BajaNomad

West Coast Kelp free from ***ushima radiation

 Pages:  1  2

motoged - 5-29-2014 at 12:53 PM

Anybody run a Geiger counter over this thread?:lol:

Barry A. - 5-29-2014 at 06:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by motoged
Anybody run a Geiger counter over this thread?:lol:


---------my lips are tingling a little, and my tongue is swelling up too?!?!?!?!?!?!

Barry

David K - 5-29-2014 at 06:35 PM

Sweetwater, lighten up. Nobody ever said blowing up a city was okay. One of your guys ordered it, it worked, the war ended and Japan became an economic powerhouse since and builds great 4WD trucks!

If you can't handle good news about radiation or that sea levels are basically unchanged from when I was a kid in the 60's, then maybe it's time for a Baja trip report?

:coolup:

rts551 - 5-29-2014 at 06:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Sweetwater, lighten up. Nobody ever said blowing up a city was okay. One of your guys ordered it, it worked, the war ended and Japan became an economic powerhouse since and builds great 4WD trucks!

If you can't handle good news about radiation or that sea levels are basically unchanged from when I was a kid in the 60's, then maybe it's time for a Baja trip report?

:coolup:


where did you get four data? Even the most ardent of conservatives now admit the sea levels are rising.

Current sea level rise is about 3 mm/year worldwide. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years", and the rate may be increasing.[2] Sea level rises can considerably influence human populations in coastal and island regions[3] and natural environments like marine ecosystems.[4]

According to NOAA

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose a total of 195 mm (7.7 in), and 1.46 mm (0.057 in) per year.[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,[6] a faster rate of increase than previously estimated.[7] It is unclear whether the increased rate reflects an increase in the underlying long-term trend.[8]

Kgryfon - 5-29-2014 at 07:06 PM

Quote:
3) Why are you ignoring the ORIGINAL POST totally, which is what I responded to? Go to the top of this thread on page 1 and see the post was no radiation in seaweed. By observation of the evidence, the radiation that was freaking some out vanished from the seaweed.


OP here. I think they were not saying the the radiation in the Pacific kelp beds vanished, rather they were saying that it had dissipated in the ocean waters before it got here; therefore there has been no significant increase in the amount of radiation on the Pacific coast despite the fact that ocean currents bearing ***ushima-contaminated waters have arrived and been present for some time now.

Another article from Forbes on this topic, and an excerpt:
"Let me be really, really clear – there is no concern whatsoever that radioactivity from ***ushima could ever harm America."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/03/16/radioactiv...

A bit different scenario from bombed cities in Japan because we know the radiation "made it there" in those instances. Whether or not the bombed cities still contain high levels of radiation, and why or why not, I'll let you guys continue to debate ;D

[Edited on 5-30-2014 by Kgryfon]

Skipjack Joe - 6-2-2014 at 12:56 PM

I read recently an impact that the ***ushima earthquake had on the US that is not widely known. Invasive species.

It turns out that the tidal wave dumped a lot of flotsam(?) into the water that eventually floated to North America with species of marine invertebrates that are local to the water of Japan. Large cargo containers and boats that never sank. The problem is that we are spending a great deal of money to stop these new arrivals from being established and wiping out our local species.

Below is a floating dock that arrived from Japan. There are some cool looking barnacles.







[Edited on 6-6-2014 by BajaNomad]

wessongroup - 6-2-2014 at 01:38 PM

Thanks ...good find

monoloco - 6-2-2014 at 01:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by danaeb
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by David K

If you can't handle good news about radiation or that sea levels are basically unchanged from when I was a kid in the 60's, then maybe it's time for a Baja trip report?

:coolup:


where did you get four data? Even the most ardent of conservatives now admit the sea levels are rising.



I think David gets this data from his home experiment where he fills a glass with water and ice and waits to see if the level rises.
I just spent a few days with the NOAA crew that maintains the equipment that monitors sea levels, interestingly, the head scientist explained how it's impossible to determine sea level by using land as a reference because land is not static. Baranof Island, where I'm currently staying, is rising about 12 mm a year due to melting glaciers applying less weight to the land, which to the casual observer here, would give the illusion that sea levels are dropping. NOAA maintains a network of highly accurate pressure based sensors to determine sea levels and provide tsunami data.

Barry A. - 6-2-2014 at 03:00 PM

That is great info, Mono, because we tend to forget the tectonics. This is especially true on our Pacific Rim as we are so tectonically active. Lets hope that our coasts heave up instead of just slipping sideways all the time, to keep up with these projected on-going sea-level rises. Might happen!!!

On the other hand, the Sea of Cortez base is probably falling since it appears to occupy a Graben-like structure and subsiding as the peninsula slides NNW and up and away from the Continent. Shell Island needs to catch more sand to keep up and build up, I guess. With the Colorado River being long cut off, and thereby it's load of sand and mud not replenishing the Gulf, that's not likely.

We are rocking and rolling, that is for sure. The Coasts have always made me a teensy nervous to live on, mostly because the ocean and the land beneath it is so unstable, in all respects.

These are the worries of a Geographer--------- :lol:

Barry

Skipjack Joe - 6-2-2014 at 06:24 PM

Glacial isostatic adjustment is a slow process. The mantle isn't that fluid. Baranoff isn't rising from the current deglaciation but from the deglaciation that started after the last ice age, 20,000 years ago.

