may prove useful in many areas in the near future given what humans do daily :biggrin::biggrin: and other critters and/or plants :):)

Thanks to all ... it is a very interesting subject ... water

btw have a good weekend :):) just remembered 2 for 6 when working ... a nice long weekend ...stay safe and don't eat too much of that BBQ ... 3,4-Benzepyrene don't ya know ... Me, what do I care ... Tri-Tip ... Santa Maria style BBQ this weekend ... I'll have someone let ya know if I died from eating it :lol::lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzo(a)pyrene



[Edited on 9-3-2015 by wessongroup]

gnukid - 9-5-2015 at 09:22 PM

Council on Foreign Relations discusses engineering climate and pubic opinion

bacquito - 9-6-2015 at 03:54 PM

I might be repeating information but I recently viewed "Ice" on Netflix and it was a real eye opener-very well done.

chuckie - 9-7-2015 at 05:08 AM

It's raining....

DianaT - 9-7-2015 at 01:31 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
How about Sourdough ... another fav ... :biggrin::biggrin:


Used to call it sheepherders bread ... first time Schat's bakery in 1947 in Bishop ... my dad was taking us kids up to Bishop Creek to camp .. below South Lake ... became a tradition ... and going over Bishop Pass down to the John Muir trail ... some days :):)


Shat's has become such a tourist trap --- the locals now all go to the Great Basin Bakery on a side street --- on Fridays they make a garlic sourdough bread that is way too good. Bishop Creek is still beautiful ---- need water in the lakes!

Jack Swords - 9-7-2015 at 02:14 PM

Interesting site with 18 photos on over population/climate change.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/201...

chuckie - 9-7-2015 at 02:30 PM

Very interesting, puts a different face on the issue...Some of the photos are pretty scary

Zola - 9-7-2015 at 09:28 PM

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair

LancairDriver - 9-8-2015 at 09:39 AM

Here's another theory on Global warming for our Nomad panel of climate change experts to tear apart.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/08/31/climate-ch...

wessongroup - 9-8-2015 at 10:26 AM

Truly amazing what small changes on things like the "Water Cycle" can result in ... when on a Planetary level

Extend that concept to other "substances" which are being produced by humans ... also on a Planetary scale ... not surprised there are some problems with the: Land, Sea and Air ...

Very sad ... lucky in my life to have seen things before the change and/or changes to a large extent ... from more and more people

Bishop and Shepherd Bread ... used to get it in a brown paper bag :biggrin::biggrin: ... Thanks T ... don't think I'll get a chance to try it ... but, the thought is just as good :):)

[Edited on 9-8-2015 by wessongroup]

JG - 9-10-2015 at 05:36 PM

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the 'stupidity of the American voter' or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass," Gruber said.

MIT can"t be wrong... or political...they got them white coats as well.

wessongroup - 9-11-2015 at 11:37 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JG  
"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the 'stupidity of the American voter' or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass," Gruber said.

MIT can"t be wrong... or political...they got them white coats as well.


Politics in action .. :biggrin::biggrin:

Sweetwater - 9-11-2015 at 01:35 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Zola  
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair


I enjoy Upton Sinclair.....thanks.....now more reality for the boys who don't believe in human caused climate change.....here's snippet that got me further into the Canadian studies.....you know those dirty rotten climate scientists not supported by our US taxes.....
Quote:

More flooding and erosion is expected in the future as fall sea ice dwindles. Waves in the Beaufort, Chukchi and Bering Seas have been getting bigger over the past four decades, a recent Environment Canada-led study found. In 2012, the year of record-low sea ice extent, scientists from the University of Washington measured 16-foot waves in the Beaufort Sea. The highest sea waves ever recorded in the Arctic, at 19.685 feet, were measured in the Barents Sea off Svalbard in 2010.



So I pulled the abstract from that Environment Canada study for those who know how to read....It was posted by the extremely liberal American Meteorlogical Society.....you know, another group of scientists with their non-profit .org
Quote:

Historical changes in the Beaufort-Chukchi-Bering Seas surface winds and waves, 1971-2013
Xiaolan L. Wang,* Yang Feng, and Val R. Swail Climate Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Andrew Cox Oceanweather , Inc., Cos Cob, CT, USA

Abstract This study characterizes historical changes in surface wind speed and ocean surface waves in the Beaufort-Chukchi-Bering Seas using the Environment Canada’s Beaufort Wind and Wave Reanalysis for the period 1970-2013. The results show that both the significant wave height (Hs) and mean wave period (Tm) have increased significantly over the Bering Sea in July and August, and over the Canadian Beaufort westward to the northern Bering Sea in September, and that the 1992-2013 trends in September mean Hs agree well with satellite-based trend estimates for 1993-2010. Most outstandingly, the regional mean Tm has increased at a rate of 3% to 4% per year of the corresponding 1970-1999 climatology; it has more than tripled since 1970. Also, the regional mean Hs has increased at a rate of 0.3% to 0.8% per year. The trend of lengthening wave period and increasing wave height imply a trend of increasing wave energy flux, providing a mechanism to break up sea ice and accelerate ice retreat. The results also show that changes in the local wind speeds alone cannot explain the significant changes in waves. The wind speeds show significant increases over the Bering Sea to north of Alaska in July, over the central part of the domain in August and September, with decreases in the region off the Canadian coasts in August. In the region west of the Canadian coast, the climatological mean wind direction has rotated clockwise in July and August, with the climatological anticyclonic center being displaced northeastward in August.



wessongroup - 9-11-2015 at 02:42 PM

Will make coal easier to deliver via the North Pole route, looking at from a "business" standpoint

Hey, maybe coal generated power stations would help in the Arctic and Antarctic ... as it would change the locations of "Point Source" emissions .. :biggrin::biggrin:

Changing the Oceans is kinda a big deal ... :):)

[Edited on 9-11-2015 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 9-12-2015 by wessongroup]

SFandH - 9-11-2015 at 07:38 PM

See for yourself:

NOVA - National Geographic

Extreme Ice - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QnuzaDiKGs



wessongroup - 9-11-2015 at 09:00 PM

Some scary chit ...

New Study: Waterworld Is Definitely Going to Happen

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/09/earth-screwed

[Edited on 9-12-2015 by wessongroup]

mtgoat666 - 9-12-2015 at 07:55 AM

This is how climate change deniers sound to normal people. Warning! Do not watch this unless you have a sense of humor!

http://youtu.be/3iBLlksqztg

mtgoat666 - 9-12-2015 at 07:59 AM

What would happen if We burned up all of earth's fossil fuels?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/11/439538952/...

woody with a view - 9-12-2015 at 12:43 PM

this should keep you guys busy for another 5 pages or so:

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-antarctic-ocean-increas...
Washington (AFP) - Defying earlier fears, researchers say the Antarctic Ocean has been absorbing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide over the past decade, making it critical to mitigating the worst effects of climate change.

