BajaNomad - snorkeling in La Paz

Eric Ritter and I have exchanged many emails. He is a great fan of Baja archeology and has many papers published. He mentions me in his paper on the mission warehouse on Gonzaga Bay, in fact.

Dude you need to just knock this off. Why are you trying so f'ing hard to impress people on the internet.

Jameis, your pee pee must be very tiny.

David K - 7-12-2019 at 08:01 PM

Kind of like flying a drone everywhere and posting oversized pictures?? You forget about being nice when you aren't asking for directions.
Have a nice weekend.

4x4abc - 7-12-2019 at 08:03 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JZ

Eric Ritter and I have exchanged many emails. He is a great fan of Baja archeology and has many papers published. He mentions me in his paper on the mission warehouse on Gonzaga Bay, in fact.

Dude you need to just knock this off. Why are you trying so f'ing hard to impress people on the internet.

Jameis, your pee pee must be very tiny.

yes, it is annoying

but lets face it - people love to talk about themselves
that's why facebook and forums became so popular
they give people a platform they never had before

4x4abc - 7-12-2019 at 08:06 PM

Kind of like flying a drone everywhere and posting oversized pictures?? You forget about being nice when you aren't asking for directions.
Have a nice weekend.

the difference is that
some post about what they did
some post about who they did it with

mtgoat666 - 7-12-2019 at 08:50 PM

Eric Ritter and I have exchanged many emails

Please count them and tell us exactly how many.

By the way, I know an Eric Ritter too, though not the same Eric Ritter you are talking about. We have exchanged MANY emails, OFTEN with IMPORTANT attachments such as word and excel files full of words and data - very exciting documents of CRITICAL importance to accomplishing our own MODEST (modesty is a virtue) contributions to commerce, and contributing to the GREAT economy of the USA. He lives on east coast, so our emails have traveled MUCH FARTHER than your emails (our emails often travel over fiber optic, and for the brief period they are in fiber optic, these emails travel at speeds of over half the speed of light). Can you TOP that!

caj13 - 7-13-2019 at 03:55 AM

you guys need to give David a break! Can't you see he is faced with a huge soul crushing dilemma here!

He wants so bad to make sure all of us here are aware of just how important he is: Mr. Ritters including him in his writings gives him a chance to puff out his chest. But as he sings his praises - he is faced with the obvious issue here. Mr. Ritter is talking about sea levels rising.

So you can see Davids tortured ham fisted attempt to side step that issue, try and explain it away - so his magic palm tree Theory can remain intact!

It's a truly Herculean task to maintain climate denier status in the face of overwhelming evidence from every branch of science, and now to top that off -
David is presented with the Gordian knot of maintaining his Chief denier status while simultaneously patting himself on the back while looking in the mirror!
I , for one give him credit for trying!

[Edited on 7-13-2019 by caj13]

motoged - 7-13-2019 at 05:01 PM

That is a nice paper. Thanks for the link.

Regarding the fish traps; do you think it may also be possible that over the hundreds of years, these rocks settled and fell a bit from daily tides, wind-waves, earthquakes, as well as simply moved deeper into the wet sand from gravity, so that they no longer appeared above the high tide?
I don't know of any rock walls in the ocean that remain exactly the same with all that is acted upon them. Rising sea level is the simple answer... but is it the correct one?

Yes it is possible.....but wave and tide action would likely affect such rock formations in a way that changes/destroys the initial structure form....which does not appear to be so in Harald's pic. And, please share your research info regarding fish traps, etc around th world....as many cultures used them.

David, could you admit that rising ocean levels is an explanation that is also possible?

[Edited on 7-14-2019 by motoged]

4x4abc - 7-13-2019 at 09:22 PM

all these fish traps are in protected coves with shallow water
almost all are on the downwind side (south or south-west)
so, no destructive wave action

Espititu Santo has been inhabited 40,000 (no typo) years
that gave those early humans a lot of time to figure out what works

4x4abc - 7-13-2019 at 09:26 PM

here is another great one

fishtrap.jpg - 233kB

JZ - 7-13-2019 at 09:52 PM

That is amazing Harald. Next time we are out at the island we will check it out.

4x4abc - 7-13-2019 at 09:58 PM

drop me your email and I'll send you locations

JZ - 7-13-2019 at 10:47 PM

Sent.

caj13 - 7-14-2019 at 05:00 AM

all these fish traps are in protected coves with shallow water
almost all are on the downwind side (south or south-west)
so, no destructive wave action

Espititu Santo has been inhabited 40,000 (no typo) years
that gave those early humans a lot of time to figure out what works

don't know where that 40K year figure came from, harald, can you point me toward that research. regardless, humans were here in the americas during the end of the ice age. during that time - sea levels rose in some places 100 meters higher
https://noc.ac.uk/news/global-sea-level-rise-end-last-ice-ag...

- hence the Pygmy Mammoths that lived on the channel islands.

https://www.nps.gov/chis/learn/historyculture/pygmymammoth.h...

so if those fish traps were in place even 12K years ago, they would have been build to a significantly lower sea level, and the end of the ice age simply raised the sea levels a bit more.

[Edited on 7-14-2019 by caj13]

[Edited on 7-14-2019 by caj13]

Paco Facullo - 7-14-2019 at 07:45 AM

In both photos I'ma seein' misaligned boobies ????

DouglasP - 7-14-2019 at 07:51 AM

This forum has an extraordinarily high rate of doosh nozzles. ;-)

Skipjack Joe - 7-14-2019 at 08:39 AM

Espititu Santo has been inhabited 40,000 (no typo) years

That's amazing.

mtgoat666 - 7-14-2019 at 09:00 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Espititu Santo has been inhabited 40,000 (no typo) years

That's amazing.

40,000 years is an extremely dubious number! The science does not support humans in the Americas much earlier than about 16,000 years ago. The 40,000 years claim for humans in South America is not well supported.

mtgoat666 - 7-14-2019 at 09:04 AM

I suspect these fish traps are less than 1,000 years old. Storms and natural processes would have wiped out older shoreline structures. Shorelines are high energy environment, things don’t last long on shoreline.

4x4abc - 7-14-2019 at 10:32 AM

most recent settlement history was from around 10,000 years ago until missionary times

http://www.baja101.com/Nomad/Proceedings.28Fujita1.pdf

The author Harumi Fujita is a renowned archeologist (working with Dr. Ritter a lot - ask David for confirmation)

Here is an excerpt from a paper (CONCHA COMO IMPORTANTE MATERIA PRIMA PARA HERRAMIENTAS, UTENCILIOS Y ORNAMENTOS EN LA COVACHA BABISURI, ISLA ESPIRITU SANTO, B.C.S.) about shells used by the Indians. They carbon date the shells in a large pile on Espiritu Santo:

"The early stage is characterized by the presence of large and thick shells, mainly of Glycymeris gigantea and some of Ponderosa Dosinia, Lyropecten subnodosus, Ostrea fisheri, Spondylus princeps, Codakia distinguenda, Anadara multicostata, Laevicardium elatum, Pecten vogdesi and Pinctada mazatlanica associated with the large and medium lithic, such as flakes, retouched flakes, cores, scrapers, scrapers, basalt and rhyolite knives found in the lower layer of the covacha. Sixteen shell samples (13 Glycymeris gigantea, 2 Dosinia ponderosa and one Pecten vogdesi) were dated by C14 around 40,000 years ago. Some skeletal remains of fish and other animals were found. Some species or specimens of these old shells may have been collected after the mollusk's death, so the dates of these shells do not necessarily correspond to the date of human occupation and were not consumed. In that case, these shells were collected for another purpose. The shells Glycymeris gigantea and Dosinia ponderosa were used as scrapers. In the case of Glycymeris gigantea, its original shape was not modified, although some specimens are observed retouching in the dorsal margin or marks of use. In contrast, the Ponderosa Dosinia was modified by removing the laterals in such a way that the central part is conserved with the wide hinge which serves to grip well and this form somewhat resembles Glycymeris gigantea. No complete ponderosa Dosinia was found (Fujita, in process). The column part of the snail Fusinus dupetitthouarsi was modified to obtain a long, thin and resistant punzun. This artifact may be related to the capture of fish, using the tip of a person as a mooring stick. It is likely that the large, flat and hard shells such as Lyropecten subnodosus, Ostrea fisheri, Spondylus princeps, Codakia distinguenda and Laevicardium elatum have been used as a dish, since they are complete or almost complete without showing modification marks. It is necessary to determine if some shells of this stage were results of human consumption to estimate human occupation approximately 40,000 years ago or that were collected for tools and / or raw material to make tools between 10,000 and 21,000 years ago when the sea level was very high. low (Fujita, Tellez and Bate, 2004)."

