BajaNomad

Climate Change

 Pages:  1  2  

k-rico - 8-24-2009 at 10:49 AM

Very Interesting........

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel

mtgoat666 - 8-24-2009 at 10:50 AM

krico,
all data is supect unlesss approved by our local expert climatologist, davidk. You know him, he and Taco de Baja run the Shell Island Research Center (RISC) for UNAM and UABC.

Taco de Baja - 8-24-2009 at 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
krico,
all data is supect unlesss approved by our local expert climatologist, davidk. You know him, he and Taco de Baja run the Shell Island Research Center (RISC) for UNAM and UABC.


Lets not forget "scientists" like yourself and Crusoe tossing out facts like: "....the majority of greenhouse gasses come out of tailpipes....."

The majority of greenhouse gasses are NATURAL (even AGW scientists and the IPCC accept this). Of the gasses that come from people, as the graph k-rico provided shows, only 14% come from tailpipes....Maybe that's a majority in your LA LA land, but not in the real world.

As for shell island, I've never been there, not on their payroll, and am not involved with any research that occurs there....;D

Cypress - 8-24-2009 at 11:33 AM

Something about this whole Global Warming thing just doesn't pass the smell test.:barf:

k-rico - 8-24-2009 at 12:02 PM

Taco said:

"The majority of greenhouse gasses are NATURAL (even AGW scientists and the IPCC accept this)."

I don't see the significance of that statement.

The phrase "tipping point" comes to mind.

Or perhaps, "the straw that broke the camel's back" is more to the point.

mtgoat666 - 8-24-2009 at 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
Taco said:

"The majority of greenhouse gasses are NATURAL (even AGW scientists and the IPCC accept this)."

I don't see the significance of that statement.

The phrase "tipping point" comes to mind.

Or perhaps, "the straw that broke the camel's back" is more to the point.


using Taco's logic, the majority of death is natural, so a little extra death at hand of drunk driver is OK in the big picture, all is still in state of semi-balance. or another Taco-argument could be: humans are subjected to lots of natural radiation, so no harm in environmental exposure to anthropogenic nuke waste from a little leak now and then, it's just a little more.

.

gnukid - 8-24-2009 at 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
Taco said:

"The majority of greenhouse gasses are NATURAL (even AGW scientists and the IPCC accept this)."

I don't see the significance of that statement.

The phrase "tipping point" comes to mind.

Or perhaps, "the straw that broke the camel's back" is more to the point.


The point was made in response to Crusoe's comments that people driving cars generated the most damaging CO2 while it has been documented that Cows are the leading source of CO2 pollution and that a volcano would well exceed the human generated influence.

Humans, like cows exist and breathe and eat. Attempting to tax human behavior or suggest that it's inherently evil is a malthusian concept, that human populations are growing more significantly that the earth's ability to feed and manage the population which is purely conjecture.

The earth is actually quite bare of people; if climate change is following a warming cycle on the earth now than the northern regions would increasingly open up as fertile land for farming production as temperatures rise.

To suggest that populations are inherently bad, or that one person has more justification than another to exist is not justified by any means but is at the heart of this subject.

Unfortunately, the subject of declaring human output as bad, brings to mind the suggestion of justifying euthanasia, genocide, forced abortions and sterilizations-which are all subjects presented in parallel with these malthusian concepts. In fact the Science czar John Holdren co-authored a published book promoting some these very concepts.

The truth is quite simple, people exist on earth. People have the inherent right to exist. Carbon is not bad-it's good, people are not bad and people have equal rights to liberty and freedom to pursue their lives without the added taxation or intrusion of Gore's tax on your existence.

If you want to do something positive to reduce your output do it. Talk about it and spread the word but do not try to justify malthusian concepts to promote the convoluted legislation currently proposed as Climate Change legislation which is simply a method to create Carbon Units as a new currency or a obligatory debt and require an intrusive smart grid that will give Gore and his cronies the right to tax and fine every action you make while also incrementally invade your life in every way shape and form, further justifying evil.

This is truly the hoax of the century and must be opposed.


[Edited on 8-26-2009 by gnukid]

toneart - 8-24-2009 at 12:57 PM

I am NOT qualified to offer a scientific opinion! So like most of us, I am compelled to read and try to inform myself, and maybe run down to the beach with my Pacifico and a tapemeasure. My opinion is not important, but I am pretty sure this is not true:

"I conclude the giving government powers to restrict our normal activities ONLY serves to take power away from the people by the (neo-Marxist) administration, now in control." :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

k-rico - 8-24-2009 at 12:57 PM

Gnukid,

I was just going to post that naysayers have their place but your post makes me think,

"What's the use?"


[Edited on 8-24-2009 by k-rico]

gnukid - 8-24-2009 at 02:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico

"What's the use?"

"that a volcano would well exceed the human generated influence." - not true, not even close.


K-rico, obviously there are arguments in many directions.

These are not my controversial ideas, I simply read the encyclopedia and am quoting from the works of the past and current administration. I am pointing out the published issues, which are controversial.

Not my ideas nor is this discussion a left-right paradigm, as some would suggest pandering to inflamatory speak. It is about talking about issues, discussing loving humankind, respecting your neighbors equality and their right to exist. So let's relax a little, see our common goals and offer some consideration for each other.

I link to the published works and policies of the current administration in order to point out, these are the polices of the US administration and have been for some time.

The connection between climate change proponents, malthusianism, genocide, euthanasia, forced abortions, sterilizations is quite clear and well stated by its proponents. These concepts are the policies of the current administration and published in their work, for example, in his book Ecoscience: John Holdren wrote "There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," to save the planet. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Furthermore, John D. Rockefeller has stated the he supports Holdren, who "walks on water and advocates geoenginerring the climate with chemtrails, which is apparently underway.

Let's remind ourselves the US administration has been and is actively pursuing a policy of genocide in Iraq, Afghansitan, and previously supported these polices in Serbia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan etc... etc... and it is well documented that the US funded the N-zification and Genocidal polices in Germany and when the war was over, they brought many if not most of the Genocidal scientist to the USA to head up their Bioweapons at Fort Detrick.

The level of poisoning of the earth through the emissions of depleted uranium for the purpose of war is massive and yet there is exists no justification for the incessant bombing and military genocidal operations in the MiddleEast. Yet, few would even mention that in this discussion about human affects on pollution?

Why, how could we be discussing the relevance of human generated CO2 versus the US military industrial complex vast poisoning of the earth with depleted uranium? Where is the logic? Can you honestly discuss the significance of human CO2 in comparison to the vast waste of the Military today or ever?

Now, I understand it is quite unpleasant to consider these issues seriously and it's practically unheard of to discuss the role of the global bankers such in the Global Warming meme, the role the US played in WWII or in worldwide genocidal policies, however, if we must discuss these individual points we must look at their inter-relationship and see the documentation as it exists in volumes today drawing upon the points, and the inter-relationship between profitability for drug companies, medical care, war, carbon units, cap and trade, GMO, and the polices which result in vast suffering for the sole purpose of profit. Yes it is purely evil. Love can overcome these policies when we see each other as equals with inalienable rights to exist.

Please do reply with links to resources and let's focus on optimism toward local policies and approaches that improve the well being of everybody equally. Let's end the war atrocities, genocidal global polices and lets end torture, military contractors, mercinaries, depleted uranium bombs, GMO, etc... which are simply policies of death for profit.

mtgoat666 - 8-24-2009 at 02:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gnukid
Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico

"What's the use?"

"that a volcano would well exceed the human generated influence." - not true, not even close.


K-rico, obviously there are arguments in many directions.

These are not my controversial ideas, I simply read the encyclopedia and am quoting from the works of the past and current administration. I am pointing out the published issues, which are controversial.

Not my ideas nor is this discussion a left-right paradigm, as some would suggest pandering to inflamatory speak. It is about talking about issues, discussing loving humankind, respecting your neighbors equality and their right to exist. So let's relax a little, see our common goals and offer some consideration for each other.