The findings upend estimates, put forward a decade ago, that the seas surrounding the continent were approaching a saturation point and would not be able to continue to absorb increasing amounts carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Since that time, the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere by human activity has only grown and, the new research shows, so has the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the Antarctic Ocean.

This ocean, also known as the Southern Ocean, accounts for nearly half of the carbon dioxide absorbed by the world's oceans.

"The seas around Antarctica absorb significantly more CO2 than they release. And importantly, they remove a large part of the CO2 that is put into the atmosphere by human activities such as burning fossil fuels," co-author Dorothee Bakker, of the University of East Anglia, said in a statement announcing the findings.

She noted that the previous suggestions of a saturation point had been surprising at the time and that these new findings show the Antarctic Ocean "has in fact regained its expected strength."

The study, published in the journal Science, is based on surface water carbon dioxide measurements taken throughout the past decade.

The researchers, led by Nicolas Gruber of the university ETH Zurich, attributed this reinvigoration of carbon dioxide absorption to changes in prevailing weather patterns.

Another study published Thursday, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found a similar uptick in a specific region of the Antarctic seas, the Drake Passage that separates the ice-covered continent from South America.

bajacamper - 9-12-2015 at 04:31 PM

University of East Anglia. I believe these guys got caught moving data all over the place to prove global whatever. Hmmmm

SFandH - 9-12-2015 at 05:13 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper  
University of East Anglia. I believe these guys got caught moving data all over the place to prove global whatever. Hmmmm


Well maybe you should look at the photographic evidence and the scientific measurements.

Extreme Ice - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QnuzaDiKGs


[Edited on 9-13-2015 by SFandH]

bajacamper - 9-12-2015 at 06:48 PM

You did not answer my question. Was it East Anglia U that cooked the climate reports ? Perhaps you are not interested in phony climate reports.

[Edited on 9-13-2015 by bajacamper]

[Edited on 9-13-2015 by bajacamper]

bajacamper - 9-12-2015 at 08:22 PM

basta de esto para mí. Nos vemos luego en un hilo que tiene sentido.

Pescador - 9-14-2015 at 08:47 AM

Just ran across this, which is very interesting, so perhaps it is not a closed and shut case after all.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-wi...

Sweetwater - 9-14-2015 at 09:38 AM

How is that California water supply these days? I'm sure there's plenty for a nice long shower.....or to put out the raging fires.

Study Finds Snowfall in California’s Sierra Nevada to Be Lowest in 500 Years

The snow that blanketed the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California last winter, and that was supposed to serve as an essential source of fresh water for the drought-stricken state, was at its lowest levels in the last 500 years, according to a new study.

The paper, published on Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, used tree-ring data from centuries-old blue oaks to provide historical context for the mountain range’s diminished snowfall. As of April 1, the snowpack levels were just 5 percent of their 50-year historical average.

The paper is the first to create a model that describes temperature and precipitation levels on the Sierra Nevada that extends centuries before researchers started measuring snow levels each year.

“The 2015 snowpack in the Sierra Nevada is unprecedented,” said Valerie Trouet, one of the authors of the study and a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona. “We expected it to be bad, but we certainly didn’t expect it to be the worst in the past 500 years.”

Snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada fills reservoirs that provide a third of all of the drinking water for the state of California, as well as water to fight wildfires and to generate electricity.

“The scope of this is profound,” said Thomas Painter, a snow hydrologist with NASA’s Airborne Snow Observatory. He said that models like the one developed in the study suggested a dry future for California in years beyond the current drought. “This has been a very bad drought, and being able to understand the context of it is extraordinarily important.”

DianaT - 9-14-2015 at 10:07 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Pescador  
Just ran across this, which is very interesting, so perhaps it is not a closed and shut case after all.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-wi...


An interesting read for explaining what some think is a conspiracy, but there is absolutely no substance there, just a lot of general statements about "scientists and experts" ---- just generalities. Basically a fluff piece.





wessongroup - 9-14-2015 at 10:09 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_o...


https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-deni...

Oil consumption vs CO2 production … respectively



http://www.api.org/statistics/



Sure glad they got the "ice core" samples ... when they did :biggrin::biggrin:

An interesting "dip" in oil production and/or use around the period of the "Oil Embargo" which took gas prices from .34-.37 to the level of today which are well over 3.00/gal .. ... however, we® rather than change our usage as recommended by President Carter ... went the other way ... and now where are we (rhetorical question) :lol::lol:

Perhaps 10.00 dollar a gallon would help ... sure would cut down on just cruising around for sure ... say, does one just cruise around anymore ... used to be the "thing" back in the day :):)



[Edited on 9-14-2015 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 9-15-2015 by BajaNomad]

bufeo - 9-14-2015 at 02:16 PM

Quote: Originally posted by DianaT  
Quote: Originally posted by Pescador  
Just ran across this, which is very interesting, so perhaps it is not a closed and shut case after all.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-wi...


An interesting read for explaining what some think is a conspiracy, but there is absolutely no substance there, just a lot of general statements about "scientists and experts" ---- just generalities. Basically a fluff piece.







Agree, Diana. Where do these bloggers like Alex Newman get their "fluff"? He cites no sources just generalizes specious information but equal to the intelligence level of those who want to gobble it up.

Here's a recent article from a reliable source. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Allen R.

wessongroup - 9-14-2015 at 02:31 PM

SFandH - 9-14-2015 at 03:38 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Pescador  
Just ran across this, which is very interesting, so perhaps it is not a closed and shut case after all.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-wi...


When considering sea level rise, you need to distinguish between land ice and sea ice. The article states that there is more Antarctic sea ice than previously measured. That's true, but remember it's the middle of winter in the southern hemisphere.

The fact that the amount of sea based ice has increased is not surprising. Winters are really cold in Antarctica.

The sea ice will melt in the summer.

What's important when considering sea level rise is the state of the land based ice. Land based ice is decreasing in Antarctica, as it is in Greenland, as it is all over the globe due to melting glaciers.

According to the world's most prestigious scientific organizations, this world wide land based ice melt is due to anthropomorphic global warming.

---------------------------------------------------
The following is from:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-inter...

"Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.

Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans."


[Edited on 9-14-2015 by SFandH]

Alm - 9-14-2015 at 03:56 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Great news for planet earth and humanity!:light:

(now watch for the doomsday bunch to dismiss the article and push for more Big Government/ Less Freedom)

You mean - "those 3-4 BN that were home-schooled and didn't believe in vaccinations", like somebody said earlier (or in any school for that matter), and don't know the difference btw 3-4 and 3/4 :)

The article is rather biased and confused, unlike the OP info from NASA. The style, with all that red lines and some expressions that they use, is aimed to stir emotions rather than provide info. By standards of science world it looks as if it was written by 19-year old or by somebody high on drugs. Comments to the article are more interesting, though.