The site publishing that paper is no longer online, but I have it saved if anyone cares to read the whole thing.

caj13 - 7-15-2019 at 05:41 AM

I appreciate the reference and paper Harald. My interpretation is that Fujita was looking for more "data" . while she had some shells that dated to 40K years old, none of those showed characteristics consistent with human consumption. shells found in "higher" levelss and associated tools do show positive human altering and use, but those are estimated to between 10 - 20 K years, which puts it in alignment with most common accepted number of 13,000 - 15,500 years ago.

[Edited on 7-15-2019 by caj13]

[Edited on 7-15-2019 by caj13]

4x4abc - 7-15-2019 at 08:13 AM

scientist have a hard time to generate interest
they also have a hard time to find research money

40,000 years cries for more research money

David K - 7-15-2019 at 08:34 AM

scientist have a hard time to generate interest
they also have a hard time to find research money

40,000 years cries for more research money

Indeed...

Almost the same as saying the sea is rising? :lol:

$$$

caj13 - 7-15-2019 at 11:16 AM

scientist have a hard time to generate interest
they also have a hard time to find research money

40,000 years cries for more research money

Indeed...

Almost the same as saying the sea is rising? :lol:

$$$

David: speaking as a scientist who has gotten research money (over 17 million in the past 30 years) for the past 30 years (DARPA, ISSNL, NSF, USFS, Pacific Corp, the list goes on and on) . I can say to you - and all of your ilk who think that scientists gin up data and information to get grants

- sorry mate - you are completely wrong! You have no idea of the process, of the rigorous review your proposal goes through, of the huge rejection rate of proposals, of the competitive nature. Let alone the review of your results and careful monitoring .
Now - if you want to look for psuedoscientists milking sugar daddies - that's the climate denier clowns who get money from the oil companies, or those that got money from big tobacco .

Those researchers who get their project funded by credible organizations looking for answers not propaganda- have improved your life in so many ways it's not countable - and yet you, with absolutely no training, no science, no facts, no credible information, you want to put yourself on the level of the people who dedicate their careers, the top minds in the country - and you think you saying "Nope - Not True because my buddy has a blog that says so". That doesn't Negate the research David, it doesn't make it wrong - just because you declare it to be wrong! All that your denying means - is: you self identify as being unable, incapable and unwilling to look at the facts and figures!

interesting that you cry out for recognition - to the point of begging for it as an "expert". but when you are faced with real experts doing fantastic science, producing overwhelming amounts of data, facts information, verification etc - you try and denigrate these people because it doesn't fit your agenda.

I get it David - your political bias will not allow you to accept climate change. That doesn't mean its not happening David - It means you have made a choice. instead of looking at an evaluating those data, you choose to try and kill the messenger!

why is that David? Do you think being willfully ignorant is a badge of Honor?

[Edited on 7-15-2019 by caj13]

[Edited on 7-15-2019 by caj13]

David K - 7-15-2019 at 12:05 PM

I accept it just fine... Don't you read any of my replies or is it too important to disparage me with your populist theories?

Climate does change.
It always has and always will... with or without humans.
The sea level has not risen any amount the past hundred or more years that would cause anyone to have an issue or even notice.
It is just another scare tactic to raise funds and make government have more power over the citizens.

If the sea had risen any significant amount then beach houses would be in the water, boat launch ramps would be useless underwater, Alfonsina's runway would never be dry again, and that palm tree at El Coyote would not have a dry trunk and there wouldn't be a hundred Canadians camped next to it every winter! LOL

Oh, and using photos past to present at the sea is not something only I use to prove a scientific point...

Sea Level.jpg - 51kB

caj13 - 7-16-2019 at 07:59 AM

Bahahahahaa! Thats it? all you have is Steve Goddard, a disgrundled geologist who got fired from a series of jobs because of his incompetence? and what is it that makes his "information" superior to those true climate scientists who have the actual training, experience, equipment computing power - peer review etc etc etc?

so how does this genius Goddard explain the 300 foot rise in sea levels in the past 18,000 years david?

Next time you need brain surgery David - why not have your car mechanic do it - I'm sure his opinions and knowledge base and tools are fine for the job!

same issue on the photos as always david! - give me a time and a date david - lets check the tide tables. without that baseline - they mean absolutely nothing - completely meaningless, No value at all to anyone - (other than a denier looking desperately for anything that will allow them to cling to their ridiculous beliefs) .

[Edited on 7-16-2019 by caj13]

[Edited on 7-16-2019 by caj13]

RnR - 7-16-2019 at 08:34 AM

… lets check the tide tables. a photo without that baseline - means absolutely nothing ]

The tide is a HUGE variable in any photo.

Case in point - our nearby harbor has an 18 FOOT variation in sea level every six hours. That's 3 ft per hour, or 36 inches per 60 minutes, or slightly more than a HALF INCH PER MINUTE !!!

Take two photos five minutes apart and you can absolutely PROVE that sea levels are rising (or falling)…

4x4abc - 7-16-2019 at 10:30 AM

that's why we leave it to NASA and its satellites to measure ocean levels
Laser, radar - who knows.
But it is damn accurate

Levels are rising

not much yet because there is not that much water/ice in Antarctica, Greenland and the glaciers.
but an additional factor is that warmer water expands
so the warmer oceans will rise when warmer even if no melting ice from the mentioned sources would be added

is that bad?
I don't know

caj13 - 7-16-2019 at 11:54 AM

Quote: Originally posted by RnR

… lets check the tide tables. a photo without that baseline - means absolutely nothing ]

My point exactly. But David has been ignoring, poo pooing, and trying to deflect from that point. after all, that would prove his "data - AKA the magic palm tree photos, are useless as data points!

David K - 7-16-2019 at 01:53 PM

The palm tree is just ABOVE the high tide line... and is in all the photos. 1936 to 2017+. Stop deflecting the obvious that if the sea level had risen just a foot in the past 80 years then the palm would be in the water at high tide and that big flat behind it would be a lagoon. Same thing at Alfonsina's: the runway would be underwater daily and not just during lunar high tides. Nothing has changed because of sea level. Erosion eats away at the coast but the ocean is not higher.

caj13 - 7-16-2019 at 03:16 PM

The palm tree is just ABOVE the high tide line... and is in all the photos. 1936 to 2017+. Stop deflecting the obvious that if the sea level had risen just a foot in the past 80 years then the palm would be in the water at high tide and that big flat behind it would be a lagoon. Same thing at Alfonsina's: the runway would be underwater daily and not just during lunar high tides. Nothing has changed because of sea level. Erosion eats away at the coast but the ocean is not higher.

so how do you explain the sea level being 300 feet lower 18000 years ago David? Is that Erosion? Your issue is you are trying to cling to your beliefs by limiting time scales to minute geological time frames. Expand your mind David, let go of your ignorance laced dogma spouted out of the right side of your mouth without any critical thought behind that verbal vomitus!