I link to the published works and policies of the current administration in order to point out, these are the polices of the US administration and have been for some time.

The connection between climate change proponents, malthusianism, genocide, euthanasia, forced abortions, sterilizations is quite clear and well stated by its proponents. These concepts are the policies of the current administration and published in their work, for example, in his book Ecoscience: John Holdren wrote "There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," to save the planet. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Furthermore, John D. Rockefeller has stated the he supports Holdren, who "walks on water and advocates geoenginerring the climate with chemtrails, which is apparently underway.

Let's remind ourselves the US administration has been and is actively pursuing a policy of genocide in Iraq, Afghansitan, and previously supported these polices in Serbia, Vietnam, Korea, Japan etc... etc... and it is well documented that the US funded the N-zification and Genocidal polices in Germany and when the war was over, they brought many if not most of the Genocidal scientist to the USA to head up their Bioweapons at Fort Detrick.

The level of poisoning of the earth through the emissions of depleted uranium for the purpose of war is massive and yet there is exists no justification for the incessant bombing and military genocidal operations in the MiddleEast. Yet, few would even mention that in this discussion about human affects on pollution?

Why, how could we be discussing the relevance of human generated CO2 versus the US military industrial complex vast poisoning of the earth with depleted uranium? Where is the logic? Can you honestly discuss the significance of human CO2 in comparison to the vast waste of the Military today or ever?

Now, I understand it is quite unpleasant to consider these issues seriously and it's practically unheard of to discuss the role of the global bankers such in the Global Warming meme, the role the US played in WWII or in worldwide genocidal policies, however, if we must discuss these individual points we must look at their inter-relationship and see the documentation as it exists in volumes today drawing upon the points, and the inter-relationship between profitability for drug companies, medical care, war, carbon units, cap and trade, GMO, and the polices which result in vast suffering for the sole purpose of profit. Yes it is purely evil. Love can overcome these policies when we see each other as equals with inalienable rights to exist.

Please do reply with links to resources and let's focus on optimism toward local policies and approaches that improve the well being of everybody equally. Let's end the war atrocities, genocidal global polices and lets end torture, military contractors, mercinaries, depleted uranium bombs, GMO, etc... which are simply policies of death for profit.


newkid,
you are totally friggin' nuts, but funny none the less.

oxxo - 8-24-2009 at 02:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gnukid

I link to the published works and policies of the current administration in order to point out, these are the polices of the US administration and have been for some time.

The connection between climate change proponents, malthusianism, , euthanasia, forced abortions, sterilizations is quite clear and well stated by its These concepts are the policies of the current administration


:lol::lol::lol: Sarah Palin is that you? :lol::lol::lol: I bet you can see Washington DC from your front porch in Centenario! :lol::lol::lol:

Cypress - 8-24-2009 at 02:42 PM

Could Albert Gore possibly be wrong?:lol:

gnukid - 8-24-2009 at 02:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666

newkid,
you are totally friggin' nuts, but funny none the less.


What is nuts is refusing to read the published works of the current and past administrations and US history instead referring to ad hominem attacks on your neighbor.

Though I understand why you might believe that its a waste of time connecting the dots which demonstrate that profit is the primary motivation of US and World Geopolitics. Who cares?

I understand so many to refuse to read up on US history, or read about Gore's Climate Change proposals and their inception, their purpose and intent, its far easier to attack a peaceful gentile person than to consider the interconnectedness and absurdity of global banking profits and Climate Change legislation and its empirical implications.

It's true that one might go nuts if one were to read and consider the works of Holdren or read the Cap and Trade legislation or the heath care legislation or consider the War policies-which are insane.

It is overwhelming however to refuse to do so and attack your neighbor who is of no threat to you while these polices clearly are, is nuts. The administration is clearly betting that more people will refuse to read and will prefer to fake fight with a false paradigm whether it be left vs right, christian vs muslim, socialism vs capitalism etc... these are finely tuned adult parent child emotional pressure trigger points which distract the majority from considering the truth or reading beyond headline news.

I am of no threat to you nor would it cause you harm to educate yourself while remaining critical. However to refuse to become informed beyond main stream media is a threat to your well being.

Please consider making your point with sources.

Here are a few sources about Climate Change legislation:

Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth

Who Pays for Cap and Trade?

Cap and trade is a license to cheat and steal

Cap-n-Trade: WaPo's Mallaby Doesn't get it

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

Obama’s hidden bailout of General Electric ( Cap and trade taxes )

House Democrats Introduce Cap-and-Trade, ‘Clean Energy’ Bill

Buzzwords: Rephrasing Obama's lexicon

Cooking up carbon credits

BARTON: Sending us back to 1875: Reducing our carbon footprint

Jeffery Sachs says forget Carbon Caps

tripledigitken - 8-24-2009 at 03:06 PM

Is Al Gore a member of the Illuminati? Are the Illuminati getting rich off the Carbon Credits just like Big Al?

Ken

wessongroup - 8-24-2009 at 03:14 PM

Say does anyone have any thoughts on climate change?? Great discussion on an important topic, thanks, great source of information and entertainment at the same time.. who needs Netflix's
:D

Crusoe - 8-24-2009 at 03:27 PM

The circle graph is not accurate and very misleading depending on just how a person interpretets it!! .....By Sector..... The Fossil Fuel Retreival Processing and Distribution at 11.3% and The Residential Commercial and other Sources 10.3% should be lumped into and with Transportation Fuels at 14% giving the total for that of 35.6% which is way more accurate, and more in keeping with alot of the estimates I have heard that are bieng thrown around now. There are alot of experts out there!!! ++C++

gnukid - 8-24-2009 at 03:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by tripledigitken
Is Al Gore a member of the Illuminati? Are the Illuminati getting rich off the Carbon Credits just like Big Al?

Ken


This is clearly a point of distraction. However the answer is yes if you meant global bankers, because, the legislation offers the opportunity to earn Carbon Credits simply by owning large parcels of undeveloped land, to "offset deforestation" p. 348 line 11 of the previously proposed legislation, to reduce corporate factory output, such as buying an energy plant and reducing energy creation, while individuals would be constantly racking up carbon units as debt for their every action with no ability to trade out these credits.

The Clean Energy Cap and Trade legislation unfairly puts the burden on poor people who would suffer greatly from incremental energy cost increases while providing loopholes for the most wealthy, which allow for no energy to saved and instead greenhouse gasses to increase while also putting the gathered funds in the hands of these same wealthy to invest in new businesses such as manufacturing and managing the smart grid invasive monitoring system. Fines and debts on individuals would be accruing daily, per incident, and the doubling fines are not open to appeal-resulting in increasing fines. Even off the grid homes would be subject to inspection and base line energy use above average use which would generate taxes and fines etc...

What matters is each person and individual efforts, not focusing on who is to blame-these profiteers are largely pawns who are compromised with no way out-the future is up to the masses not the compromised elites like Gore, Clinton, Blair, Obama, Bush, etc... If enough people educate themselves and become involved in local community organization, the vast efforts of global banking cabal become less and less relevant. Simply by educating yourself the global banking cabal becomes less of a threat to your well being, by giving you the common sense to respect your neighbor and work together for local common sense improvements.

The American Clean Energy Act provides no requirement for actual reduction in greenhouse gasses while the cost of energy to each individual will rise proving profits to the most wealthy, providing a massive transfer of wealth to a small group of investors upon a new convoluted financial market called Carbon Credits Trading.

All of the well known market manipulation tricks of the S&L debacle are well outlined for example, from the proposed legislation about Carbon Markets:

"‘‘(3) REGULATED ALLOWANCE DERIVATIVE.—The term ‘regulated allowance derivative’ means an instrument that is or includes an instrument-‘‘(A) which—‘‘(i) is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, a ‘put option’, ‘call option’, ‘privilege’, ‘indemnity’, ‘advance guaranty’, ‘decline guaranty’, or ‘swap agreement’; or ‘‘(ii) is a contract of sale for future delivery; and ‘‘(B) the value of which, in whole or in part, is expressly linked to the price of a regulated allowance or another regulated allowance derivative."