Zola - 9-14-2015 at 07:09 PM

Those who argue that man-made climate change is not really occurring are no different from those who used to argue, against the evidence, that the world was flat.

They are wrong, and it is impossible to reason with them on the matter.

They wish to only to "debate" the issue, since the very existence of the debate can make people shrug and think that it is a hotly debated subject.

But there is as much merit to the deniers' position as there was to the earlier view that the Earth was flat, and that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth.

Who gains from the deniers' insipid discourse? Why, the petroleum and coal industries, which want to continue their lucrative business of extracting, refining and selling fossil fuels. But the burning of those fuels, using current technologies, must lead to our extinction and ruin.

We must find another way to provide energy for ourselves, or another way to burn and use fossil fuels, if that is possible.

Denying climate change will not address the problem at all. Trying to reason with those who deny it is more unpromising than trying to show a raccoon how to make a spinach quiche using only organic ingredients. But at least the raccoon will listen to you in good faith.

Alm - 9-14-2015 at 08:03 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Zola  
Those who argue that man-made climate change is not really occurring are no different from those who used to argue, against the evidence, that the world was flat.

Vast majority of environment scientists agree that man-made climate change is occurring.

There are kinds of deniers, as usual: those with political agenda (read - money agenda), and average Joe Schmoe with not enough education to understand these things. So he will listen to those who yell louder. Especially when this is something that he wants to hear, something that wouldn't require him to do anything about it.

mtgoat666 - 9-14-2015 at 08:21 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Zola  
Those who argue that man-made climate change is not really occurring are no different from those who used to argue, against the evidence, that the world was flat.

They are wrong, and it is impossible to reason with them on the matter.

They wish to only to "debate" the issue, since the very existence of the debate can make people shrug and think that it is a hotly debated subject.

But there is as much merit to the deniers' position as there was to the earlier view that the Earth was flat, and that everything in the universe revolved around the Earth.

Who gains from the deniers' insipid discourse? Why, the petroleum and coal industries, which want to continue their lucrative business of extracting, refining and selling fossil fuels. But the burning of those fuels, using current technologies, must lead to our extinction and ruin.

We must find another way to provide energy for ourselves, or another way to burn and use fossil fuels, if that is possible.

Denying climate change will not address the problem at all. Trying to reason with those who deny it is more unpromising than trying to show a raccoon how to make a spinach quiche using only organic ingredients. But at least the raccoon will listen to you in good faith.


Flat earthers are a bad analogy. The climate change deniers are more like the tobacco deniers of yore. You had competent scientists saying smoking kills, opposed by smokers so biased by their addiction that they could not see the truth, and tobacco company scientists spinning questionable data for their employers,...
The climate change deniers are no different...

A Bright Side to the Rising Tide Worldwide

MrBillM - 9-14-2015 at 08:29 PM

Those that we can best afford to lose will be the first to go.

Mexitron - 9-14-2015 at 08:46 PM

Quote: Originally posted by MrBillM  
Those that we can best afford to lose will be the first to go.


Odd logic since we're supposedly causing the problem in the first place and doing little to stop it.

Not so Odd

MrBillM - 9-14-2015 at 08:56 PM

Assuming the worst, WE can afford to mitigate the effects better than the poorer nations SO.................we'll be still standing on dry ground (and driving our SUVs on dry roads) when they're treading water.

Oil has served us well for over a hundred years and we'll keep enjoying the benefits for years to come.

Long after Bangladesh (and the Polar Bears ?) are a memory.

That's Life.



[Edited on 9-15-2015 by MrBillM]

dtbushpilot - 9-14-2015 at 09:58 PM

Not sure what the rest of you will do when the sea rises but at my house I will move my folding chair back a foot....and cast a foot farther to hit my secret spot...

Whale-ista - 9-15-2015 at 01:38 AM

From reputable source- The Onion:

"WEST PALM BEACH, FL—Admitting it has had its eye on the property for quite some time, the Atlantic Ocean confirmed Monday that it was looking forward to moving into a beautiful beachfront mansion in the near future.

“For the longest time it seemed like this place was completely out of reach for me, but I’ve come a long way in the past few years, and now it’s looking more and more like a real possibility,” said the body of water, which confided that, after having admired the building’s impressive exterior and grounds for so long, it was thrilled at the prospect of finally going inside and exploring all eight bedrooms and 7,500 square feet of living area. “I’m not quite ready yet, but in a couple years or so, I can definitely see myself in there, making the place completely my own. And the little beachside community that the house is located in is just so cute, too—I can’t wait to go through and visit all the shops and restaurants.”

"The ocean noted, however, that it might make a few cosmetic changes to the mansion once it moves in, including gutting the lower floor and taking out a few walls."

http://www.theonion.com/article/atlantic-ocean-excited-move-...

chuckie - 9-15-2015 at 02:59 AM

No worries, certain of the Mormon prophets are predicting the end of the world on 28 September, or at least an Apocolypse....So after that Nada....stock up on Tomato soup just in case...

Osprey - 9-15-2015 at 06:40 AM

It is understandable how this thread got to over 7000 hits. Lots of clear thinkers on this forum, lots of folks who have carefully studied the subject(s) discussed at length here.

It was inevitable that several camps were established because the label game began in earnest --- when you do that, you expect complete bias from the other side of the label.

There were lots of heavy subjects covered in this long thread and yet the labels remain simple and damaging to the business of debate. When you hold solidly to your biases on a multifaceted problem, you can easily end up arguing with yourself.

If someone wrote a book about this thread, it would have many chapters and would defy the labeling.

If you're looking for true debate, take a poster, find out what he feels about all the subjects; he believes this and this and this, but he's not sure on that, doubts those other things. Can't label that, you can't label anyone on this forum when you shine a clear light on the subjects, the debate, the grand volume of evidence for and against your position.

Study Finds Snowpack in California’s Sierra Nevada to Be Lowest in 500 Years

SFandH - 9-15-2015 at 06:44 AM

"The snow that blanketed the Sierra Nevada in California last winter, and that was supposed to serve as an essential source of fresh water for the drought-stricken state, was at its lowest levels in the last 500 years, according to a new study."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/california-snow-re...

mtgoat666 - 9-15-2015 at 06:54 AM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
"The snow that blanketed the Sierra Nevada in California last winter, and that was supposed to serve as an essential source of fresh water for the drought-stricken state, was at its lowest levels in the last 500 years, according to a new study."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/california-snow-re...