4x4abc - 7-16-2019 at 03:22 PM

it is impossible to argue with any believer

but here are a few points for the ones among us who still weigh data

this one will help the Palmistas:
Baja California is not only drifting away from mainland Mexico - its eastern coast is rising while the western coast is slowly diving into the Pacific
so the date palms at Playa el Coyote are actually lifted up

hard to say whether sea level rise or tectonic uplifting are winning at Baja's east coast
recorded sea level rise (yes it has been recorded for a few hundred years in countries like the Netherlands) has been a slow 8 inches since 1880

there is another thing that makes the evaluation of palm/water relations difficult:
gravity
it is not equally distributed around the globe
that means the oceans actually have valleys and mountains
meaning the sea level is not at the same distance from the center of the planet in all places.
to make it more complicated, the valleys and mountains are shifting around
there are some islands in the Indian Ocean that should have been almost under water by now
they are not
because in the area a valley of water has formed

https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/buac16-912-sci-ess...

4x4abc - 7-16-2019 at 03:29 PM

in a way I am with David

sticking to your belief (palms, Jesus etc) provides safety
the safety from dealing with change around you
humans don't like change
dealing with negative effects of change is unsettling
so, you just ignore it and have a peaceful life

bajaguy - 7-16-2019 at 03:45 PM

Several of these on the Hawaiian island of Moloka'i

David K - 7-16-2019 at 04:56 PM

I have explained only that in our lifetime and a few generations before and after, there is not enough change to warrant the hysteria that your side likes to promote. To give you my guess about why it was that much lower, it would be that we may have been in an ice age. Our ancestors did cross over from Siberia to Alaska back then or maybe a bit after, right?

I never said there is or was no change.

I have seen fossils of seashells, several hundred feet above sea level. The ocean was once much higher and much lower... It is simply returning to an old place, but ever so slowly.

There is NOTHING man can do to alter the NATURAL change. You just have to adapt when change happens. One day, that palm will be in the water... It just hasn't gotten any closer since the 1930s. You would think with all the industrial pollution and automotive smog and nuclear explosions above ground that would have really accelerated the sea level rise.. BUT NO, it didn't change with our dirty ways. We are cleaner now, and no more bomb tests, either. So, what can we do for sea level if all the mess of the 1940's to the 2000's couldn't?

Harald makes a good point about tectonics, too. When Shari said that the Lagoon was getting bigger from rising sea level (but is unchanged on the gulf side of Baja) I suggested the land was possibly sinking or twisting down. Some Pacific Islands are sinking as the volcanic or coral material compresses over time. It would look like the sea is rising from their point of view! There was a great Gilligan's Island episode where the professor's measure stick in the lagoon showed him the island was sinking. It turned out Gilligan was simply moving the stick. IF the professor had used a palm tree by the water for reference, he would see the sea level and island level were unchanged!
:light:

4x4abc - 7-16-2019 at 05:15 PM

There is NOTHING man can do to alter the NATURAL change. You just have to adapt when change happens.

wow - why do we even practice medicine?
Nothing man can do.

Let's change the subject from water to fire. Let's say predictions are, there will be fire.
According to David, you'll adapt when it happens
wow again

why do you even sell sprinklers?
you can't change nature, you said yourself

4x4abc - 7-16-2019 at 05:36 PM

David is a kind generous man!
He means well.

he functions differently than some of us do

caj13 - 7-17-2019 at 05:54 AM

There is NOTHING man can do to alter the NATURAL change. You just have to adapt when change happens. One day, that palm will be in the water... It just hasn't gotten any closer since the 1930s. You would think with all the industrial pollution and automotive smog and nuclear explosions above ground that would have really accelerated the sea level rise.. BUT NO, it didn't change with our dirty ways. We are cleaner now, and no more bomb tests, either. So, what can we do for sea level if all the mess of the 1940's to the 2000's couldn't?

:light:

which high tide line david?
and man can alter natural change - thats exactly what we are argueing about. The issue is time frames David. You look at yesterday, and think about next week - see no sea level rise - so it's all good.

Me, I look at data driven models. they make predictions David - and i know you think they are bunk, because data and science have no place in your personal beliefs? .

changes are happening , but the difference here is time scale. natural changes happen across tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years.

Thats what causes scientists to raise the alarm. The RATE of change has been greatly accelerated by Co2 emissions. That causes the average temperature of the earth to raise, and also with more "energy" in the system also drives bigger events, storms droughts etc.

The biggest issue is it is now in a feedback loop, the problem is accelerating. ice melt is increasing at a higher rate now, and the rate will continue to increase. I would post the research on arctic, antarctic and greenland ice melt rates and feedback loops - and what those mean to sea levels going forward, but you just ignore science, so whats the point?

Changes that naturally would have been occurring over 100,00 years, are happening now in 100 years.

I'm not concerned i will be drowning in a year david, im concerned the world will be struggling mightily to deal with the effects in 100 years. My concern personally is for my kids and grand kids and great grand kids - they matter to me.

so lets turn now to this conspiracy theory about it being a hoax by the government to gain more control over individuals?

how is that David? what exactly is the government doing to try and extend control over you!

as for the costs / economy. You may have a valid point there David. after all that hoax has driven the development of solar and wind technologies, electric cars etc. All of those have been huge drains on the economy right david? the 10s of thousands of jobs created - all of them tax paying citizens - the inovation, new companies, new technologies, all of that is part of the cost?

30% of Californias power is coming from renewable/ sustainable sources David - wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal! So thats a bad thing - right?

all of those economic benefits driven by this global warming hoax - I can see why its so revolting to you David - those jobs, technologies, new businesses - disgusting!

one final thing David: please get a dictionary and look up the meaning of populist. It appears as if you may be misunderstanding what that term means. And since you are choosing to use it as an insult - wouldn't it be better if you know what that word actually means.

and one more thing David - If your Orange overlord really wants to change the world by building a big beautiful wall, he could do the country a huge favor by building a seawall to protect new york, los angeles, florida etc.

David K - 7-17-2019 at 08:20 AM

There is NOTHING man can do to alter the NATURAL change. You just have to adapt when change happens.

My reply was on the topic of climate change, nothing else. Did I seriously need to explain that?

caj13 - 7-17-2019 at 09:35 AM

There is NOTHING man can do to alter the NATURAL change. You just have to adapt when change happens.

My reply was on the topic of climate change, nothing else. Did I seriously need to explain that?

Ok but that statement has already been proven wrong - so what now?

Archie - 7-17-2019 at 10:40 AM

I think other than the very precise road condition reports, this posts are what i like the most on bajanomads forum.

This is like when my drunk uncles start throwing chairs at my nana´s xmas party, fighting over the ranchito back in the sierra that nobody has worked at for the last 20 years, but everybody wants a part of it.

gnukid - 7-17-2019 at 11:51 AM

The topic of what drives environment, temperature, weather and climate is likely complex, thousands of inter-related components, chemicals, forcings, tectonic plate movement, currents, wind, solar, volcanic activity both above and below the sea level surface, ice, glaciers, plant and animal life etc. With increased knowledge the topic is only becoming more and more complex. Previous IPCC reports have had errors as any data set might have and the conclusions have demonstrably been led by motivations outside of a academics, namely money, control, etc. leading to conclusions and predictions that have been demonstrated to be totally wrong. That's normal for early progress in any research field.