Green revenues are touted as a line item in Obama's federal budget claiming $646 billion savings over eight years. The question looms, "How can Obama generate “climate revenues”? By forcing companies to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide."


[Edited on 8-24-2009 by gnukid]

Taco de Baja - 8-24-2009 at 04:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Crusoe
The circle graph is not accurate and very misleading depending on just how a person interpretets it!!


Agreed!

Like the fact the graph ignores natural input of CO2, Methane, and Nitrous Oxides?

Like the fact it ignores water vapor? And shows CO2 as comprising 72% of the total….Neat trick when CO2 is actually on the order of 0.038% of the atmosphere, or maybe 3.6% of all greenhouse gasses…Depending on where (over the land or over the sea) and what altitude you take your readings.

Sure CO2 is 72% of the greenhouse gas total when you take away water vapor, but that is not clear at all. Also, water vapor can’t be regulated by governments, and based on an earlier post I made today may be largely controlled by bacteria and fungi living in their ecosystem in the clouds. That simply doesn't fit the AGW model.

[Edited on 8-24-2009 by Taco de Baja]

tigerdog - 8-24-2009 at 04:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Taco de Baja

Yeah, that explains why in AUGUST we are only up to Hurricane Bill for the Atlantic season. B as in the second one! No Hurricanes for June...none in July...none in early August....That has only happened a handful of times since record keeping began. We should be up to Hurricane Nicholas or Odette, based on that theory.

How about Seattle having such a COLD December last year the SNOW shut down the City Seattle most snow in a decade and the Mayor mishandled it so badly he just lost the runoff election Incumbent Loses 3rd Term Bid as Seattle’s Mayor….Maybe that cancelled out all the hot water in the Atlantic and decreased formation of hurricanes? :light: ;D


Taco, you're making the common mistake of confusing Climate with Weather. Though they are related, they are not synonyms. Here, from the NOAA, explained so even a cave man can get it (that's a joke, son, not aimed at you):

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets...

And the fact that it's been a quiet year so far is fairly meaningless. For instance, in 1992 the first storm didn't form until late August, when Hurricane Andrew hit southern Florida as a Category 5.

This is an El Nino year. Do some research on El Nino's effect on hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin. I'll even give you a place to start: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090806_hurricaneu...

k-rico - 8-24-2009 at 04:24 PM

Gnu,

You're definitely a high bandwidth guy. I think it could be true that the carbon credit idea and other economic engineering that is associated with the increase in anthropomorphic greenhouse gases is for the sole purpose of creating another economic bubble to make people rich. If so, I hope I can figure out what to buy and when to sell.

But I also think that climate change due to man-made global warming could be a correct theory. I mean if you were running Goldman-Sachs and putting together another economic bubble in cahoots with world governments, is there a better way of doing it than using a new global event that is in fact true?

I don't buy that there is some worldwide conspiracy with evil intent though. You too easy cross over from science to religion.

Let's stick to the science.

k-rico - 8-24-2009 at 04:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Taco de Baja
Quote:
Originally posted by Crusoe
The circle graph is not accurate and very misleading depending on just how a person interpretets it!!


Agreed!

Like the fact the graph ignores natural input of CO2, Methane, and Nitrous Oxides?

Like the fact it ignores water vapor? And shows CO2 as comprising 72% of the total….Neat trick when CO2 is actually on the order of 0.038% of the atmosphere, or maybe 3.6% of all greenhouse gasses…Depending on where (over the land or over the sea) and what altitude you take your readings.

Sure CO2 is 72% of the greenhouse gas total when you take away water vapor, but that is not clear at all. Also, water vapor can’t be regulated by governments, and based on an earlier post I made today may be largely controlled by bacteria and fungi living in their ecosystem in the clouds. That simply doesn't fit the AGW model.

[Edited on 8-24-2009 by Taco de Baja]


Taco, please don't take offense, but it's clear you don't understand the science.

Start here: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

What is The Royal Society?

http://royalsociety.org/campaign/timeline/index.htm


[Edited on 8-24-2009 by k-rico]

[Edited on 8-24-2009 by k-rico]

Bajahowodd - 8-24-2009 at 04:48 PM

Unfortunately it appears it's too late. Anything that happens in Washington is ONLY going to be about who can make money from it. If y'all want to take up your waepons, and/or go on strike of commit civil disobedience, it might make a dif. Otherwise, poor souls, it is already lost. Big bucks controls what we do and where we go. Ike may go down in history as the most important figure.

k-rico - 8-24-2009 at 04:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
Unfortunately it appears it's too late. Anything that happens in Washington is ONLY going to be about who can make money from it. If y'all want to take up your waepons, and/or go on strike of commit civil disobedience, it might make a dif. Otherwise, poor souls, it is already lost. Big bucks controls what we do and where we go. Ike may go down in history as the most important figure.


duh!! ;D

So how do we cash in??

Cypress - 8-24-2009 at 05:00 PM

Carbon credits? How do I get some? Will Wal Mart accept 'em?

Taco de Baja - 8-24-2009 at 05:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
Taco, please don't take offense, but it's clear you don't understand the science.

Start here: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229



I beg to differ; in fact with a B.S. degree in geology from a UC school, and employment with a scientific company, I do science almost every day. I get the science. People looking a couple decades in the past and trying to forecast centuries into the future and come up with scare stories are the ones who don't get it.

I am also smart enough to know that anyone can find a site to "prove" their point. As evidenced by the misleading graph you linked to earlier clearly shows.

I suggest you look a little deeper into the science yourself. I'll start you off with 3 sites:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us

Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climate Change Great site depicting how NATURAL climate change (warming and cooling) affected early civilizations, all without the mankind being fingered as the prime suspect.

http://www.co2science.org/about/web_features.php

The debate is not over, and the planet does not have a fever. Better get on the band wagon now the tipping point is being reached as more and more scientists flee from the AGW theory.

Crusoe - 8-24-2009 at 05:43 PM

Ok Taco....Got your drift. Now can you tell us scientificaly what you know about Ocean Acidification?? Just what is causing it?? Do we have any thing to worry about?? Thanx ++C++

David K - 8-24-2009 at 05:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Crusoe
Ok Taco....Got your drift. Now can you tell us scientificaly what you know about Ocean Acidification?? Just what is causing it?? Do we have any thing to worry about?? Thanx ++C++


'Worry' won't help anything but to give you ulcers... So why do you worry?

Live a good life, help others when you have an opportunitey, and haul out your trash from your camp...

Ahhhhhhh maybe it is over

wessongroup - 8-24-2009 at 05:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Taco de Baja
Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
Taco, please don't take offense, but it's clear you don't understand the science.

Start here: http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229



I beg to differ; in fact with a B.S. degree in geology from a UC school, and employment with a scientific company, I do science almost every day. I get the science. People looking a couple decades in the past and trying to forecast centuries into the future and come up with scare stories are the ones who don't get it.

I am also smart enough to know that anyone can find a site to "prove" their point. As evidenced by the misleading graph you linked to earlier clearly shows.

I suggest you look a little deeper into the science yourself. I'll start you off with 3 sites:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us

Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climate Change Great site depicting how NATURAL climate change (warming and cooling) affected early civilizations, all without the mankind being fingered as the prime suspect.

http://www.co2science.org/about/web_features.php

The debate is not over, and the planet does not have a fever. Better get on the band wagon now the tipping point is being reached as more and more scientists flee from the AGW theory.


There may be a few in the Scientic Community that still have unanswered questions... I would refer them to the following link.

I was reading about "Underestimating malaria risk under variable temperatures", and noticed in was "filed" under climate change.

http://www.pnas.org/ then do a search on climate change.. there are 59,144 Research Articles which deal with the issue

[Edited on 8-25-2009 by wessongroup]

k-rico - 8-24-2009 at 06:41 PM

Guys, read the title of the graph and look at the three greenhouse gases that it considers. Sorry your were mislead.

Plus, all greenhouse gases are not created equal. Sure there is more water vapor. Pound for pound tho, CO2 is MUCH more worrisome.