Just another Pack of lies and excuse to tax the working man and take away his civil liberties! :lol:

(Dk, did I get that right?)

[Edited on 9-15-2015 by mtgoat666]

Ateo - 9-15-2015 at 07:36 AM

Love the new name of this thread.

Whale-ista - 9-15-2015 at 07:42 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Ateo  
Love the new name of this thread.


Thanks Ateo. I changed it again. Not sure how many have read Dante's Inferno, but it did seem appropriate when I first woke up... I've had my coffee and feel a bit more hopeful now.

Lee - 9-15-2015 at 08:32 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
"The snow that blanketed the Sierra Nevada in California last winter, and that was supposed to serve as an essential source of fresh water for the drought-stricken state, was at its lowest levels in the last 500 years, according to a new study."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/california-snow-re...



Just another Pack of lies and excuse to tax the working man and take away his civil liberties! :lol:

(Dk, did I get that right?)

[Edited on 9-15-2015 by mtgoat666]


Why is this happening? Because ''facts are twisted solely to gain control over people'' -- and line the pockets of union scammers with money meant for education?

These problems will seem minuscule when Trump is elected.

Pescador - 9-15-2015 at 09:34 AM

Another study that does not sit well with the "No-Growthers"

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/15/bad-news-climate-...

* Confu-cius Say ...............

MrBillM - 9-15-2015 at 10:05 AM

"When Flood is inevitable, Relax and enjoy it".

Or, maybe it was Charlie Chan.

About a different subject.

One of those Oriental guys anyway.

About something.

In any case, it is a mistake to think that there are ONLY two major camps regarding the subject of near-term/long-term Climate Change AND the extent to which mankind is responsible or able to mitigate the "apparent" changes.

There are those who accept that there is a change (of unknown quantity or length) occurring and we could well be contributing (or not), but SO WHAT !

Given the tension of international economics, whatever we're doing NOW or likely to do in the future, is going to have little (or no) effect on the result.

Assuming that the alarmists are correct (which is not proven), the "down in the dumps" nations will suffer first giving us (hopefully) sufficient notice to do whatever we can.

In the meantime, we can keep on keeping on.

Enjoying the benefits of our (relative) affluence. Living good, eating well, traveling as we see fit and buying whatever adult toys we desire and can afford.

Be Happy and Live like there's no Tomorrow.

As noted 2000 years ago, Tomorrow will take care of itself.

And, even with Bangladesh gone, there are other sources for cheap (well-made) clothes.

The Polar Bears won't be missed, either.

They're evil-tempered Bastards.


*Note: The (-) necessitated by the nutty nonsensical censor software.

wessongroup - 9-15-2015 at 10:43 AM

i actually came to that conclusion in the early 80's ...

Trying to turn the tide (pardon the pun) on "growth" on this planet was not something that was possible

About the only thing that would change it .... We hit the "WALL" and have to ... No other options available in the traditional sense, politics, religion, money or running off to a "New Land"

This is evolution up close and personal ... and evolution is a serial killer ... think not :biggrin::biggrin:

thanks Osprey .. for the objective thought :):)

[Edited on 9-15-2015 by wessongroup]

Mexitron - 9-15-2015 at 11:48 AM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
"The snow that blanketed the Sierra Nevada in California last winter, and that was supposed to serve as an essential source of fresh water for the drought-stricken state, was at its lowest levels in the last 500 years, according to a new study."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/california-snow-re...



Well at least that I can verify, was on Whitney last week, not a lick of snow anywhere:

gnukid - 9-15-2015 at 12:34 PM

Snowing in the west now

http://snowbrains.com/snowing-hard-right-now-in-the-western-...

bajacamper - 9-15-2015 at 01:00 PM

gnu, you are disrupting the narrative.

rts551 - 9-15-2015 at 01:10 PM

drought is over now. It is raining in San Dingo.

wessongroup - 9-15-2015 at 01:17 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper  
gnu, you are disrupting the narrative.


SF 31+ ... :lol::lol:

The Day that the Rains Came Down ..........

MrBillM - 9-15-2015 at 01:18 PM

Is TODAY !

POURING in the Hi-Desert.

A welcome surprise.

Which caught me by surprise on the road.

Having taken my OLD ('95) Ranger (with non-functioning wipers) to go shopping for Halloween.

The trip home from Home Depot was interesting. Couldn't see Scheisse.

BUT, No Harm-No Foul.

No crashes, nobody killed, no citations.

And, among other items, I got a GREAT "Barking Dog" Skeleton.

monoloco - 9-15-2015 at 01:19 PM

Quote: Originally posted by MrBillM  
Is TODAY !

POURING in the Hi-Desert.

A welcome surprise.

Which caught me by surprise on the road.

Having taken my OLD ('95) Ranger (with non-functioning wipers) to go shopping for Halloween.

The trip home from Home Depot was interesting. Couldn't see Scheisse.

BUT, No Harm-No Foul.

No crashes, nobody killed, no citations.

And, among other items, I got a GREAT "Barking Dog" Skeleton.
Buying apples and razor blades?

David K - 9-15-2015 at 02:12 PM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid  
Snowing in the west now

http://snowbrains.com/snowing-hard-right-now-in-the-western-...


It is still summer, too... LOL!

wessongroup - 9-15-2015 at 02:19 PM

Got some here too ... good to hear, smell and see :):)

Hopping for some significant rain and/or snow ... we need it

bajabuddha - 9-16-2015 at 04:09 AM

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/global-marine-population...

Aw, anuther one of them gol-darned book-larnin' edjimicated collidge boyz making yet anuther Chiken Little claim the sky is falling. Even if he's the president of the World Wildlife Federation..... prolly just seekin' funding like the rest of the Commie Pinkos out there.

I have ideas that might save some of the fisheries

Osprey - 9-16-2015 at 06:40 AM

Spoiled Fish


This little essay is not about children but I must mention them to get your attention. Modern youngsters are thought not to be as healthy as those in earlier generations. Some say children of the 30’s and 40s played in the mud, ate dirt and bugs by sheer accident and somehow that introduced microbes into their systems in a way that made them less susceptible to modern allergens.

I won’t argue the point but I do want to give caution to my flyfishing pals. I have lots of them and I admire the fact that they release almost all the fish they catch and do many other things to protect their habitat.

I watch them at play, I watch a ton of TV shows about fly fishing – the sport is growing like a wildfire, attracting people of all ages and all persuasions. Professional anglers take many steps to protect each animal they hook; they wear gloves, they often don’t use nets lest a net do some harm to the fish. They are careful about the capture and even more careful about the release. They employ special barbless hooks, work the fish to a spot near the shore where they release it to make sure it is ready to return to the stream, river, ocean in good condition.

