| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6
7
8 |
AKgringo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5807
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retireded
|
|
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?
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by SFandH  | 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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6925
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5807
Registered: 9-20-2014
Location: Anchorage, AK (no mas!)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retireded
|
|
How about jellyfish, are they more, or less prevalent during the the summer or winter months?
If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!
"Could do better if he tried!" Report card comments from most of my grade school teachers. Sadly, still true!
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64479
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Barry A. | | Quote: Originally posted by SFandH | 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? |
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6925
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
Important question. You don't want to suck one down your snorkel.
Aren't cooler waters clearer?
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
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
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64479
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
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 BahÃa 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
Senior Nomad
Posts: 913
Registered: 4-15-2011
Location: San diego
Member Is Offline
|
|
Or have one wash down your wetsuit when you fall off your board on a wave!
|
|
|
Jack Swords
Super Nomad
Posts: 1094
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: Nipomo, CA/La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Barry A. | | Quote: Originally posted by SFandH | 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] |
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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4163
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
if you talk to someone who uses thoughts and prayers the googly thing will make no difference. As well as all our educated words.
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Here is an excellent debate on the topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY&frags=wn
|
|
|
Bubba
Senior Nomad
Posts: 957
Registered: 2-17-2009
Location: Pismo Beach, Ca.
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by caj13 | | Quote: Originally posted by Barry A. | | Quote: Originally posted by SFandH | 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] |
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!
|
Knock it off, you're making to much sense!
Making America Great Again
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
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
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by gnukid | 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] |
1. please provide a source for your claims that
...sophisticated computer models... , it is those computer models that have been demonstrated to be wrong by quite a long shot.
2. 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.
You David and many others have repeatedly made these claims. i have asked repeatedly for a source of that information/claim, and so far, no one has
been polite enough to provide that source. I assume you can! so please do!
3. global temperatures have cycled warmer and colder - you are right on that . Its very interesting that those temperature cycles follow closely
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. the CO2 in the atmosphere, over the last million years has cycled pretty regularly between 180 parts per
million (PPM), and 300 PPM.
and guess what, ice ages track with the low CO2 levels, warm periods track to the higher levels.
how about that - a million years of data - and ALL of it points to CO2 levels as the primary driving force of temperatures here on earth.
and thats where the problem is: You see, in the last 100 years - CO2 in the atmosphere has rapidly climbed to past 400 PPM, thats 25% more than we
have seen in the last million years.
and guess what the temperature is doing? yup you guessed it, raising - following the CO2 level - EXACTLY like it has done for the past million
years. (make the connection here Gnuey - its not that hard, i provided all the dots, numbered and color coded then as well, you just need to pick
up your crayon and connect em!)
heres a great set of easily understood data illustrating that - https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
But then again, it's from those NASA clowns who faked the moon landing, so you know this is just their next big hoax right!
why not pray to your god with an open heart - ask him why he is choosing to destroy his creation? He should be able to answer you, after all he has
destroyed it 5 times previously - right?
while you are at it , ask him why he let the english version of your good book to be mistranslated as "Man has DOMINION over the earth" because
clearly as you read your original hebrew edition, the correct translation is "man has STEWARDSHIP over the earth" right?
That God - he must be a real prankster, gives you the responsibility of stewardship - then goes behind your back and destroys it! wow!
and of course this million year thing is all bunk too - right! The good book clearly shows the earth is 6000 years old.
and one more thing GNUKID, I am by no means seeking to control you, unless by control - you mean educate! I'll leave the control to your beloved
FAUX NEWS, clearly they are doing a marvelous job in that arena!
[Edited on 7-23-2019 by caj13]
[Edited on 7-23-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
gnukid
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4410
Registered: 7-2-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Notice that JJJ/caj13 use the same method, they never provide any substantive evidence or make critical points, instead they rely on logical fallacy,
personal attacks, either of the poster or the source, and if all else fails they muddy the waters, to become acerbic to a degree which is designed so
that a normal person would be turned off and not want to engage. Logical fallacy = invalid point / no logical point.
Ask yourself WHY would this character be so invested in coming to Baja Nomad to promote the catastrophic climate change agenda and why are they so
invested in making personal attacks and "muddy the waters" to discourage community engagement when common sense critical thinking is presented?
Let's clear up a few things:
Solar and Wind are not sources of energy that are reliable or cost efficient, they require a complete energy source backup with traditional energy
sources since they don't work 24/7/365 and they require a delivery and storage network. I use both solar and wind and I love it, but in truth it is
not zero emissions, it is an expensive form of power, it does require petroleum to produce the equipment and the batteries to store are expensive and
also highly toxic.
Solar and Wind provide a small percentage of global power.
Nuclear and Hydro power make up about 15% of global sources.
Oil, natural gas and coal provide about 85% of global energy sources.
USA and Europe are doing a great job reducing energy use by being more efficient and using cleaner methods to produce energy to reduce CO2 output
yr/yr.
China is improving coal burning plants to be cleaner and working to reduce pollution but is increasing energy use.
Developing countries including Asia, India and Africa are the gross polluters who most contribute to green house gas pollution and are increasing
their output.
The human contribution to green house gasses is quite minimal and reduction of use of energy would not have a significant impact on total green house
gasses. CO2 is .04% of green house gasses.