As far as the first site you mentioned, it says this in the first paragraph:

man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon.

I don't think the fact that the sun and the oceans are an important consideration is exactly a news flash.

"I am also smart enough to know that anyone can find a site to "prove" their point."

You certainly proved that.

I'll stick with what the Royal Society says, if they change their viewpoint, I'll change mine.

So where do we differ?

Taco de Baja - 8-25-2009 at 07:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico


I'll stick with what the Royal Society says, if they change their viewpoint, I'll change mine.

So where do we differ?


We differ on the blame game. Sure man changes his environment to make it more "livable" by building cities and farms. I accept that, and it's a good thing. Sure we can go sometimes go overboard by polluting and that's a bad thing. But to outright lie and scare people into the environmental movement by wrongly claiming mankind radically affects the climate by his actions, that's wrong. The major polluters aren’t going to give a damn anyway.

Sure we should try to be prepared for climate change, but as history has shown ( Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change ) all cultures will not be successful in moving into the future; that’s just the hard reality of the cycle of life.

We also differ on putting all your eggs in one basket and only changing your viewpoint based on one group's (or person's) analysis...I'll continue look to many sources.

From your royal society:
Quote:

Professor Wunsch is Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography,Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

....it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

link


There is a probability that vaccinations cause autism, there is no clear cut proof, and may never be. Therefore to protect people from autism we should stop all vaccinations....Right?

[Edited on 8-25-2009 by Taco de Baja]

David K - 8-25-2009 at 07:46 AM

Nice to have some common sense and logic applied to the mix, thanks TdB!

Emotional hysteria (theories) vs. logical evaluation (observations)...

If the sea levels were rising, then all the beach homes that were built in the past 50 years would be in the water... The Bahama Islands, Maldives, Florida, etc. would be gone or in serious search of relocation... etc. etc.

I just read that the polar bears that Al Gore used to scare kids in his movie have had a great increase in population because of the extended ice cap permitted longer hunting season this past year... because of the COLDER conditions! :coolup::yes:

:lol::lol::wow:

k-rico - 8-25-2009 at 08:16 AM

David K.,

Let's do a thought experiment.

Picture an inverted frisbee filled with water to 1/4 inch below the rim.

Your favorite baja beach is located on the rim above the water.

Directly across the diameter, which you can't see because this is a very large frisbee, is a "V" cut into the rim.

The bottom of the "V" is 1/4 inch below the rim, at the water line.

Water is pouring into the frisbee from whatever source, say a melting glacier.

Do you see the water level rising? No.

Why, because the water is pouring out the "V" on the other side.

The "V" represents the river deltas and other land areas that are barely above sea level.

Could be, ya know.

k-rico - 8-25-2009 at 08:35 AM

"There is a probability that vaccinations cause autism, there is no clear cut proof, and may never be. Therefore to protect people from autism we should stop all vaccinations....Right?"

Come on Taco, you can do better than that. Probabilites have a range from low to high. As you know there are only two things that are for sure.

k-rico - 8-25-2009 at 08:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Taco de Baja

We also differ on putting all your eggs in one basket and only changing your viewpoint based on one group's (or person's) analysis...I'll continue look to many sources.



OK I'll put another egg in my basket.

Form the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Read the first sentence:

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_20070...

Some don't think so

wessongroup - 8-25-2009 at 08:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Taco de Baja
Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico


I'll stick with what the Royal Society says, if they change their viewpoint, I'll change mine.

So where do we differ?


We differ on the blame game. Sure man changes his environment to make it more "livable" by building cities and farms. I accept that, and it's a good thing. Sure we can go sometimes go overboard by polluting and that's a bad thing. But to outright lie and scare people into the environmental movement by wrongly claiming mankind radically affects the climate by his actions, that's wrong. The major polluters aren’t going to give a damn anyway.

Sure we should try to be prepared for climate change, but as history has shown ( Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change ) all cultures will not be successful in moving into the future; that’s just the hard reality of the cycle of life.

We also differ on putting all your eggs in one basket and only changing your viewpoint based on one group's (or person's) analysis...I'll continue look to many sources.

From your royal society:
Quote:

Professor Wunsch is Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography,Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

....it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

link


There is a probability that vaccinations cause autism, there is no clear cut proof, and may never be. Therefore to protect people from autism we should stop all vaccinations....Right?

[Edited on 8-25-2009 by Taco de Baja]


National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Just something to add to the discussion... Global Scientific position on the issue

Taco de Baja - 8-25-2009 at 09:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
OK I'll put another egg in my basket.

Form the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Read the first sentence:

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_20070...



Here's another egg for you from the NIPCC:
Quote:

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.


link

it's the population

wessongroup - 8-25-2009 at 09:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Taco de Baja
Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
OK I'll put another egg in my basket.

Form the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

Read the first sentence:

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_20070...



Here's another egg for you from the NIPCC:
Quote:

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.


link


To think that 6 billion people have no negative impact on the planet seems to miss the point of "Global Warming". That is what it is all about "people's negative impact on their environment".

This is an old one, we used to protest it back in the 60's Zero Population Growth

Consider what is continuing to be documented daily though systematic scientific analysis of population demands and their impact on existing resources and/or infrastructure of the entire world.

These impacts have been quantitatively estimated, and based on these estimations, within a 100 years at the current rate of population growth, we will need another planet to supply resources to maintain "everything" at the present levels.

Which assumes that no new energy source is found, and all continues as is.... everyone buying an auto which is the stated goal of China and India

I do agree there has been documented climate change historically, it's part of the evolution on the planet, which is part of "life as we know it", however, the previous climate changes can be attributed to events of nature... we could argue that the human species is just part of the "natural events", but then we can or could control our impact on the environment, which is not true of most other large scale events... St. Helens, earthquakes, Tsunami, objects from space, solar flaresm orbital changes etc.

Good to see such strong feelings about the issue, as all are lovers of the Baja and such strong feelings will only make it better..;D;D;D

gnukid - 8-25-2009 at 01:47 PM

Its funny that so many buy into the programming that people are bad or that a limit is needed, while a look at the earth shows that it is vastly unpopulated and that climate change toward warming would presumably open up vast fertile land to the north where the most fertile land exists.

Now, would you also believe that increase in sea life is bad, or that increases in birds are inherently bad?

Its simply programming, the idea that YOU or anyone should determine the amount of people is an absurd notion, people exist on earth. Get over it. You can not justify who should and who shouldn't live. The truth is Mexico city is an example, if you want to create a vast city of high density and live there you can do it. In fact much higher density living is absolutely possible. Or if you want to live in remote baja you can do it.

It is not up to anyone else to decide whether you can live or die, what you can do or where you should live. The implications of this fallacious argument, that populations are bad, is at the center evil.

wessongroup - 8-25-2009 at 02:49 PM

Has nothing to do with "programming" and last time I checked the animals in the Oceans are in steep decline.

And as to ME "programming" is absurd on its face... Maybe you should consider that you are shooting the messenger.

And at no point did I suggest that anyone has the right over life or death... only that the impact to our planet by the ever-increasing population will continue to create problems for the planet.



If you want a 1200 floor condo in Cobo with twin Sears Towers... go fo it, but the quality of living I would venture would not be the same in Cobo.

And you can live anywhere you want, I do.... you can have as many children as you want, that too is your business.

Your conclusion is not what I stated... I only repeated what has been written by many, that we face continuing challenges from increased population growth, particularly environmental and financial.. in that order..

That you do not accept these facts is moot, as it is happening as I write.
:D:D:D:D:):):);D;D:

gnukid - 8-25-2009 at 02:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Has nothing to do with "programming" and last time I checked the animals in the Oceans are in steep decline.


You would have us believe that people should be reduced because you read that somewhere. You believe that people are a problem. Following your logic, we must then decide who gets to live and who should die, or who can procreate and who cannot.

So go ahead, tell us, who should live and who should die, who either according to what you read or based on your own policy. And tell us your perfect population level and describe your method of population control?

Sounds great!