Back to the children. Might my heroes be codling the fish (pun intended)? Aren’t they training the fish, conditioning the animal to expect special touchy feeling handling? Don’t you suppose the fish are passing their weaker genes into the (another pun) pool? Deep in the eat or be eaten biome they inhabit is their mother, Mother Nature, a hard mother who waits along with bears, otter, eagles, weasels, turtles, snakes, barracuda, jacks, and sharks who are looking for weakness, a millisecond’s hesitation as a signal for attack.

So the very caring sportsmen may not be doing the fish any favors when they practice such care, go to such great lengths to press the fish they catch with as little stress as is possible. Perhaps stress and trauma will help them remain alert and energetic – I can see small, inexpensive mini tazers (perhaps powered only by 2 AAA batteries). Maybe if the anglers leave the fish out of water for a few minutes (I was going to call that Air-boarding but the word Boarding has very strong public recognition and bias), let them flop around on the boat deck, sand, kayak before they are roughly released, it would make them stronger, faster, more motivated.

I think my idea could produce a win-win scenario since almost all flyguys seek action from their prey, want strong fighters and will go to the ends of the earth to pull in bonefish, giant Trevally, peac-ck bass – they are not seeking whimpy fish. If they practice my new method they may lose some weak ones but they will, over all, produce a new, virile brand of fish that are rough, tough and hard to bluff.

pauldavidmena - 9-16-2015 at 07:04 AM

You make some very valid points, Jorge. Subjecting a fish to ridicule and sarcasm before release is bound to make them stronger.

I have 4 granddaughters who live in Kenya who play in the dirt with sheep, goats, etc. They only get sick when they come back to visit the U.S.

gnukid - 9-16-2015 at 12:30 PM

Many people are completely unaware of the fraud of geoengineering aerosol spraying of metals and salts in the sky for a variety for results, one of which is to affect the weather. The weather is changing and is being controlled to drive drought, floods, toward changes in society. One reason is to pass legislation to control land, water, agenda 21, to shift money and power. We already have cap and trade in California based on a fraud, to increase carbon tax (climate taxes), including increased costs of water use through tiered tax, like oil, ion the backs of people n California as a new paradigm.

Residents have no control of climate by their carbon output. This is a fraud put upon the people that requires attention and your interest to become educated about the fraud of geoengineering that is harming our environment, our health and creating a huge cost burden to support a new trillion dollar fraudulent economy.

Geoengineering is extremely harmful for the population and is an assault on the people.

Find out why they are spraying. Look up and wake up! Here is the internationally award winning documentary "Why in the world are they spraying?"

Cisco - 9-19-2015 at 02:49 PM

September 18, 2015
What Exxon Knew About Climate Change
By Bill McKibben

Wednesday morning, journalists at InsideClimate News, a Web site that has won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on oil spills, published the first installment of a multi-part exposé that will be appearing over the next month. The documents they have compiled and the interviews they have conducted with retired employees and officials show that, as early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies) knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of disinformation and denial that have slowed—perhaps fatally—the planet’s response to global warming.

There’s a sense, of course, in which one already assumed that this was the case. Everyone who’s been paying attention has known about climate change for decades now. But it turns out Exxon didn’t just “know” about climate change: it conducted some of the original research. In the nineteen-seventies and eighties, the company employed top scientists who worked side by side with university researchers and the Department of Energy, even outfitting one of the company’s tankers with special sensors and sending it on a cruise to gather CO2 readings over the ocean. By 1977, an Exxon senior scientist named James Black was, according to his own notes, able to tell the company’s management committee that there was “general scientific agreement” that what was then called the greenhouse effect was most likely caused by man-made CO2; a year later, speaking to an even wider audience inside the company, he said that research indicated that if we doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere, we would increase temperatures two to three degrees Celsius. That’s just about where the scientific consensus lies to this day. “Present thinking,” Black wrote in summary, “holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”

Those numbers were about right, too. It was precisely ten years later—after a decade in which Exxon scientists continued to do systematic climate research that showed, as one internal report put it, that stopping “global warming would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion”—that NASA scientist James Hansen took climate change to the broader public, telling a congressional hearing, in June of 1988, that the planet was already warming. And how did Exxon respond? By saying that its own independent research supported Hansen’s findings? By changing the company’s focus to renewable technology?

That didn’t happen. Exxon responded, instead, by helping to set up or fund extreme climate-denial campaigns. (In a blog post responding to the I.C.N. report, the company said that the documents were “cherry-picked” to “distort our history of pioneering climate science research” and efforts to reduce emissions.) The company worked with veterans of the tobacco industry to try and infuse the climate debate with doubt. Lee Raymond, who became the Exxon C.E.O. in 1993—and was a senior executive throughout the decade that Exxon had studied climate science—gave a key speech to a group of Chinese leaders and oil industry executives in 1997, on the eve of treaty negotiations in Kyoto. He told them that the globe was cooling, and that government action to limit carbon emissions “defies common sense.” In recent years, it’s gotten so hot (InsideClimate’s exposé coincided with the release of data showing that this past summer was the United States’ hottest in recorded history) that there’s no use denying it any more; Raymond’s successor, Rex Tillerson, has grudgingly accepted climate change as real, but has referred to it as an “engineering problem.” In May, at a shareholders’ meeting, he mocked renewable energy, and said that “mankind has this enormous capacity to deal with adversity,” which would stand it in good stead in the case of “inclement weather” that “may or may not be induced by climate change.”

The influence of the oil industry is essentially undiminished, even now. The Obama Administration may have stood up to Big Coal, but the richer Big Oil got permission this summer to drill in the Arctic; Washington may soon grant the rights for offshore drilling along the Atlantic seaboard, and end a longstanding ban on oil exports. All these measures help drive the flow of carbon into the atmosphere—the flow of carbon that Exxon knew almost forty years ago would likely be disastrous.

We’ve gotten so inured to this kind of corporate power that the report in InsideClimate News received relatively little coverage. The big news of the day on social media came from Irving, Texas, where the police handcuffed a young Muslim boy for taking his homemade alarm clock to school; all day people tweeted #IStandWithAhmed, and rightly so. It’s wondrous to see the power of an Internet-enabled world shining the light on particular (and in this case telling) injustice; there’s a principal and a police chief in Irving that will likely think differently next time. But we badly need the same kind of focus on the long-lasting, underlying abuses of corporate might. As it happens, Exxon is based in Irving, Texas too.W

rts551 - 9-19-2015 at 03:03 PM

Quote: Originally posted by gnukid  
Many people are completely unaware of the fraud of geoengineering aerosol spraying of metals and salts in the sky for a variety for results, one of which is to affect the weather. The weather is changing and is being controlled to drive drought, floods, toward changes in society. One reason is to pass legislation to control land, water, agenda 21, to shift money and power. We already have cap and trade in California based on a fraud, to increase carbon tax (climate taxes), including increased costs of water use through tiered tax, like oil, ion the backs of people n California as a new paradigm.