Today, USA and Europe have reduced pollutions yr/yr and improved energy production to increase the use of a broad range of renewable energy sources, some of which may be demonstrated to be less than economically or environmentally beneficial such as wind, though all energy sources have their place. It is also true that oil is no longer considered a fossil fuel but is biotic and abiotic. Poorer, less developed countries have higher rates of pollution, so economic development seems to be a factor in improving reduction in pollution.

Ice melt is a hugely complex topic in itself, ice shelves move quickly and are affected by global currents and temperatures driven by complex earth models. Antarctic is a region that is extremely dynamic, with more than 200 underwater volcanoes and very little terra firma above sea level. Underwater lakes of warm water create dynamic ecosystems that drive melting of ice sheets. Each year the ice melts rapidly in Summer and returns in Winter in a rapid, dynamic manner.

In addition, as time passes, we learn more, we report more, remember more, and there is a perception of increasing weather events, or increasing reporting doomsday climate claims, while it's not actually demonstrated that extreme weather events are increasing.

Those of us from the USA with memories of our childhood, we can recall the horrible pollution of the 60-70s and we can see a huge improvement in managing pollution and water quality.

With the complexity of earth models and so much new information, it is an exciting time, though it does not appear that we are on the verge of catastrophe, nor that human created CO2 is a significant factor to drive the atmosphere or climate, more likely it is the opposite, that is atmospheric temperatures drive CO2.

Sea level rise globally is relatively consistent for more than a hundred years, and there is no current increase in the rise. Yet it can vary from location to location.

So, as we improve our data collection and learn more about climate, we also better understand the data and the error bars. Temperatures were recorded by farmers traditionally who reported to aggregators of data, now increasingly temperature collection tools are placed in urban areas, airports etc. with an increase in relative temperature caused by urban heat, [cement increases temperature while natural landscapes do not] and placement near ducts or other machinery affect the relative temperature. We are just beginning to factor in temperature corrections for urban heat and measuring locations following published papers on the topic of urban heat affect on global temperature readings.

It makes little sense to attack anyone here for their observations and photo evidence, without providing a thorough analysis of known local factors as well as global to substantiate a contrasting opinion.

You can make a difference in the products you use, how you manage your input and output and your behavior, but there are many factors you can not control, for example, the past which is a complex factor driving our current environment, or any of the global and galactic factors that are the most powerful of the environmental forcings.

In Baja, there are many opportunities to do clean up, improve waste management, improve water quality and manage the distribution of water to reduce leaks and run off, provide education about waste management, plastics, recycling, composting etc. With so many opportunities to get involved and help and so much new information available for those interested, there is no excuse for not becoming educated and involved, if you are so inclined.

Humans do contribute to factors that drive climate, but the contribution is quite minor in comparison to 1000s of other factors that we can not control. Humans contribute .04% to the total .04% CO2 in the atmosphere measured today at about ~400ppm. If we did everything proposed to radically change our way of life and reduce our use of oil based energy, it would not have a noticeable affect on the CO2, temperature or climate.

Many people overlook the fact that alternative energy sources require oil to create, and energy to store and transport, manage and deliver, while they are often unreliable, costly and fail to prove economically viable over time for the masses. Though certainly they are beneficial for those who can justify the use where no other option is available.

If you want to blame one primary factor for the climate, blame the Sun, it is 1.3 millions times larger than the earth and is the largest driver of temperature, environment and climate.

It makes little sense to make personal attacks here in order to score eco points to look good.

And if you don't like the weather, move.

[Edited on 7-17-2019 by gnukid]

JoeJustJoe - 7-17-2019 at 03:55 PM

That's a nice post Gunkid, it's too bad it's mostly wrong.

It's almost too funny hearing Gunkid, blaming motivations of outside of academics, namely money, control, etc.......Yeah, right, but that's a drop in the bucket compared, to what a deep pocket company like Exxon, pays to confuse to issue, so they won't be liable for lawsuit for polluting to planet and causing man-made global warming with fellow corporate polluters.

One of Gunkid's favorite argument is volcanic activity both above and below the sea level surface, are the main causes of CO2 emissions and one of the main contributors to global warming.

But it turns out humans CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic emissions.
___________________________

First, let's look at the argument that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans. Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002). However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial meaning "under the air", refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).

In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). In other words, human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo (which emitted around 42 million tonnes of CO2) had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a large volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

https://skepticalscience.com/Two-attempts-to-blame-global-wa...

gnukid - 7-17-2019 at 07:25 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe

That's a nice post Gunkid, it's too bad it's mostly wrong.

Straw man fallacy

I never said Volcanoes ARE the number one contributor to CO2, JJJ said that and attributed it to me as a straw man fallacy to be knocked down, which is a common logical fallacy he uses.

A volcanic eruption could be a significant contribution to green house gasses far exceeding human contribution. Volcanoes are intermittent contributors to green house gasses, it depends on current volcanic activity as well as other factors, I suppose.

4x4abc - 7-17-2019 at 08:48 PM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666

anthropogenic climate change

finally, someone got it right

caj13 - 7-18-2019 at 05:39 AM

GnuKid:

I believe there are numerous erronous statements in your treatise: please help me understand. can you provide sources that can document the following statements?

1. Previous IPCC reports have had errors as any data set might have and the conclusions have demonstrably been led by motivations outside of a academics, namely money, control, etc. leading to conclusions and predictions that have been demonstrated to be totally wrong. That's normal for early progress in any research field.
(i'm particularly interested in these conclusions and predictions that have been demonstrated to be totally wrong, I see that stated alot around here, I repeatedly ask for a source for that info - so far - nothing!)

2. some of which may be demonstrated to be less than economically or environmentally beneficial such as wind, though all energy sources have their place. It is also true that oil is no longer considered a fossil fuel but is biotic and abiotic. Poorer, less developed countries have higher rates of pollution, (on this one Gnu - I'm particularly interested in the "less economically beneficial..."

and you need to understand "rate" doesn't mean much in this context - its total amount that matters. increasing the drip rate in a faucet from 1 drip to 2 drips a minute doubles the rate. But compared to decreasing the the amount of water going over niagra falls by a gallon a minute - that "rate increase means nothing .

3.Humans do contribute to factors that drive climate, but the contribution is quite minor in comparison to 1000s of other factors that we can not control. Humans contribute .04% to the total .04% CO2 in the atmosphere measured today at about ~400ppm. If we did everything proposed to radically change our way of life and reduce our use of oil based energy, it would not have a noticeable affect on the CO2, temperature or climate.
(where did these numbers come from gnu?)

4.If you want to blame one primary factor for the climate, blame the Sun, it is 1.3 millions times larger than the earth and is the largest driver of temperature, environment and climate.
(so are you saying the current warming trend is because the sun is now closer? or are you referring to sunspot activity? certainly the sun is the largest climate driver - so is the sun changing? )

5. And if you don't like the weather, move.

do you not understand the difference between climate and weather?

certainly with such a well written treatise stating numerous numbers and facts, you ought to easily be able to provide sources for those numbers and declarations!
thank you

gnukid - 7-18-2019 at 07:03 AM

Over simplifying earth models with a simple summary its all man made is a silly argument, not to mention that you have provided not one shred of evidence for or against your point.

The more likely scenario, as is now being adopted even with the IPCC is that while man does contribute to the atmosphere the contribution is not particularly significant and we are not under any catastrophic climate threat that we can modify.

Still, you can improve your eco footprint efficiency by managing your personal economic choices etc...