Cypress - 8-25-2009 at 04:20 PM

wessongroup, The steep decline of most Ocean animals is a fact. The decline of most land animals is also a fact. No doubt that the increase in humans for space, food, and resources is the dominant reason. Mother nature usually throws in a correction factor to balance things out.

Bajahowodd - 8-25-2009 at 04:25 PM

This is so much an exercise in mutual masturbation. You guys can proffer all the studies that your heart's desire. But in the end, it's going to come down to who can make a profit doing what.

Crusoe - 8-25-2009 at 04:34 PM

2/3rds of this Planet is Ocean.....A healthy ocean is essential for life on this Planet. What would you do if you knew that many species of fish and other marine life in the ocean will be gone within 30 years, if levels of CO2 continue increasing at their present rate? I would assume you would take action to stop this from happening,because informed people make informed choices. An event known as Ocean Acidification is effecting all our Oceans now! Ocean Acidification is primarily caused by burning of fossil fuels.When carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ends up in the ocean it changes the ph, making the sea water acidic and less hospitable to sea life. Over time CO2 reduces calcium carbonate, which prevents creatures from forming shells and building reefs. In fact existing shells will start to disolve.Oysters and mussels will not be able to build shells. Crabs and lobsters? Your grandchildren may wonder what they tasted like. Carbon dioxide concentrated in the oceans is making sea water acidic. Many of the zooplankton, smalll animals at the base of the food web, have skelotons that won't form in these conditions, and sealife further up the food chain-fish, mammals, and seabirds that rely on zooplankton for food will also perish. No food- No life. One billion people rely on seafood as their prmary source of protien. Many scientific reports document that worldwide,humans are already consuming more food than is being produced. The implications are obvious. The issue of Ocean Acidification is causing irreversible damage and loss to species and habbitats, and acidification trends are happening ten times faster than projected. Its all part of the big picture. ++C++

rts551 - 8-25-2009 at 04:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
This is so much an exercise in mutual masturbation. You guys can proffer all the studies that your heart's desire. But in the end, it's going to come down to who can make a profit doing what.


A fun time. and sorry david kkkkkkkkkkk

very little logic and a lot of emotion as usual


quote Davidk
"Nice to have some common sense and logic applied to the mix, thanks TdB!

Emotional hysteria (theories) vs. logical evaluation (observations)... "

David K - 8-25-2009 at 04:57 PM

I don't understand your comment, rts551... I was responding to Taco de Baja with that statement. The global warming alarmists are the emotional ones... Taco de Baja is posting real science links, not Royal society propaganda.

How long have you been going to Abreojos? Have any homes been consumed by higher sea level? Is La Bocana lagoon exposed to the open sea because the barrier peninsula is underwater now?

Taco de Baja - 8-25-2009 at 05:00 PM

"Ocean Acidification" seems to be another misnomer designed to scare people.

First question I had is what is current pH of the ocean?

I don’t really like Wikipedia, but it has some quick numbers, and I have no idea if they are really correct, but they help to prove a point:

Current pH: 8.104
PH sometime in the past (pre 1700): 8.179
Forecast pH (2050): 7.949
Forecast pH (2100): 7.824

Elementary chemistry states that a pH above 7 is BASIC not ACIDIC. A pH above 7 simply WILL NOT dissolve calcium in sea shells, or coral.

A better phrase is the oceans are becoming less basic...But that is not as scary as saying they are becoming acidic. Is it a bad thing? I don't know. But to imply the oceans are turning into a vat of acid is wrong. In fact even if the above trend continues (and it might not) the oceans will not be "acidic" (pH below 6.999) for over 1,000 years.

rts551 - 8-25-2009 at 05:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I don't understand your comment, rts551... I was responding to Taco de Baja with that statement. The global warming alarmists are the emotional ones... Taco de Baja is posting real science links, not Royal society propaganda.

How long have you been going to Abreojos? Have any homes been consumed by higher sea level? Is La Bocana lagoon exposed to the open sea because the barrier peninsula is underwater now?


I would not expect you to understand. Most people in a fun time won't.

You would not know about the La Bocana Lagoon other than from google earth... so How can I argue against that.

and Don't start about changing beaches. 1959 (pre hurricane). Percebu (Oh I am sorry, shell beach) was very much different then it was today.

that's the point

wessongroup - 8-25-2009 at 05:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
wessongroup, The steep decline of most Ocean animals is a fact. The decline of most land animals is also a fact. No doubt that the increase in humans for space, food, and resources is the dominant reason. Mother nature usually throws in a correction factor to balance things out.


Absolutely, Mother nature left alone will do her job, however the pressures which we continue to place on the basic cycles; air, water and land to keeping things moving in the direction society wants can and does have measurable negative consequences.

For some to think it does not happen, well, it does not surprise me at all, if you have been involved in these issues over the past 30-40 years.

I don't find any position truly amazing anymore, nor do I get too upset with those who still want to "build it out".. Or have knee-jerk reactions to something that treads on what they believe to be their invaluable rights.

If one starts with an open mind, without preconceptions about an individual’s position, rather, what is the subject and what are we talking about.

I still find it amazing that the mention of population would cause an upwelling of this magnitude. Hell I'm not talking about "death panel" just how having to many people in one-place causes a lot of problems.

Population control is taking place at this time in the heart of Africa at this time along with Tsunamis, earthquakes, asteroids and other “natural” impacts.

Strange this is an acceptable kind of population control

Later, done for the day, thanks for the input, all good points.



;D;D:yes:

IF

wessongroup - 8-25-2009 at 05:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gnukid
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
Has nothing to do with "programming" and last time I checked the animals in the Oceans are in steep decline.


You would have us believe that people should be reduced because you read that somewhere. You believe that people are a problem. Following your logic, we must then decide who gets to live and who should die, or who can procreate and who cannot.

So go ahead, tell us, who should live and who should die, who either according to what you read or based on your own policy. And tell us your perfect population level and describe your method of population control?

Sounds great!


Sure, if you will put in wrting you will follow what I outline...

Skeet/Loreto - 8-25-2009 at 05:19 PM

Answer to all of the Problems.

Survival of the Fittiest:

Set up a Special Force to eliminate all Illegal Drug Users.

Eliminate all Drug Dealer and Sellers in all Countries.

Eliminate all those with an IQ lower than 60

Eliminate all persons who refuse to work.

After doing all of the above, Start a "Controll the Population Program which will control all Food Consumed.

Destroy all Cars and Trains; People would not be able to travel more than walking distance of one day from their residence.


Now , who all on this Discussion think that it would change the Climate:

Please respond in a Positive Manner.

Thank You Skeet

DENNIS - 8-25-2009 at 05:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto

Set up a Special Force to eliminate all Illegal Drug Users.



Yep...good idea. Start with Rush Limbaugh.

Crusoe - 8-25-2009 at 05:48 PM

I got my money on Wessongroup on this one. ++C++ :O:O:yes::yes:

oxxo - 8-25-2009 at 06:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Set up a Special Force to eliminate all Illegal Drug Users.

Eliminate all Drug Dealer and Sellers in all Countries.

Eliminate all those with an IQ lower than 60

Eliminate all persons who refuse to work.


Well, that would decimate the Nomads!:lol:

Mexitron - 8-25-2009 at 06:12 PM

Hey Taco---get back to work!!! :bounce:


On water vapor versus CO2---water vapor is actually a stronger greenhouse gas.

woody with a view - 8-25-2009 at 06:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Answer to all of the Problems.

Survival of the Fittiest:

Set up a Special Force to eliminate all Illegal Drug Users.

Eliminate all Drug Dealer and Sellers in all Countries.

Eliminate all those with an IQ lower than 60

Eliminate all persons who refuse to work.

After doing all of the above, Start a "Controll the Population Program which will control all Food Consumed.

Destroy all Cars and Trains; People would not be able to travel more than walking distance of one day from their residence.


Now , who all on this Discussion think that it would change the Climate:

Please respond in a Positive Manner.

Thank You Skeet


Skeet

yer losing your last, or next to last marble.......

i think hitler had the same ideas, only he called it a solution to a different problem.