Residents have no control of climate by their carbon output. This is a fraud put upon the people that requires attention and your interest to become educated about the fraud of geoengineering that is harming our environment, our health and creating a huge cost burden to support a new trillion dollar fraudulent economy.

Geoengineering is extremely harmful for the population and is an assault on the people.

Find out why they are spraying. Look up and wake up! Here is the internationally award winning documentary "Why in the world are they spraying?"



Good lord, and must be a world wide "fraud" since drought, flood, and climate change are Earth wide issues Maybe collusion between the various mafias in the world with the Mexican cartels thrown in for good measure:lol:

SFandH - 9-19-2015 at 03:08 PM

Re: Cisco's post, 2 above.

About the author:

"He was awarded the Gandhi Peace Award in 2013.[8] Foreign Policy magazine named him to its inaugural list[9] of the 100 most important global thinkers in 2009 and MSN named him one of the dozen most influential men of 2009.[10] In 2010, the Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's leading environmentalist" [11] and Time magazine book reviewer Bryan Walsh described him as "the world's best green journalist".[12]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben

Article published in the New Yorker magazine:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-...



[Edited on 9-19-2015 by SFandH]

Cisco - 9-19-2015 at 04:42 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
Re: Cisco's post, 2 above.

About the author:

"He was awarded the Gandhi Peace Award in 2013.[8] Foreign Policy magazine named him to its inaugural list[9] of the 100 most important global thinkers in 2009 and MSN named him one of the dozen most influential men of 2009.[10] In 2010, the Boston Globe called him "probably the nation's leading environmentalist" [11] and Time magazine book reviewer Bryan Walsh described him as "the world's best green journalist".[12]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben

Article published in the New Yorker magazine:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-...



[Edited on 9-19-2015 by SFandH]



Thanks.

Guess I sorta thought everybody knew that.

(damn, can't make the smilies work. Time to build a new computer).

wessongroup - 9-19-2015 at 06:07 PM

With the formation of the EPA in 1970 ... "things" started to get "counted" ... including inert ingredients ... along with "proprietary claims" on disclosure for registration ... not to mention the sampling and/or monitoring of: soil, air and water ...

Anyone rememberer Acid Rain and Rivers catching fire ... and those things called Super Fund Sites that started popping up .. Ya know things that business's left behind called "liabilities"

Like the one in Butte MT ... Or how about the Gulf of Mexico after BP's "spill" .... et al

The real topper came in 1986 with Bophal followed by CIBA GIGY'S release into the Danube ... things really started to tighten up on: production, transportation, storage, and/or handling of "hazardous materials" in the United States and a few other places

LA County moved heavy manufacturing/hazardous materials out to the "Inland Empire" in the eighties and a thing called a RMPP was required on any business which would be "handling" hazardous materials ... based on a number of factors ... prior to build out and/or operation

http://www2.epa.gov/rmp/guidance-facilities-risk-management-...

We have made progress in those areas ... however, using chemicals to live better appears to be a double edged sword at this time .... and solutions just become more expensive with issues in many cases .. MTB, new class of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides et al ... not to mention the shear number of humans on the planet

Glad we are looking for a new planet ... this one's future for humans is questionable in the long term, at this time

This is not new science ... rather new technology which affords science a better means to observer and document findings quicker, more accurately and on a sampling scales which boggles one's mind ... or at least mine

Not hopping for the worst .... Just trying to make a few more years watching the "show" ... :biggrin::biggrin:

Cisco - 9-26-2015 at 02:10 PM


What is the purpose of our existence on Earth? What makes life meaningful? For Pope Francis, who is in New York for two days, the purpose of life is to live in God’s “fullness” and in the “fullness” of creation. It is to contemplate “the joyful mystery” of “the world” with “gladness and praise.” “The Creator does not abandon us. He never forsakes his living plan or repents of having created us,” he writes in his encyclical “Laudato Si’,” or “Care for Our Common Home,” which was published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in July, and echoed yesterday and today in his addresses to Congress and the U.N. It is good to be told that we have not been forsaken, but why, we must wonder, does the Pope reassure us? Francis, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, addresses his encyclical not only to the faithful but to every living person on the planet. It contains a moral message that he delivers with great urgency: the Earth—his God’s creation—has been exhausted and depleted. The animals are dying. Global temperatures are rising. And the poor will suffer most. What Francis outlines in his letter is the prelude to a cataclysm. And what he calls for is a “global ecological conversion.”

But haven’t we heard this same message before, and with a Technicolor clarity in Dolby? “Those were the years after the ice caps had melted because of the greenhouse gases,” a matter-of-fact narrator explains at the beginning of the Steven Spielberg movie “A.I.,” which was released in the summer of 2001. “Millions of people were displaced; climate became chaotic. Hundreds of millions of people starved in poorer countries. Elsewhere, a high degree of prosperity survived when most governments in the developed world introduced legal sanctions to strictly license pregnancies, which was why robots … were so essential an economic link in the chain mail of society.” The action of the movie opens in suburban New Jersey, where a couple with a critically ill son weighs the pros and cons of adopting a prototype little-boy robot. New York is underwater, yet the characters behave just as they would in any other age—jockeying for position at work, having fights and making up, and throwing parties by the pool. They do not seem that bothered by what has happened to the Earth, just as we seem not that bothered now, despite the fact that what we are doing is, according to the World Health Organization, expected to kill millions of people in our lifetimes.

But that is Spielberg, you might say. And just a movie vaguely based on fact. Yet you don’t have to turn to a Hollywood liberal to find an antecedent to the Pope’s message. Take your pick of ideologies, and you will see that we are all in surprising agreement. In a scenario report prepared by the Pentagon for President George W. Bush, in 2003, the authors warn, “With over 400 million people living in drier, subtropical, often over-populated and economically poor regions today, climate change and its follow-on effects pose a severe risk to political, economic, and social stability. In less prosperous regions, where countries lack the resources and capabilities required to adapt quickly to more severe conditions, the problem is very likely to be exacerbated.” The authors describe a scenario of mass emigration much like what we’re seeing now in Europe. They speculate that the U.S. could become a fortress nation, with the Department of Defense managing the border, and that, to simplify border controls and the sharing of natural and military resources, “the United States and Canada may become one” (a truly nightmarish scenario for those, like Senators Jim Inhofe and Ted Cruz, who are allergic even to the thought of the U.N.).