If you want to point to villains you could point to ecological hypocrites such as Al Gore and Bernie Sanders who are gross polluters through over consumption.

It would be helpful if you would do some research and present a point for or against to support your "point"?

You lose credibility by making claims that DK and I must be racist because we point out observed contradictions to the falsified theory of man made catastrophic climate change. After 40 years of hearing the world will end soon and continents will be under water unless you give up all control and pay carbon tax, you would think you would tire of being misled, yet you embrace it with unbridled, blind, hysterical, and hypocritical passion.

[Edited on 7-18-2019 by gnukid]

caj13 - 7-18-2019 at 10:00 AM

Over simplifying earth models with a simple summary its all man made is a silly argument, not to mention that you have provided not one shred of evidence for or against your point.

The more likely scenario, as is now being adopted even with the IPCC is that while man does contribute to the atmosphere the contribution is not particularly significant and we are not under any catastrophic climate threat that we can modify.

Still, you can improve your eco footprint efficiency by managing your personal economic choices etc...

If you want to point to villains you could point to ecological hypocrites such as Al Gore and Bernie Sanders who are gross polluters through over consumption.

It would be helpful if you would do some research and present a point for or against to support your "point"?

You lose credibility by making claims that DK and I must be racist because we point out observed contradictions to the falsified theory of man made catastrophic climate change.you would think you would tire of being misled, yet you embrace it with unbridled, blind, hysterical, and hypocritical passion.

[Edited on 7-18-2019 by gnukid]

an absolutely perfect example of the Pot calling the kettle Black. gnu kid provides no documentation, no facts that can be checked - just makes broad statements hewn from climate deniers talking points. But when politely asked to provide evidence, his response is classic

You need to provide evidence - you can't just say that!

uh - you first my friend!

here's the easy place to start: you want to provide citations of predictions that led to you stating:
After 40 years of hearing the world will end soon and continents will be under water unless you give up all control and pay carbon tax,

where can I find those predictions and statements?

[Edited on 7-18-2019 by caj13]

gnukid - 7-18-2019 at 10:22 AM

The real Climate Change threat is the failure of peer reviewed research to reduce errors and allow group think of a small group to promote simplified unsubstantiated catastrophic climate theory.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/scientists-mistakes-globa...

Edward Wegman in his report to the Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee identified how climate research went wrong.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

Moreover, the conclusion is that the climate is complex, more so than previously considered. Certainly the Sun is the center of our universe and the largest driver of temperature, climate and our solar system, but even the Sun is not well understood. http://wp.me/P7y4l-8nz

Proliferation of radio VHF/UHF/FM/WIFI waves affecting the atmosphere is being studied.

Here is an interesting article pointing to water vapor as the lead driver of temperature https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/how-the-earth-became-...

We are learning more very day and it is an exciting time.

JoeJustJoe - 7-18-2019 at 10:26 AM

Exactly Caj13, Gnukid, is an interesting character and a good writer, but it never occured to him that some of us would ask him for his sources and when Gnukid actually provides those sources it turns out he is linking some lunatic with no scientific work experience on the climate or its some hired gun who is on Exxon's payroll or works for some corporate think tanks with ties to the oil industry and who is hired to confuse the issue.

Science is not on the 'deniers' side because about 96% of scientists who study the climate say global warming is overwhelming causes by mankind. The other 4% of scientists work for Exxon' or other corporate polluters.

I wish Gnukid stuck to his conspiracy theories about Mexico, because there is at least some small truth to those stories, compared to almost no truth to those crackpot articles that deny global warming.

Update I didn't see Gnukid's post and links until after I wrote the above post.

I haven't looked closely yet but without a doubt eveyone one those links is highly skeptical if you look closely. Daily Caller is some extreme right-wing site that usually spends time on right wing politics, and what's up with that I reported on before, its not the number one site for climate scientist and the owner of the site has no real experience in the climate field unless you count being a TV weatherman as expert knowledge and he has ties to the Heritage foundation that has also claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer, and their money came from the tobacco industy and oil companies.

[Edited on 7-18-2019 by JoeJustJoe]

gnukid - 7-18-2019 at 11:07 AM

Once again, you provide no facts, no references and fail to speak to the topic, which can only lead the reader to accept you have no facts to present.

Over time, it does appear there is a pattern of behavior by a few Nomads to create confusion through negative attacks, which is also a well known logical fallacy to disuade others from reading or participating, basically, if you contribute to the discussion with facts you will be attacked personally with unsubstantiated claims, extreme anger, and the topic is flooded by negativity that discourages well meaning people from participating and learning.

It's sad, that these few angry Nomads are so totally committed to harming the dialogue and the community by creating an extremely negative and hyperbolic environment.

This pattern begs the question, what is the motivation of JJJ (Caj13), and Goat if not to harm the group with divisive antagonist claims to discourage critical thinking discussion, and why would they be so committed to logical fallacy in discussion?

Do they feel guilty for failing to actually take action to improve the environment? Do they feel obligated to support the failures of the past in some sort of cognitive dissonance with the future? Is it really hard for people to accept they were misled, openly, and they feel would feel foolish to admit their mistakes?

Well it is clear, it is difficult to accept that many things we believed are no longer valid, sad that this personal problem is mirrored or parroted as anger and insults toward others, but that does explain why seniors are often alone in their retirement. Consider the joy of learning, reading, exploration, ideas, science and enjoy the process of demystifying the past climate catastrophe claims. And enjoy participating in real world activities in Baja, arroyo and beach cleanup, improved thoughtful waste management, recycle, reuse, repurpose, and embrace the synergystic plant <-> animal relationship where CO2 is the lifeblood of the earth and the center of our healthy ecosystem.

[Edited on 7-18-2019 by gnukid]

JoeJustJoe - 7-18-2019 at 02:11 PM

If you look at one of Gnukid's links called the "Wegmen report, it has been discredited years ago, and you can find the links all over the internet how a few GOP climate denying politicians, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), hired a statistician Edward Wegman, to refute basic science about Global Warming.

But it turns out the Wegman, report did not subject his work to peer review, but instead sent it right to the GOP politicians, who then put it out to the world to deny the findings of climate scientists..

The kicker was when other researchers notice a large part of the Wegman report was shocking plagiarism, and pure BS, which got Wegman and the two GOP politicians in hot water.

In politics you can often get away with pure BS, but in Science, it's not that easy and with a little research you can usually expose the pseudo-scientists who deny Global warming.
_________________________
Frpm Think Progress, who got much of this information from Wikipedia, where Wegman has been exposed.
--

Climate science is a solid edifice built around the work of thousands of scientists, vast amounts of data, and countless peer-reviewed publications. As the National Academy of Sciences report put it, “Although the scientific process is always open to new ideas and results, the fundamental causes and consequences of climate change have been established by many years of scientific research, are supported by many different lines of evidence, and have stood firm in the face of careful examination, repeated testing, and the rigorous evaluation of alternative theories and explanation.”

Climate denial is a house of cards, built around the sleight of hand of a few disinformers, deniers, and pseudo-scientists — who keep repeating the same falsehoods no matter how many times they have been debunked. One of the most important, yet flimsiest, cards holding up the house is the attack on the so-called Hockey Stick research — multiple, independent lines of data and analysis that demonstrate recent global warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (see “Two more independent studies back the Hockey Stick and below). Indeed, as WAG notes, within a few decades, nobody is going to be talking about hockey sticks, they will be talking about right angles or hockey skates (see chart above).