CaboRon - 8-25-2009 at 07:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Answer to all of the Problems.

Survival of the Fittiest:

Set up a Special Force to eliminate all Illegal Drug Users.

Eliminate all Drug Dealer and Sellers in all Countries.

Eliminate all those with an IQ lower than 60

Eliminate all persons who refuse to work.

After doing all of the above, Start a "Controll the Population Program which will control all Food Consumed.

Destroy all Cars and Trains; People would not be able to travel more than walking distance of one day from their residence.


Now , who all on this Discussion think that it would change the Climate:

Please respond in a Positive Manner.

Thank You Skeet


People (and I use the term loosely) like you are called Hitler ...

May you burn in Hell :fire:

rts551 - 8-25-2009 at 07:32 PM

Come on guys. lighten up. this is logic and real science. not Royal..... or something like that.

Skeet/Loreto - 8-26-2009 at 06:32 AM

Absurb!!

That was meant to be an Absurb comment, just as the notion of "Climate Change" i.e, Global Warming is Absurb.

Thanks for the Absurb reaction.

Skeet

k-rico - 8-26-2009 at 06:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Hey Taco---get back to work!!! :bounce:


On water vapor versus CO2---water vapor is actually a stronger greenhouse gas.


Stronger?? More prevalent that's for sure. Actually H2O and CO2 have different radiative heat absorption spectras. That's why CO2 is a concern. More energy in wavelength regions that H2O does not affect is being trapped now.

But, since so much more heat is trapped by H2O, let's stick with "stronger".

Consider this, an increase in CO2 causes a small rise in temperature because the increase has trapped a small amount of heat. The atmosphere is a bit warmer.

Well, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, resulting in......... you guessed it, more of your "stronger" greenhouse gas.

More CO2, more water vapor. Synergy.


[Edited on 8-26-2009 by k-rico]

David K - 8-26-2009 at 06:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551




I would not expect you to understand. Most people in a fun time won't.

You would not know about the La Bocana Lagoon other than from google earth... so How can I argue against that.

and Don't start about changing beaches. 1959 (pre hurricane). Percebu (Oh I am sorry, shell beach) was very much different then it was today.



I was there (La Bocana/Abreojos) 2 years ago (see photos and trip report), so I do have first hand knowledge of La Bocana...

Hurricane/ storm erosion that changes the shoreline is NOT the same as sea level change.

Can you answer my question? Can you talk nice?

You are right

wessongroup - 8-26-2009 at 07:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
This is so much an exercise in mutual masturbation. You guys can proffer all the studies that your heart's desire. But in the end, it's going to come down to who can make a profit doing what.


Don't know about the mutual masturbation, but I will say at this point in time from my experience you are absolutly correct.

It always comes down to "profit".

;D;D;D;D

k-rico - 8-26-2009 at 07:28 AM

David K.

You're looking in the wrong places for evidence of rising sea levels.

Rising sea levels and the Maldives, article from the Christian Science Monitor.

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/11/11/faced-w...

[Edited on 8-26-2009 by k-rico]

k-rico - 8-26-2009 at 07:35 AM

David K - 8-26-2009 at 07:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
David K.

You're looking in the wrong places for evidence of rising sea levels.

Rising sea levels and the Maldives, article from the Christian Science Monitor.

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/11/11/faced-w...

[Edited on 8-26-2009 by k-rico]


Yah, silly me... I was looking at the beach! :lol::lol::lol:

Next time, I will look in your liberal rag instead! :light:

k-rico - 8-26-2009 at 07:46 AM

I see you didn't understand my frisbee thought experiment.

OK, let's try Bangladesh.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/rising-seas.ht...

Do you deny that the Maldives are in deep trouble?

If Al Gore did not bring to light the issue as he did, but a conservative did instead, would you not be a denier?

Taco de Baja - 8-26-2009 at 07:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K

Hurricane/ storm erosion that changes the shoreline is NOT the same as sea level change.


Not quite David. You raise sea level in areas subject to wave action, the waves will begin to eat away at the back of the beach, that's how things like sea cliff form.

Heck, you can go off the beach in an area like La Jolla (San Diego) and see old sea cliffs that are currently underwater that formed 1,000's of years ago when sea level was lower. You can look inland and see the marine terraces and sea cliffs that were formed 100,000's of years ago that were uplifted to their present position 100's of feet above the current sea level by movement along faults.

Sea level change is a NATURAL process. It's just been relatively stable for the last 1,000 years or so. In the past it may have raised as quickly as several meters over 100 years during massive glacial melts; any rise we are currently experiencing pales in comparison to that. Yet somehow, all the species that live in the coastal area somehow managed to survive.

David K - 8-26-2009 at 08:00 AM

A hurricane can wash away a low area, form a new lagoon inlet, etc.... But, that happens because of the hurricane causes the ocean to move upon the land... Once the hurricane is over, the world sea level returns to normal... right? Erosion by waves against cliffs is again a normal happening and not caused by a rising ocean sea level.

The sea level is a benchmark, world wide... Homes along bays build 50 years ago are still there, ie. the sea level is the same during our lifetime.

You don't know yet

wessongroup - 8-26-2009 at 08:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico



Would offer that one must first accept the premiss, "we don't know if it is true or false"

Again would offer as a source of information, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences PNAS.

And then do a search on "climate change", the last search came back with over 59,000 research articles on the subject.

To be put "up" the research must meet peer review... you may find it hard slogging. It is not a quick read.

I do agree with the previous posts which cleary states the true drive behind it all, $$$$

Off topic, but the other thread which I check everyday is "Russ's" his pictures are great
and I really like his weather station, spawn of our high tech society.

Yeah, I know some of the best stuff is a result of "people"... let's just hold it down if we can...


http://www.pnas.org/;D;D;D

Taco de Baja - 8-26-2009 at 08:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
The most terrifying video you'll ever see


Looks like the guy went to the Gene Scott School of Whiteboard Writing.....talk about terrifying.


CaboRon - 8-26-2009 at 09:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Absurb!!

That was meant to be an Absurb comment, just as the notion of "Climate Change" i.e, Global Warming is Absurb.

Thanks for the Absurb reaction.

Skeet


Way to backtrack BURRO

Thanks I needed that

wessongroup - 8-26-2009 at 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Taco de Baja
Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
The most terrifying video you'll ever see


Looks like the guy went to the Gene Scott School of Whiteboard Writing.....talk about terrifying.




That is too funny, I'm still laughing... had forgotten all about Gene Scott and his Whiteboard... ;D;D

Bajahowodd - 8-26-2009 at 11:36 AM

Now THAT was entertainment!

Cypress - 8-26-2009 at 11:48 AM

Ocean gyros! Real interesting stuff. Check 'em out!;D They've got harmonics. They're predictable. The Oceans are like the atmosphere, and "slabs" of water move through the Oceans like clouds in the sky.:spingrin:

mtgoat666 - 8-30-2009 at 01:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
Does anyone know where can i find info about projected Climate Changes (next 10-30yrs) for the Baja Peninsula?
Gracias.


back to the OP... which Q was never answered...

News article on recent study I found interesting:
Climate Change Could Deepen Poverty In Developing Countries, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Aug. 21, 2009) — Urban workers could suffer most from climate change as the cost of food drives them into poverty, according to a new study that quantifies the effects of climate on the world's poor populations.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820082101.ht...

Some data on sea level monitoring indicates that sea level rise has occurred at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (1993-2003).

NOAA has compiled data on observed sea level changes, and you can see it online at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
I am sure the flat earth society will look at the NOAA data and see afew locations affected by tectonic uplift of land and poo-poo the data.

And this summer anomalously high sea level was observed along US Atlantic coast. Interesting article published this week is on line at NOAA:

NOAA Report Explains Sea Level Anomaly this Summer along the U.S. Atlantic Coast
Persistent winds and a weakened current in the Mid-Atlantic contributed to higher than normal sea levels along the Eastern Seaboard in June and July, according to a new NOAA technical report.