The oil giant Shell took up the speculation baton, in 2008, with its “Blueprint” and “Scramble” climate-change scenarios. In “Scramble,” which, as its name suggests, is the more chaotic of the two, “international discussion on climate change becomes bogged down in an ideological ‘dialogue of the deaf,’ ” allowing “emissions of atmospheric CO2 to grow relentlessly.” In 2009, ABC News aired a two-hour special on the “worst-case” future, called “Earth 2100: The Final Century of Civilization?” At the conclusion, a giant sea wall in New York fails, inundating the city; the U.S. government collapses; and a fictional character, Lucy, narrowly escapes on foot to what had recently been the Canadian border. The intellectual left, too, admits what is coming, yet does little about it. In a cynical piece for The Nation, Katha Pollitt asserts that, “by the time the collective damage is done, it will be too late to undo it,” after confessing that she avoids reading news about the climate because it makes her sad.

The fact is that we know that we are causing mass destruction, but we behave as if we do not know, as if it’s someone else who does. Perhaps it is simply too much to admit, and so we act as if the message is surprising. “Advocates of policies to combat climate change have said they hoped Francis could lend a ‘moral dimension’ to the debate,” an article in the Times says—as if the moral dimension hasn’t been widely apparent for well over a decade. Pundits like David Brooks minimize the overwhelming scale of what we’re doing to the environment by including it on lists of social issues like gay marriage and divorce—as if we could vote on the state of our climate, or insist that our pollution is a personal choice. This is the American mode of denial: we frame acts of destruction as expressions of democracy.

“Regrettably, many efforts to seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proved ineffective,” Francis writes in his encyclical. “Not only because of powerful opposition but also because of a more general lack of interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of believers, can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confidence in technical solutions.” To remain in God’s fullness, according to Francis, will require that we finally admit that we know—that we have, in fact, known for a very long time—and that we are finally going to do something about it.

It is easy to look at Representative Paul Gosar, the Republican from Arizona who boycotted the Pope’s appearance in Congress because he couldn’t stand to risk hearing the words “climate change,” and to laugh (or cry). It is easy to tell yourself that any action you take will offer only “the illusion” of “making a difference” (and therefore to do nothing). It is easy to rattle off slogans and lies. (The shopworn “I am not a scientist” seemed to have morphed at the latest G.O.P. debate into “We are not going to destroy our economy!”) What is hard but imperative, if we are to have any chance of changing course, is to become, as Francis describes it, “painfully aware, to dare to turn what is happening in the world into our own personal suffering and thus to discover what each of us can do about it.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-do-we-need-pope-...

Whale-ista - 9-26-2015 at 02:35 PM

Thank you Cisco.

Reminds me: Time to renew my New Yorker subscription...

Sea level photos 59 years apart

David K - 9-27-2015 at 09:39 AM

Post all the graphs and mumbo jumbo you like, but nothing is easier for anybody with eyes and a brain to research where the sea level was then and is now, than actually seeing it compared to a fixed object on the beach:

1953 looking north:





2009 looking south:





2012 looking east:




Our kids and grandkids will likely be able to enjoy the same beach view with palms, just inches above high tide, as it was for our parents over 50 years.

I would say that all the good work of either Mother Nature or Man (depending on your opinion who is mightier) is keeping it in check?!

1953 photo at El Coyote by Howard Gulick. 2009 and 2012 photos by me or Baja Angel as we drove by on Hwy. 1.

SFandH - 9-27-2015 at 10:06 AM

OK one more time David K. It really is simple.

The discussion about sea level rise is not about what happened in the past 50 years, it's about what is going to happen over the next 50 to 100 years.

You do not have to keep making the point that significant sea level rise hasn't happened. You're right about that.

The concern lies in the future and rightly so.



[Edited on 9-27-2015 by SFandH]

David K - 9-27-2015 at 10:15 AM

What is the EVIDENCE? Predicting that something will happen in the future is generally based on what's happened in the past.

Will Hurricane Marty hit Baja soon?
Will a 8.0 earthquake strike California today... tomorrow, in 10 years???

Can increasing tax, more government, duping citizens stop Hurricane Marty or prevent an earthquake?

No more than it can keep the sea level in the same place.

SFandH - 9-27-2015 at 10:35 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
What is the EVIDENCE? Predicting that something will happen in the future is generally based on what's happened in the past.

Will Hurricane Marty hit Baja soon?
Will a 8.0 earthquake strike California today... tomorrow, in 10 years???

Can increasing tax, more government, duping citizens stop Hurricane Marty or prevent an earthquake?

No more than it can keep the sea level in the same place.


There is tons of information on the Internet and many books have been published.

Research results published in refereed scientific journals will supply the science behind making the predictions, if you are so inclined.

Read something besides books on Baja. Especially if you are going to offer opinions on the subject.

I will say your pictures of the past 50 years are very nice indeed.

[Edited on 9-27-2015 by SFandH]

rts551 - 9-27-2015 at 11:08 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  
Post all the graphs and mumbo jumbo you like, but nothing is easier for anybody with eyes and a brain to research where the sea level was then and is now, than actually seeing it compared to a fixed object on the beach:

1953 looking north:





2009 looking south:





2012 looking east:




Our kids and grandkids will likely be able to enjoy the same beach view with palms, just inches above high tide, as it was for our parents over 50 years.

I would say that all the good work of either Mother Nature or Man (depending on your opinion who is mightier) is keeping it in check?!

1953 photo at El Coyote by Howard Gulick. 2009 and 2012 photos by me or Baja Angel as we drove by on Hwy. 1.



Is it just me? Something is not quiet right with the trees in that nice color 1953 photo looking to the north... in 50 years Palms should be much larger...too bad these are apples and orange photos. Anyone with eyes and brains could see that.

Lee - 9-27-2015 at 01:25 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  

Can increasing tax, more government, duping citizens stop Hurricane Marty or prevent an earthquake?

No more than it can keep the sea level in the same place.


Really, David, if you didn't infuse politics into every one of your arguments (discourse) here, you might have some credibility. How far back does history need to go with you?

8 years of Republican big government, ignoring ''immigration problems'' while running the economy into the ground with a useless Iraq war costing trillions, followed by 8 years of Democratic free spending?

What's your idea of small government and less spending? Ignoring global warming and climate change for the children? Did you cry about the money spent in the ''conservative'' war?

You need to let go of your fixation with Al Gore. Blame yourself for even voting for conservative/liberal government.

Your political party (pick one) is the problem. And your c-ckeyed attitude that everyone here needs to be educated and enlightened.

Why so condescending to Nomads? Give it a rest. Show some humility about what you don't know?

Otherwise, still enjoying the color photos of the palm trees. Good work.

David K - 9-27-2015 at 03:34 PM

Feel the Nomad love!

chuckie - 9-27-2015 at 04:30 PM

YUP! Lots of people love curry!

bajacamper - 9-28-2015 at 01:10 PM

Great balls a-fire, climate change on Mars. Who knew?