A cornerstone of the disinformer’s ultimately self-destructive attack on climate science is a 2006 report, commissioned by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, who is now himself under investigation by GMU (see Experts find “shocking” plagiarism in 2006 climate report). You can find all the details you could want about the shoddy analysis of the report at Deep Climate “” including his “methodical demolishing of any hint of statistics” in the report, as John Mashey puts it in the comments.

https://thinkprogress.org/wegman-scandal-rocks-cornerstone-o...

caj13 - 7-19-2019 at 05:47 AM

Ok so lets take these "references" provided by Gnu kid (thank you) one at a time:

"The real Climate Change threat is the failure of peer reviewed research to reduce errors and allow group think of a small group to promote simplified unsubstantiated catastrophic climate theory.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/14/scientists-mistakes-globa...

3 issues here
1. gnu kids introductory summary is wrong and does not represent the story presented at all - its almost like the kid didn't actually read the story.

2. The story itself is actually a good review of how science is done. The research came out in a peer reviewed journal, other independant scientists did their job - reviewed it, and questioned their methodology and results. original authors take look - agree that they made a mistake, and correct it - thats science working!

3. The Daily Caller is a well known right wing opinion website founded by Tucker Carleson. In this particulalr case - the headlines in no way match up to the story - AS THEY REPORTED IT. The errors were small, and when corrected , did not make any material difference in their conclusions!

So - source #1 - completely busted - strike one gnuey!

lets try #2:
Edward Wegman in his report to the Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee identified how climate research went wrong.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

Wegman and his claims are well known crap spewed by a non qualified person who was paid by right wingers to try and find a way to discredit the science - JJJ does a good job of blowing up wegman and his so called research!

so source #2 - well known fraud already discredited multiple times
so that would be strike 2 gnuey!

how about #3, surely gnuey must stumble on some valid research somewhere right?

3.Moreover, the conclusion is that the climate is complex, more so than previously considered. Certainly the Sun is the center of our universe and the largest driver of temperature, climate and our solar system, but even the Sun is not well understood. http://wp.me/P7y4l-8nz
Thats a great website Gnuey - Trouble is some of the graphs and data clearly show the sun blamers to be wrong!

so a couple of issues here, I'm sure it must be a typo - right gnuey? you surely don't think the sun is the center of our universe - right?

This seems to be coming from the serial attempts by undereducated individuals to lay the blame of current changes on the sun. The first hilarous attempt was some goons claiming the earth was now closer to the sun - when it was pointed out how obviously false that was - they switched gears - got alot more sophisticated, and desided to blame the increase in sunspots. turns out they got that one exactly backwards - it couldn't have been more wrong, in fact current sunspot activity should be driving cooler temps - oops - !
so now its "very complicated" and yes it is - but guess what, science is pretty good at figuring out "very complicated" stuff. start with the Milankovitch cycles Gnuey, once you get a handle on that - then come back and explain to us how that is affecting climate change! (spoiler alert - it's supposed to be getting cooler, not hotter, based on those cycles! )

strike 3 gnuey! anything else you want to add?

oh yeah, one more : and this one is exactly right - but unfortunately it appears as if gnuey isn't able to make the connections!

Here is an interesting article pointing to water vapor as the lead driver of temperature https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/how-the-earth-became-...

so stay with me gnuey - please remember your middle school science here
1. hot air rises - and as it rises it cools
2. cool air falls, and as it falls it heats up
3. HOT AIR CAN HOLD ALOT MORE WATER VAPOR THAN COLD AIR

So co2 acts as a green house to heat the earth, that means alot more water vapor can be evaporated into the atmosphere - which also leads to heating - see how that works gnuey! its not the water, its the CO2 changing the temperature, that leads to the water vapor increasing

so I guess I'm still waiting for a citation of any actual research - you know, peer reviewed science stuff - not right wing blogs and agenda driven propaganda!

[Edited on 7-19-2019 by caj13]

caj13 - 7-19-2019 at 06:05 AM

Once again, you provide no facts, no references and fail to speak to the topic, which can only lead the reader to accept you have no facts to present.

Over time, it does appear there is a pattern of behavior by a few Nomads to create confusion through negative attacks, which is also a well known logical fallacy to disuade others from reading or participating, basically, if you contribute to the discussion with facts you will be attacked personally with unsubstantiated claims, extreme anger, and the topic is flooded by negativity that discourages well meaning people from participating and learning.

It's sad, that these few angry Nomads are so totally committed to harming the dialogue and the community by creating an extremely negative and hyperbolic environment.

This pattern begs the question, what is the motivation of JJJ (Caj13), and Goat if not to harm the group with divisive antagonist claims to discourage critical thinking discussion, and why would they be so committed to logical fallacy in discussion?

Do they feel guilty for failing to actually take action to improve the environment? Do they feel obligated to support the failures of the past in some sort of cognitive dissonance with the future? Is it really hard for people to accept they were misled, openly, and they feel would feel foolish to admit their mistakes?

Well it is clear, it is difficult to accept that many things we believed are no longer valid, sad that this personal problem is mirrored or parroted as anger and insults toward others, but that does explain why seniors are often alone in their retirement. Consider the joy of learning, reading, exploration, ideas, science and enjoy the process of demystifying the past climate catastrophe claims. And enjoy participating in real world activities in Baja, arroyo and beach cleanup, improved thoughtful waste management, recycle, reuse, repurpose, and embrace the synergystic plant <-> animal relationship where CO2 is the lifeblood of the earth and the center of our healthy ecosystem.

[Edited on 7-18-2019 by gnukid]

actually gnukid, i and several others here have provided numerous citations of actual science. Unfortunately it's pretty obvious most here don't actually take the time to investigate. Providing those links to real science, peer reviewed stuff that is something you david and others of your ilk have refused to do. so don't try and deflect - the balls in you court in terms of providing facts figures - you know - real science - unlike the rightwing blather you have attempted to pass of as science in the past here.

and for the record - just because individuals disagree with you - that does not mean they are trying to discourage critical thinking discussions - in fact - AND YOU KNOW THIS - just the opposite - by providing actual evidence, they in fact are providing the material needed to engage in a real critical thinking discussion - all we need is some sort of real evidence of your beliefs and agenda, of real science that we can look at! right wing blogs do not rise to that level - and you know it!

so by "harming the dialog" - thats code right - what you want Nomads to be is an echo chamber of like minded right wing evangelicals endlessly spouting fox news talking points and agreeing with each other - without any evidence of critical thinking or examining evidence - right!

and a passive aggressive attack! Nice - how 13 year old girl of you!

sorry, I'm not going away , and because you claim you want this site to be a place of critical thinking i will treat it exactly as that. I have no problem with people disagreeing and having different viewpoints. But i'm kind of anal about holding people accountable - if you post something and declare it as fact - i will look at that critically, and if it doesn't seem right, I will ask for where that came from - support your statement - provide a logic based scaffold for that statement.

Good day sir

4x4abc - 7-21-2019 at 02:09 PM

here is a good visual about all the factors involved in the warming of planet earth

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...

David K - 7-21-2019 at 02:33 PM

Is there a list what Bloomberg is considering "greenhouse gasses" and then we can see how many are natural (like water vapor, CO2 from living things, volcanoes, etc. man has no control over) vs. "industrial".

gnukid - 7-21-2019 at 03:21 PM

Sill no evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ... yes the climate is changing both in consistent and unpredictable ways that have little to do with human generated CO2 driving increasing temperature rise. If you have proof please share.

Feeling Comforted ?

MrBillM - 7-21-2019 at 05:17 PM

" .........Sill[sic] no evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ........."

Assuming that positive proof might be forthcoming within decades .............. At that point, we'd be pretty well SCREWED !

Right ?

Sort of like waiting until THE BIG ONE arrives in California before making preparations.