After observing water levels six inches to two feet higher than originally predicted, NOAA scientists began analyzing data from select tide stations and buoys from Maine to Florida and found that a weakening of the Florida Current Transport - an oceanic current that feeds into the Gulf Stream - in addition to steady and persistent Northeast winds, contributed to this anomaly.

"The ocean is dynamic and it's not uncommon to have anomalies," said Mike Szabados, director of NOAA's Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services. "What made this event unique was its breadth, intensity and duration."

The highest atypical sea levels occurred closer to where the anomaly formed in the Mid-Atlantic, where cities like Baltimore, Md., at times experienced extreme high tides as much as two feet higher than normal. Data from NOAA's National Water Level Observation Network tide stations, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, and National Data Buoy Center, are published in the report.

Impacts of the event were amplified by the occurrence of a perigean-spring tide, the natural timing of the season and month when the moon is closest to the Earth and its gravitational pull heightens the elevation of the water. The combined effects of this tide with the sea level anomaly produced minor flooding on the coast.

"The report is a good first assessment," said NOAA Oceanographer William Sweet, Ph.D. "However, NOAA, with our academic partners, should continue to investigate the broader causes behind the event. Further analysis is needed to fully understand what is driving the patterns we observed."
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/press/AnomalyReport.shtml

Taco de Baja - 8-30-2009 at 03:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
Does anyone know where can i find info about projected Climate Changes (next 10-30yrs) for the Baja Peninsula?
Gracias.


More:
Quote:
A unique 19th Century duststorm record, extending over 30 years, exists for Yuma, AZ, which lies near the edge of the Sonoran desert region of North America. Increased duststorms can be a result of decreased precipitation if other conditions, such as ample wind speeds, sediment availability, and lack of vegetation, are conducive. Each duststorm account (usually denoted "sandstorm") is documented with available meteorological data to determine an estimated wind speed, direction, and cause of disturbance in addition to precipitation data. Monthly and seasonal differences in events vary due to the variability of precipitation, which occurs during late fall to early winter or late summer to early fall.

Of interest, two persistent drought periods exist for the mid-19th Century that impacted the North American desert region, 1856-1865 and 1870-1877. Precipitation frequency for these years was consistently below the average, and duststorm events reflect this pattern. These prolonged drought events can be compared with the recent persistent drought record of 1998-2005.


Quote:
The ongoing drought over western North America has been concentrated in Mexico and appears to be unprecedented in the instrumental climate record for Mexico. Drought Area Indices (DAI) computed on gridded reconstructions of the summer Palmer drought severity index (PDSI) for Mexico indicates that the area of Mexico afflicted by drought during the current event exceeds all previous Mexican droughts since AD 1500, including the 16th century "megadrought" which interacted with conquest, famine, and epidemic disease to result in the greatest demographic catastrophe in New World history.

The dramatic warming of surface air temperature over Mexico may be an important component of the recent aridity trend. The intense warming is dominated by a rise in maximum daily temperature, which may be a partial consequence of land cover change in Mexico. The extensive land conversion for human use and settlement is believed to have reduced evaporative cooling and sharply increased the sensible to latent heat flux, favoring higher daily temperature maxima and overwhelming the potential cooling effect of increased surface albedo.

The higher temperatures and deficit rainfall during winter, spring, and early summer have translated into a summer PDSI drought over Mexico unmatched for centuries.



Link to Abstracts of the Association of American Geographers Meeting - Boston April 2008

May be able to mine more data here:
Mexico Climate Change Network

jls - 8-30-2009 at 03:35 PM

http://www.france24.com/en/20090225-icecaps-around-north-sou...

Pregunta ?

MrBillM - 8-30-2009 at 03:52 PM

I noticed that Bangladesh was brought up.

Can ANYONE claim that Bangladesh disappearing would be a BAD thing ?

Or, the Maldives ?

Bajahowodd - 8-30-2009 at 04:05 PM

I think your are getting precariously close to off-topic, bill.

DENNIS - 8-30-2009 at 04:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
I think your are getting precariously close to off-topic, bill.


:lol: Bill never strays too far from home.

Bye Bye Bangladesh ?

MrBillM - 8-30-2009 at 05:25 PM

Don't get me wrong.

If it wasn't for Bangladesh, I wouldn't own half of the clothes that I do.

Well, Maybe I would, but they'd be from India or China.

David K - 8-30-2009 at 05:34 PM

Sea level is a world wide point of reference. The sea level can't be rising in Bangladesh and not also be rising in the Sea of Cortez... and it has not risen in the Sea of Cortez in 40 years of my going to the same sea shore locations.

Cypress - 8-30-2009 at 06:29 PM

Increased temps.= increased evaporation. Sorta balances out. The deserts remain deserts, the oceans remain oceans, and anyone buying carbon credits from Albert Gore remains stupid.:lol:

mtgoat666 - 8-31-2009 at 06:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Sea level is a world wide point of reference. The sea level can't be rising in Bangladesh and not also be rising in the Sea of Cortez... and it has not risen in the Sea of Cortez in 40 years of my going to the same sea shore locations.


dk,
many flat-earthers, evangalists, ExxonMobil PR dept and Dick Cheney agree that sea level has been rising at 2 mm/year. what is your method for documenting that SL has not changed in 40 years in SOC? what is the precision and accuracy of your method of measuring SL?

David K - 8-31-2009 at 07:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Sea level is a world wide point of reference. The sea level can't be rising in Bangladesh and not also be rising in the Sea of Cortez... and it has not risen in the Sea of Cortez in 40 years of my going to the same sea shore locations.


dk,
many flat-earthers, evangalists, ExxonMobil PR dept and Dick Cheney agree that sea level has been rising at 2 mm/year. what is your method for documenting that SL has not changed in 40 years in SOC? what is the precision and accuracy of your method of measuring SL?


OBSERVATION... :lol::light: Beats reading about it, that somebody else wrote, everytime.

I am sure there are minor changes over the years... but the same locations (at sea level) are still there, 40-50 years later... I am talking about structures, roads, things that don't just 'move' if the ocean gets higher. I grew up on the beach in Del Mar (1957-1964) and my street is still above water... the home is different and the El Nińo storms 30 years ago took away the sand, but the lot it was built on is still the same distance above sea level.

The old road along Concepcion Bay as well as the homes built in the 70's on the shore is still there. El Requeson island is still connected at low tide...

Okay, I answered your question... Now, answer me why you feel the need to believe the hysteria that we are causing the world to end, that inspite of the obvious that sea levels are not rising you believe those who tell you otherwise? That one year the polar ice cap is smaller than usual but another year it grows bigger than before...? Why don't you trust Nature to continue to do fine and that man is a natural part of this planet? That without carbon dioxide, recently labled a "pollutant", trees and plants will die...? :light:

Taco de Baja - 8-31-2009 at 07:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Sea level is a world wide point of reference. The sea level can't be rising in Bangladesh and not also be rising in the Sea of Cortez... and it has not risen in the Sea of Cortez in 40 years of my going to the same sea shore locations.

Not true David.
Sea level is at different level on the Atlantic than it is on the Pacific. Heck, even the Atlantic and Pacific are at different levels on their north and south ends. If we could cut a real "sea level" canal across Panama the 20 cm (~8 inch) difference between the two would cause the Pacific to flow into the Atlantic..

Of course, this assumes they are on the same tide schedule, which they are not. So in this imaginary scenario, sometimes the water would flow the other direction and sometimes the sea level difference would be much greater than 20cm, resulting in faster flows.

Don't forget that the saltiness between the Atlantic and Pacific are different too. There is no constant on the planet; be it sea level, temperature, or water chemistry.
Quote:
It can be seen that MSL (the local height of the MSS above the geoid) is a complicated quantity, which depends not only on the volume of water in the oceans, and the shape of the ocean basins, but also on the earth's gravitational field and rotation rate (which determine the shape of the geoid), and on patterns of currents within the oceans. The importance of the differences between these different surfaces depends on the scientific application. But it will also be realised that, because of ocean, climate and geological changes, MSL is not constant in time, its 'mean value' being determined only for a particular epoch.