It is not possible to stop using oil and coal entirely and replace it with renewable energy sources as a solution to our energy needs. It is possible
to use cleaner energy production methods and reduce our output while supplementing with cost effective (cheaper) alternative sources based on consumer
choice.
The greatest polluters are developing countries (as opposed to developed countries who have traditional energy networks in place) and the developing
countries pollution could be improved through use of clean, traditional, reliable energy sources.
The best solution is to help developing countries become developed and implement efficient energy networks using traditional energy sources, clean
water sources with improved distribution, as well as ensure economic growth through support for entrepreneurial, capitalistic based economics, reduce
crime and corruption and reduce the cost and size of government.
Green energy is a complicated term that is slippery, constantly changing, depending on who you talk to, so your idea is not necessarily their idea.
Solar and wind require petroleum to produce the parts, maintain and the energy is produced intermittently and must be stored and transported so it
ends up being quite costly and inefficient compared to oil, coal and gas though sun and wind have their place, for example, on a sail boat, living or
camping remotely.
We learned that carbon was organic and that CO2 was the center of the ecosystem. Then "they" told us CO2 was a poison that was the cause of
catastrophic climate change in our world that we needed to tax?
The earth is dynamic and it constantly produces output in the form of precious and non precious minerals, oil, natural gas. The output is not finite.
There is no peak oil point where we run out of oil, in fact every year we produce (or convert) more oil, gas and coal and discover more and more oil,
old wells start to produce again. Oil is not a "fossil fuel" that requires now extinct dinosaurs to produce (that was also a lie to mislead) it is now
known that oil is biotic and abiotic, it is constantly being produced as a byproduct of the earth functions.
Clearly there are complex earth models that drive climate and we don't understand those models. New theories and information are being explored daily,
but what we've been told and what were' being told is demonstrably wrong and there is a clear motivation to mislead the populous in order to control
markets and people through control of human activity, energy and taxes. Now we know that simplification of climate earth models are just that simple
and inaccurate.
What we can do is to reduce our individual contribution to pollution in the form of what we buy and use and how we manage our garbage, compost and
recycling. Basic logic helps, do I really need this, is it a requirement, can I produce it on my own, is the product helpful to me, my environment and
community?
In Baja, every region has programs to educate children and adults about reducing waste and pollution and programs to actively clean up garbage,
improve waste management, recycling and compost. It's a great time to be involved and participate and provide support to these programs.
On the other hand, there are those who want to create confusion, fear, discourage community, discourage dialogue and muddy the waters with acerbic
behavior, in a manner that belies their motivation which is to promote false concepts that lead to more social and economic control, higher costs and
taxes. Be wary of JJJ/caj13 they are not here for the tacos.
[Edited on 7-24-2019 by gnukid]
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
gnu kid says:
Notice that JJJ/caj13 use the same method, they never provide any substantive evidence or make critical points, instead they rely on logical fallacy,
personal attacks, either of the poster or the source, and if all else fails they muddy the waters, to become acerbic to a degree which is designed so
that a normal person would be turned off and not want to engage. Logical fallacy = invalid point / no logical point.
apparently gnu kid admits he uses these tactics - see the "same method ". so it's ok for him to use? but not OK for others? and to be clear, go
up and look at who is providing links to their posted info, and also notice who is asking for sources of others info. just trying to project your
techniques onto me doesn't work gnuey! the posts speak the history!
(and BTW gnuey - it looks like sarcasm detection is not a strong point in your quiver eh? and Irony doesn't seem to be detectable by you either. )
one more time, simply stating something is true doesnt make it true, no matter how hard you try. provide links, info - you know - real data!
as for numerous other claims you make
1. Solar and Wind are not sources of energy that are reliable,
source? definition of reliable - you do know that 30 % of California energy comes from renewable - right, and in case you didn't know how -
here's how you source that info! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California
as for storage - how do you store electricity from coal fired plants? seems like Musk figured out one solution.
https://www.inverse.com/article/51515-tesla-s-battery-has-al...
2. you say: The human contribution to green house gasses is quite minimal and reduction to use of energy would not have a significant impact on total
green house gasses.
please define minimal and provide sources for that statement!
3. Solar and wind require petroleum to produce the parts, maintain and the energy is produced intermittently and must be stored and transported so it
ends up being quite costly and inefficient compared to oil, coal and gas
source? please!
3.The earth is dynamic and it constantly produces output in the form of precious and non precious minerals, oil, natural gas. The output is not
finite.
You want to source that? and it would really be swell if you could provide time frames of how long it is taking the earth to produce these minerals
and oil? I'm particularly interested in Rare Earth Minerals, can you tell me how long it takes the earth to produce them? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element
4.
but what we've been told and what were' being told is demonstrably wrong and their is a clear motivation to mislead the populous in order to control
markets and people through control of energy and taxes.
again?
seriously? every post you spout the same keyboard vomitus - citations please. for the 5th time!
I'm hoping you actually take the time to try and educate me to all of these marvelous claims you are making.
[Edited on 7-23-2019 by caj13]
[Edited on 7-23-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
Finchaser2020
Junior Nomad
Posts: 40
Registered: 12-10-2012
Member Is Offline
|
|
And to think that I was just interested in reading about some cool baja snorkeling........
This site has gone way off the deep end, rising water levels or not!
sigh.......
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6
7
8 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