Romano - 9-28-2015 at 02:23 PM

David K. For any semblance or comparability, wouldn't those three pictures have to be taken in the same exact phase of the tide? You wouldn't want to compare a high tide to a low one, right?

bajabuddha - 9-28-2015 at 02:24 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Romano  
David K. For any semblance or comparability, wouldn't those three pictures have to be taken in the same exact phase of the tide? You wouldn't want to compare a high tide to a low one, right?


Oh gawd, not the pictures again!! :fire:

SFandH - 9-28-2015 at 03:30 PM

The posting of these photos is really unnecessary unless the point is to agree with what the scientists are saying.

From the original post:

"Global sea levels have risen an average of 3 inches over nearly a quarter century, but not along the West Coast. NASA scientists say long-term climatic patterns have lowered sea levels along California, Oregon and Washington in recent decades........."

emphasis added.

David K - 9-28-2015 at 05:09 PM

How convenient that the sea is not level in order to agree with some scientists???

Where a few smart people with memories or cameras can see there is no change... like here on the West Coast, the sea hasn't risen. Just all the other places!!

What a load of hooey!

Sorry, I can't help but laugh... 'Sea Level' is a standard point of measurement AROUND the WORLD. 3" change... when the daily high tide/ low tide change is 3-20 feet... and that is scary to you?

Whale-ista - 9-28-2015 at 05:10 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  
The posting of these photos is really unnecessary unless the point is to agree with what the scientists are saying.

From the original post:

"Global sea levels have risen an average of 3 inches over nearly a quarter century, but not along the West Coast. NASA scientists say long-term climatic patterns have lowered sea levels along California, Oregon and Washington in recent decades........."

emphasis added.


OMG, you're actually quoting from that original post and suggesting it's relevant to the last 14 pages ?!?

Hats off to you my friend, for being old school.

wessongroup - 9-28-2015 at 07:14 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup  
Hey this might help ... but, then it is from one of those Scientific kinda sites .. :biggrin::biggrin:

Is sea level the same all across the ocean?

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html

Always something new to think about ... HUH :):)

What Happens To A Bridge When One Side Uses Mediterranean Sea Level And Another The North Sea?

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/what_happens_bridge_w...

Would appear Sea Level is dependent on "where" one is located on the planet :biggrin::biggrin:

and the difference aren't really that "big" only centimeters or millimeters ... so pretty hard to "eyeball" the difference by most

But, there would appear, based on using the latest technology ... there is in fact a measurable difference

And of course the next step in scientific investigation would be to monitor these levels over time and report back ... which I believe is what is being done at this time ... by many nations, which can only help in the long run

[Edited on 9-3-2015 by wessongroup]


[Edited on 9-29-2015 by wessongroup]

bajacamper - 9-28-2015 at 07:36 PM

The esteemed Mr. Limbaugh made the observation today that no one, scientist or otherwise, makes any predictions regarding the coming climate disasters One, Two, or Five years down the road. Fifty or One Hundred year predictions, no problem. I guess I could do that. Who will be around to prove me wrong?

bajabuddha - 9-28-2015 at 09:03 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper  
The esteemed Mr. Limbaugh made the observation today that no one, scientist or otherwise, makes any predictions regarding the coming climate disasters One, Two, or Five years down the road. Fifty or One Hundred year predictions, no problem. I guess I could do that. Who will be around to prove me wrong?

ANSWER:
The Esteemed Mr. Limbaugh, if a) you both live that long, and b) there's a buck in it for him. Savvy?

Lee - 9-28-2015 at 09:07 PM

Quote: Originally posted by LancairDriver  
Quote: Originally posted by bajabuddha  
Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper  
Snarky nastiness is passed off as scientific fact here by some. It really does little to advance your computer model global warming stories.

I do not understand why you think you must insult DK at every opportunity. I have never seen him do anything on this forum other than try and help people any way he can. I wouldn't blame him if he just packed it in. Those of you he has helped might want to speak up as they come crashing down on me


*************
*************



I have yet to see DK stoop as low as personal or snarky insults to anyone on any subject. He is usually the first to welcome new Nomads and provide all the help and information he can. He is way up on the high road compared to this bottom feeder who needs to find a board that better accommodates his sick, sick (get a room)mind.

[Edited on 9-7-2015 by BajaNomad]

Marty Jr. and Danger

MrBillM - 9-28-2015 at 09:21 PM

MLKJ found that a Rifle Bullet can be pretty dangerous, too.

However, he was unavailable for comment on THAT.

SFandH - 9-29-2015 at 06:46 AM

Post from the first page:
Quote: Originally posted by David K  
There is no question that some glaciers are melting just like there is no question the Antarctic ice pack has grown. Less here, more there... the earth is in balance it would seem?


The observations that glaciers are melting and the Antarctic ice pack has grown are correct however the conclusion that "the earth is in balance" because of "less here, more there" is incorrect, especially if the "in balance" means no net change.

There is a significant net change. Less land based ice ("less here") and more sea based ice ("more there") is exactly why the mean sea level is rising.

[Edited on 9-29-2015 by SFandH]

David K - 9-29-2015 at 08:37 AM

"Is rising"?
As in not now, but 'someday', correct?

Have a nice day, keep your feet dry... high tide in San Felipe is 18.5 FEET, at 2:58 pm, not sure if anyone notices 3 more inches...






[Edited on 9-29-2015 by David K]

SFandH - 9-29-2015 at 08:46 AM

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguments.

It's true, the 3" to date hasn't been much of a problem.

The sea level rise discussion is largely about the future.

[Edited on 9-29-2015 by SFandH]

David K - 9-29-2015 at 08:53 AM

Thank you... me too!

(like where you post the sea level is rising... just not here on the coast of the Pacific Ocean)

Just keeping it real... and let's have some fun, because no matter if it is you or me who is correct, the sea is going to do what the sea is going to do, and us humans can't do a thing to change that!

SFandH - 9-29-2015 at 08:59 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K  


the sea is going to do what the sea is going to do, and us humans can't do a thing to change that!


That's your opinion and many scientists, based upon scientific principles, disagree. The more CO2 we add to the atmosphere, the warmer the earth gets. The warmer the earth gets, the more the land based ice melts, raising the sea level. Decreasing the CO2 output will decrease the rate at which the earth warms.

Also as the water warms, it expands, raising the sea level.

Also, melting permafrost releases methane, a potent green house gas. That's beginning to happen and will accelerate warming.

So we can change the current and predicted trends by decreasing the burning of fossil fuels. Or, at least, decreasing the rate at which the burning of fossil fuels is increasing.


[Edited on 9-29-2015 by SFandH]
 Pages:  1    3