------------------------------

Global-average sea level is believed to have risen by between 10-20 cm during the past century and best estimates are that it will rise by approximately 50 cm in the next 100 years (i.e. an acceleration of a factor of 3 in the rate). Rising sea levels are largely a consequence of the thermal expansion of the ocean, melting of low latitude glaciers (Alps, Rockies etc.) and many other factors.

---------------------------
Are long term changes in sea level the same everywhere?

No. Long term changes in sea level measured at the coast (e.g. by tide gauges) are a consequence of 'real' changes in the level of the ocean (e.g. due to climate change), to which must be added changes in the level of the land.

Changes in ocean level due to climate change can be greater in some places than others because the ocean circulation will adapt to accommodate the new climate regime. Most knowledge of the global pattern of vertical land movements comes from geological data which are included in geodynamic models of the Earth.

The main geological process involved is called Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). For example, in the UK, GIA results in sea level rising less rapidly in Scotland than in southern England. However, there are other geological processes, violent changes due to earthquakes being the most dramatic. Land level changes are now being investigated by geodetic research groups using the Global Positioning System and Absolute Gravity techniques.
Link

[Edited on 8-31-2009 by Taco de Baja]

David K - 8-31-2009 at 07:34 AM

Hi Taco... I didn't say it was the exact same around the world... Only that it is a worldwide "point of reference", i.e. that elevation is based on feet or meters 'above sea level'... correct?

Taco de Baja - 8-31-2009 at 07:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Hi Taco... I didn't say it was the exact same around the world... Only that it is a worldwide "point of reference", i.e. that elevation is based on feet or meters 'above sea level'... correct?


My point was that the concept of a "global mean sea level" is as wrong and unscientific as "global mean temperature."

My little girl asked, "Daddy, what makes the ocean?"

Pompano - 8-31-2009 at 09:41 AM

I went to the bookcase and showed her this page from an old high school book.

Looking at that for a moment, she said, "Can we get a polar bear?"

I looked out the window at the Baja ocean, then back at Al Gore on CNN, and sighed, "Soon, sweetheart..soon."
.

Skipjack Joe - 8-31-2009 at 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano

I looked out the window at the Baja ocean, then back at Al Gore on CNN, and sighed, "Soon, sweetheart..soon."



Aw come on, Roger. If it wasn't for Al Gore we'd be sendmg letters to one another instead of this. :lol:

What's the Point ? We're ALL Doomed !

MrBillM - 8-31-2009 at 12:07 PM

We don't need to worry about an Ocean level rise of 2mm per year.

Far more important, and out of our control, the MOON is moving farther away from the Earth and it is predicted that the loss of its Gravitational influence will have catastrophic effects on the earth and DOOM the Human race to extinction.

It's moving away at the BREATH-TAKING rate of 1.5 Inches per year. It is said that we could be in real trouble a few hundred thousand years from now.

NOW, that's got me worried.

arrowhead - 8-31-2009 at 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Hi Taco... I didn't say it was the exact same around the world... Only that it is a worldwide "point of reference", i.e. that elevation is based on feet or meters 'above sea level'... correct?


There is not one worldwide point of reference for sea level. Everybody uses their own reference datum point. It is not meaningful to point to a place on the land to show that sea levels have not risen. The earth's crust is elastic and it rises and subsides constantly. A case in point: New Orleans is now 4 feet below sea level. It was above sea level when it was founded 300 years ago. The sea levels have not risen over 4 feet in 300 years. The land under New Orleans has subsided.

Another case in point, they are always finding whale bones around San Diego when they start excavating for new construction. So the sea levels must have been much higher in the past. One could then say that sea levels are falling.

Cypress - 8-31-2009 at 12:27 PM

In any event we're talking about changes that took place over hundreds, thousands and hudreds of thousands of years. The land subsides, the sea rises, the land is uplifted, the sea level falls. Ice Ages. Warm periods. These things took place long before humans or humans even dreamed of fossil fuels etc.

Your right

wessongroup - 8-31-2009 at 05:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
In any event we're talking about changes that took place over hundreds, thousands and hudreds of thousands of years. The land subsides, the sea rises, the land is uplifted, the sea level falls. Ice Ages. Warm periods. These things took place long before humans or humans even dreamed of fossil fuels etc.


Only difference this time, is about 6 billion and counting;D;D

Cypress - 8-31-2009 at 06:23 PM

Six billion? That's a lot. The rise in temps might well be the result of cement, steel and bare ground replacing living trees, grass, and wetlands.:no:

Six B and Counting (Downward) ?

MrBillM - 8-31-2009 at 06:39 PM

Well, if we assume that the most horrific predictions of the Eco-Freaks come true, we can put a serious (or, maybe just modest) dent in that Six Billion figure.

AND, the good news will be that the most technologically advanced societies will be more likely to endure. Those at the bottom of the Food-Chain will suffer most. A Win-Win situation.

As far as all of this nonsense about the terrible effects of the Ocean rising, all of this (assuming the worst) is going to take place over LONG periods. There are countries right now on the North Sea and elsewhere that are holding back the ocean and doing so quite well.

Who knows, it might be more cost-effective (for Us) to ignore the problem and deal with the consequences. None of the societies seemingly most in danger are contributing much to the World GDP, anyway.

MOST of those on the "Greenie" side seem to be the least religious, so they need not worry about answering for their actions. They need only worry about the NOW.

bajalou - 8-31-2009 at 09:20 PM

Another reason for higher tides.

ScienceDaily (Aug. 31, 2009) — Persistent winds and a weakened current in the Mid-Atlantic contributed to higher than normal sea levels along the Eastern Seaboard in June and July, according to a new NOAA technical report.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090831132943.ht...

Mexitron - 9-1-2009 at 04:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by arrowhead
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Hi Taco... I didn't say it was the exact same around the world... Only that it is a worldwide "point of reference", i.e. that elevation is based on feet or meters 'above sea level'... correct?




Another case in point, they are always finding whale bones around San Diego when they start excavating for new construction. So the sea levels must have been much higher in the past. One could then say that sea levels are falling.


Actually, the whale bones were in seabed that was uplifted and pushed up against the Pacific plate, so sea level change wasn't the cause of they're being on high ground, in this case. But point well taken---next time you go to the coast imagine the sea level being 300 feet lower---that's what it would have looked like only 20,000 years ago!

Taco de Baja - 9-1-2009 at 07:36 AM

There are also seashells and bones of marine life on top of Mt. Everest - 29,029 feet above "sea level", pushed up there by India slamming into Asia.

Here is an article indicating that the mm changes in sea level in on a decades long cycle of going up and down. The current uptick for the last few years is being wrongly extrapolated that this rate will continue into the future....Sound familiar?

Quote:



Figure 2. Comparison of the global mean decadal rates of sea level change based on the nine records with the rates from a 177 stations used in a previous study. All rates are corrected for glacial isostatic adjustment and inverse barometer effects. The shaded region indicates ±1 standard error (from Holgate, 2007).

Holgate, S. J., 2007. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492.

wessongroup - 9-1-2009 at 09:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
Well, if we assume that the most horrific predictions of the Eco-Freaks come true, we can put a serious (or, maybe just modest) dent in that Six Billion figure.

AND, the good news will be that the most technologically advanced societies will be more likely to endure. Those at the bottom of the Food-Chain will suffer most. A Win-Win situation.

As far as all of this nonsense about the terrible effects of the Ocean rising, all of this (assuming the worst) is going to take place over LONG periods. There are countries right now on the North Sea and elsewhere that are holding back the ocean and doing so quite well.

Who knows, it might be more cost-effective (for Us) to ignore the problem and deal with the consequences. None of the societies seemingly most in danger are contributing much to the World GDP, anyway.

MOST of those on the "Greenie" side seem to be the least religious, so they need not worry about answering for their actions. They need only worry about the NOW.


"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."

Albert Einstein

;D;D;D;D
 Pages:  1  2