4x4abc - 7-21-2019 at 05:32 PM

like David said - you have to adapt when it happens

caj13 - 7-22-2019 at 07:21 AM

Sill no evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming ... yes the climate is changing both in consistent and unpredictable ways that have little to do with human generated CO2 driving increasing temperature rise. If you have proof please share.

we already have, numerous times, numerous well documented sources, scientific reports, data, graphs charts etc. You either ignore those - (unless your not capable of understanding them?). and then you post right wing blogs and opinion sites parotting talking points fabricated out of mid air to satisfy your agenda and ego. So, time for you to actually produce some peer reviewed science, that backs up your contention that current climate change has little to do with human generated CO2 driving temperature rise!

elgatoloco - 7-22-2019 at 07:28 AM

This October it will be 20 years since my wife and I snorkeled with Whale Sharks, Manta Rays and sea lions in La Paz on our honeymoon. We had a cabana at Los Arcos for a week in between camping our way down and back up the peninsula. We are planning on spending our anniversary somewhere in Baja. Maybe La Paz? Do they still snorkel there or are the seas too high?

caj13 - 7-22-2019 at 07:40 AM

So for you conspiracy theorists about us scientists coming up with some sort of "secret plan" to keep our funding.

Yup - its true - we hold a secret meeting every year. In that meeting we make sure we are all in line with the mantras!

1. Bigfoot does not exist
2. WE actually did go to the moon
3. The earth really is round
4. Global warming is a thing.

Us scientists are really good at keeping secrets and devising these plans! in the case of global warming, we started all of that plan in motion in 1896 - when Nobel award winning Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius worked out - ooops i mean came up with this ridiculous idea that burning of fossil fuels lead to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, and caused a greenhouse effect.

and we have been working on this secret plan since then, springing it on the world in the 1980s.

man - we are really good at conspiring to screw the general public, too bad so many geniuses are around and see through our plans and construct conspiracy theories based on lack of evidence, as proof - how cool is that!

elgatoloco - 7-22-2019 at 07:46 AM

caj13 - keep up the good work. It is appreciated. At least by this old white man.

When it doubt - read signature below

Peace, love, fish tacos!

JoeJustJoe - 7-22-2019 at 08:14 AM

It's doubtful that Mark Twain said:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" - Mark Twain

And if Mark Twain, did actually say it, he probably ripped it off from a fortune cookie, because you see it all over the place with different variations and attributed to different people all over the world.

Personally I like this variation better:

"Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

The first time you hear these quotes, it's actually profound and funny, but after you heard it thousands of times, it starts sounded like a stale joke, and I cringe when someone writes in on a forum, thinking, " oh crap, not that stupid quote again!"

Regarding the global warning deniers, somebody has to challenge them once in a while to put up or shut up.

I can not believe in 2019 we have people, usually old white people, deny irrefutable science that global warning is real, and it's mostly caused by polluting mankind. We also have the vast majority of scientist about 96% who study global warming, confirm it's real, with the other 4% of scientist selling their soul to the oil industry to confuse the issue.

And then we have guys like 81 year old Barry A. claim he doesn't believe in anything he can't see, and go Trump!

Really Barry A?

AKgringo - 7-22-2019 at 08:17 AM

Can you imagine some visitor to La Paz doing an internet search about "Snorkeling in La Paz", and discovering this forum?

What a treasure trove of information they will have at their disposal! :rolleyes:

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by AKgringo]

Barry A. - 7-22-2019 at 08:54 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JoeJustJoe

It's doubtful that Mark Twain said:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" - Mark Twain

And if Mark Twain, did actually say it, he probably ripped it off from a fortune cookie, because you see it all over the place with different variations and attributed to different people all over the world.

Personally I like this variation better:

"Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

The first time you hear these quotes, it's actually profound and funny, but after you heard it thousands of times, it starts sounded like a stale joke, and I cringe when someone writes in on a forum, thinking, " oh crap, not that stupid quote again!"

Regarding the global warning deniers, somebody has to challenge them once in a while to put up or shut up.

I can not believe in 2019 we have people, usually old white people, deny irrefutable science that global warning is real, and it's mostly caused by polluting mankind. We also have the vast majority of scientist about 96% who study global warming, confirm it's real, with the other 4% of scientist selling their soul to the oil industry to confuse the issue.

And then we have guys like 81 year old Barry A. claim he doesn't believe in anything he can't see, and go Trump!

Really Barry A?

Well, JoJo, that is not exactly what I said, but close. Yes, I take with a grain-of-salt what I "see" on the internet because there is so much of it that is spin, misrepresented, and frankly just out of context, or worse, lies. As for "Global warming"----yes, it's happening---I am not a denier. I just am not ready to bankrupt the world by taking extreme measures that will only effect the possible outcome by maybe 3%, being generous.

4x4abc - 7-22-2019 at 09:17 AM

so your kid is not well
doctors have an idea of what the illness is
no medication has been tried and tested yet
but doctors are certain, a regiment of (unproven) treatments will make your kid better
they recommend to take the chance

You: "No, lets wait until the kid gets really sick - we'll do something then."

Barry A. - 7-22-2019 at 09:50 AM

abc---------you are comparing one person (my kid) with "the world"? What I would do or not do with my kids treatment is totally different (to me) than what I think the world-body en masse should do when confronted with a problem of this magnitude. Both situations are a gamble, but the stakes are entirely different in scope. There is positive scientific proof that we could be hit with an asteroid as it has happened before, but I don't think disrupting and at least partially destroying the economies of the world would justify the expenditure necessary to possibly mitigate that happening.

SFandH - 7-22-2019 at 10:24 AM

but I don't think disrupting and at least partially destroying the economies of the world

What are you talking about?

What does it have to do with climate change?

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by SFandH]

Barry A. - 7-22-2019 at 10:49 AM

but I don't think disrupting and at least partially destroying the economies of the world

What are you talking about?

What does it have to do with climate change?

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by SFandH]

What???? You'rer kidding, right? To finance and implement the various methods of combating "climate change" for even minimal effect is staggering, and would consume much of the assets of the developed world, I understand.

I am all for "alternative energy" development, but not the solutions proposed in the "Green New Deal" as I understand them.

SFandH - 7-22-2019 at 10:51 AM

but I don't think disrupting and at least partially destroying the economies of the world

What are you talking about?

What does it have to do with climate change?

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by SFandH]

You understand? Do tell. What are you talking about? What you said above explains nothing. Where are the costs?

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by SFandH]

Barry A. - 7-22-2019 at 10:56 AM

but I don't think disrupting and at least partially destroying the economies of the world

What are you talking about?

What does it have to do with climate change?

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by SFandH]

You understand? Do tell. What are you talking about? What you said above explains nothing. Where are the costs?

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by SFandH]

We must be talking past each other. I have no idea what you are saying, or asking. (now I see your edit)----the "costs" are outlined in the "Green New Deal", and they are staggering!!! most costs being in shifting from Carbon to Alternative sources soon.

SFandH - 7-22-2019 at 11:07 AM

Good, now we're talking. So you believe global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels but are against spending large sums of money to move away from fossil fuels and on to renewables? Is that true?

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by SFandH]

del mar - 7-22-2019 at 11:18 AM

but I don't think disrupting and at least partially destroying the economies of the world

What are you talking about?

What does it have to do with climate change?

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by SFandH]

climate change! I thought we were talking about snorkeling in La Paz! :lol:

SFandH - 7-22-2019 at 11:22 AM

that ended 5 pages back

AKgringo - 7-22-2019 at 11:23 AM

I have only dived around La Paz in the cooler months (Oct through March) Is the water clearer, or more turbid during the summer months?

Barry A. - 7-22-2019 at 11:27 AM

Good, now we're talking. So you believe global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels but are against spending large sums of money to move away from fossil fuels and on to renewables to decrease CO2 emissions? Is that true?

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by SFandH]

No, you are spinning what I said above. I did not say, "global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels". What I meant to convey is global warming (and global cooling) is happening, and it always has, usually for very complex reasons, much of it beyond our complete understanding. Man may be causing some of it-----I personally don't really know, but I stay tuned, or try to. Moving away from fossil fuels is fine--I have always liked Solar----but I don't want to severely damage the world economy by trying stuff like is in the 'Green New Deal' as I understand it. This entire thread should be taken in context, less you not understand where I and other's are coming from. By the way, what is a "marooon"-------I can't find a relevant definition?

SFandH - 7-22-2019 at 11:36 AM

OK Barry. You don't know if burning fossil fuels is causing global warming and you don't want to "severely damage" the world economy by moving to renewables.

Just say that next time.

AKgringo - 7-22-2019 at 11:43 AM

How about jellyfish, are they more, or less prevalent during the the summer or winter months?

David K - 7-22-2019 at 11:46 AM

I fully agree with Barry.
The climate changes and it always has (man or no man).
The sea level is changing too, but in such a tiny amount it doesn't deserve the drama it gets. Banks are still loaning money for seaside properties, so you know there is nothing to this.
The idea of electric cars is fine if you can keep them charged. It would be great if they didn't need fossil fuel plants to recharge them, too! HA!

A "marooon" is a Nomad auto-correct of spelling m-o-r-o-n (try it without the dashes. The same auto-correct happens when I type the Baja California book (from 1953) written by Ralph Hanc-ck (H-a-n-c-o-c-k) and other words Doug has deemed to be uncool on Nomad.

SFandH - 7-22-2019 at 11:58 AM

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo

How about jellyfish, are they more, or less prevalent during the the summer or winter months?

Important question. You don't want to suck one down your snorkel.

Aren't cooler waters clearer?

Barry A. - 7-22-2019 at 12:04 PM

What is REALLY uncool is people going back in this thread and "editing" things, rendering any rational understanding of what has been said in context almost unworkable.

Thanks to (almost) all for expressing your opinions, and definitions. Maybe someday this will all make more sense, and we will know what to do. In the meantime, Life is Good!!!

I can one-up many of you, however, as it IS all about me, you know----------I have known Archy-guy Eric Ritter for at least 40 years, worked with him in the CA Desert in the '70's and '80's, worked about 50 feet from him for about 5 years, and talked to him about Baja often in the past. I mostly have lost contact with him lately due to our mutual retirements from BLM. He is one dedicated man when it comes to Baja Archaeology!!!

David K - 7-22-2019 at 12:26 PM

Eric is really cool... I have emailed with him and talked to him on the phone. We chatted a lot about the Gonzaga Bay warehouse ruins (he published an excellent paper on it). We also discussed the mystery walls at Bahía las Animas. Eric spent much time at Las Animas digs.
Lots on Eric on the Internet: https://www.academia.edu/35558571/Eric_Ritters_Role_in_the_D...

[Edited on 7-22-2019 by David K]

paranewbi - 7-22-2019 at 01:30 PM

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo

How about jellyfish, are they more, or less prevalent during the the summer or winter months?

Important question. You don't want to suck one down your snorkel.

Aren't cooler waters clearer?

Or have one wash down your wetsuit when you fall off your board on a wave!

Jack Swords - 7-22-2019 at 01:43 PM

There is excellent snorkeling from the shore just N/E of La Paz. Once at TTecolote take the dirt road over a hill (right) and there is a nice beach and a rocky shoreline. Between that area and Punta Coyote it is quite nice. Another good place is off of Puerto Mexia. Some snorkel off of los Muertos.

caj13 - 7-22-2019 at 02:48 PM

What I meant to convey is global warming (and global cooling) is happening, and it always has, usually for very complex reasons, much of it beyond our complete understanding.

incorrect_ climate has always varied, but the time frames of those significant changes were 100,s of thousands and millions of years. thats not the case here, the climate is rapidly warming at a rate never seen before, and we have good climate records dating back 600,000 years with ice cores, as well as other ways to go back even further. look it up - climate change research is a thing - we do it with all sorts orf clever and cool tools and techniques. and then we use spectacularly powerful computers nd sophisticated analysis to make sense of the data.

I'll put that data and those techniques up against your " I don't think its happening" statement anyday!

And if you want an economic argument - great, can you actually look up those data? see how much it is estimated to fight climate change now, rather than 50 or 100 years from now?

and don't forget to calculate in those economy killing things like innovation , new manufacturing, new technologies, new jobs created by alternative energy sources - you can look those numbers up as well - try that new googly thingy, sometimes it can actually illuminate your mind!

4x4abc - 7-22-2019 at 03:12 PM

if you talk to someone who uses thoughts and prayers the googly thing will make no difference. As well as all our educated words.

gnukid - 7-22-2019 at 06:07 PM

Here is an excellent debate on the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY&frags=wn

Bubba - 7-22-2019 at 08:57 PM

What I meant to convey is global warming (and global cooling) is happening, and it always has, usually for very complex reasons, much of it beyond our complete understanding.

Knock it off, you're making to much sense!

gnukid - 7-23-2019 at 11:45 AM

Even the most aggressive proponents of CAGW over at climate.gov claim an "average" of less than 1 degree Celsius over the last 100 years, which makes your statement " the climate is rapidly warming at a rate never seen before" clearly an exaggeration.

Furthermore, your blathering on about sophisticated computer models clearly belies your arrogance to a fault, it is those computer models that have been demonstrated to be wrong by quite a long shot.

The truth is that not only are temperature readings being pumped up by urban heat in recent years, the models themselves are using hand picked data including errors to pump up the numbers to a degree which is demonstrably wrong.

Even if the "catastrophic" claim of 1 degree rise in a century is not demonstrable as a problem and it could be entirely all part of gods plan, normal earth behavior., earth is its own computer model that does what it needs to do. You will never know because you won't live long enough to complain about it, and once again if you don't like it, move north.

As a gentle reminder, the earth has often been warmer and also colder when it was warmer there was an increase in diversity of life. People fly south to "warmer" weather because they like it, and there is no evidence that either man or CO2 has anything to do with it.

Clearly we have a climate change promoter who seeks to further fear for control here who is getting desperate, I wonder who is paying him/her?

[Edited on 7-23-2019 by gnukid]

JoeJustJoe - 7-23-2019 at 11:49 AM

Here is an excellent debate on the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY&frags=wn

That video Gunkid, put up was too boring to finish, but as typical when a global warming denier, puts up links, it's easy to follow the money to see a corrupt scientist trying to confuse the issue on global warning and also denying that cigarettes causes cancer back a few decades ago, but now has switched to claim global warming is not caused by mankind, and other BS.

One of the debaters Richard Lindzen, is a well known global warming denier, who is on the payroll of Fossil Fuel Interests, including Exxon, Heartland Institute, Cato, and a few other right-wing global warming denier firms, where they either pay Lindzen, something like $10,000 dollars to speak in front of groups and deny global warming, or even more money to write papers denying or confusing the issue of global warming.

Here are a few links and one quote that exposes this corrupt hired gun:

Only a fool or somebody being paid big bucks would deny cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer:

On Tobacco In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."[13] James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.
_________
Other links about this fraud:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen

https://skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_link.htm

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-d...

caj13 - 7-23-2019 at 01:05 PM