At that time you could walk from Siberia to North America. If the land adjustments would had been short term then the continents should have sunk from the additional weight and the water level maintained. But this did not happen. As the ice thickened the sea levels dropped. The aborigines in australia were populated by descendents from africa when land masses were almost connected. Our Central Valley was underwater. Why didn't the continents bob up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

Man made global warming is not an issue in geological time. It's an issue in human historic time. The living system has evolved to adjust to slow changes on this planet. Fast changes lead to species eradication.

All the people on this board that continue to defend global warming play this game - providing long term changes as evidence that what we are now experiencing is normal. I hope that intelligent nomads can see through this for what it is - smoke.

David K - 6-2-2014 at 07:35 PM

I spent the first 7 years of my life in Del Mar, CA (1957-1964). Our home was on the beach... the most northern home in Del Mar, in fact. I think our home address was 3010 Sandy Lane. After we moved away, the old beach house was replaced by a giant stucco thing (I think my mom called it). Lot's of fun memories living on the beach...

Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz spent their summers in our home (we moved out for 3 months each summer to rent it to them). It was a deal that the previous owners had made with them and my parents continued it until 'Lucy' and 'Ricky' divorced... and then rented to Desi one more summer after.

Here is the point of this history... Sandy Lane was only a few feet higher than high tide when I lived there and over 50 years later, it STILL is a few feet higher. The San Dieguito River meets the sea just north of our old house spot. The horses from the Del Mar race track (just on the other side of 101 and the train tracks, used to be walked in the sea water there.

I mention a San Diego point of reference, which is a paved street and not getting higher like how sand bars moves.

Some of you like to discard my Baja observations of salt flats that get flooded by high lunar tides... 40 years ago.. and still do... IF the seal levels were a threat... wouldn't they be flooded by all high tides, or underwater all the time, instead of just the lunar highs?

Have a nice day... the sky is not falling (yet)... and higher taxes do not change climate!

Kgryfon - 6-2-2014 at 08:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
I read recently an impact that the ***ushima earthquake had on the US that is not widely known. Invasive species.

It turns out that the tidal wave dumped a lot of flotsam(?) into the water that eventually floated to North America with species of marine invertebrates that are local to the water of Japan. Large cargo containers and boats that never sank. The problem is that we are spending a great deal of money to stop these new arrivals from being established and wiping out our local species.

Below is a floating dock that arrived from Japan. There are some cool looking barnacles.


Interesting, Skipjack. This could be a real problem, very quickly.

Barry A. - 6-2-2014 at 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Glacial isostatic adjustment is a slow process. The mantle isn't that fluid. Baranoff isn't rising from the current deglaciation but from the deglaciation that started after the last ice age, 20,000 years ago.

At that time you could walk from Siberia to North America. If the land adjustments would had been short term then the continents should have sunk from the additional weight and the water level maintained. But this did not happen. As the ice thickened the sea levels dropped. The aborigines in australia were populated by descendents from africa when land masses were almost connected. Our Central Valley was underwater. Why didn't the continents bob up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

Man made global warming is not an issue in geological time. It's an issue in human historic time. The living system has evolved to adjust to slow changes on this planet. Fast changes lead to species eradication.

All the people on this board that continue to defend global warming play this game - providing long term changes as evidence that what we are now experiencing is normal. I hope that intelligent nomads can see through this for what it is - smoke.


Righttttttt----------and you use insults to convince us all-------yeah, that will work. What folly!!!

Barry

Skipjack Joe - 6-2-2014 at 11:52 PM

Barry,

Please respond to content and not to civility or lack of it. It really is very secondary. If you disagree with information please state where it is wrong.

Virtually every disagreement you've had on this thread has to do with delivery, how you feel things should be said.

And yes, I do believe that most of the misinformative reasoning that is supposed to influence the reader is the inappropriate comparison of events occurring on a geologic time scale to the recent events (since the industrial age). And yes, I hope nomads can and do recognize this when they see it.

Barry A. - 6-3-2014 at 08:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Barry,

Please respond to content and not to civility or lack of it. It really is very secondary. If you disagree with information please state where it is wrong.

Virtually every disagreement you've had on this thread has to do with delivery, how you feel things should be said.

And yes, I do believe that most of the misinformative reasoning that is supposed to influence the reader is the inappropriate comparison of events occurring on a geologic time scale to the recent events (since the industrial age). And yes, I hope nomads can and do recognize this when they see it.


You know, Skipjack, I often agree with you and the facts you present, but I associate insults and personal attacks as a form of bullying, and that almost never produces anything other than resentment and anger and a feeling of humiliation in others. Consequently, there goes any type of rational thinking and influencing of others. We have only raw emotion. Just my (and others) theory, of course.

I am not trying to convince you of anything tangible. I am simply saying that I am not convinced, based on what I have heard and read, of what you are convinced of. I want it clear that much of the scientific studies are at least partially flawed, not necessarily caste-in-stone, otherwise the research would just stop-----problem solved-------we now know the truth. There is a lot of science out there that comes to different conclusions----------we (they) are still studying the situation. And in addition, fighting Global Warming or Climate Change may be just a hopeless and destructive endeavor taking reality into consideration.

I have always thought that lay-opinions are interesting at the least, and worth considering-------even maybe leading to something that makes sense on some basic level. I certainly don't think that lay-opinion should be shouted down------that guarantees that your message will not get thru--------I speak from experience.

After spending 13 years in the CA desert trying to convince 10's of thousands of Off-Roaders that what the BLM was trying to do was wise and good for the desert, I learned that looking down on them and insulting them was NOT THE ANSWER, and in fact they had some very valid ideas and thoughts that we (BLM) had not considered, and that we incorporated into our final plans..

This general vicious head-butting & arrogance on both sides has GOT to stop!!! or at least be managed by all of us as individuals lest we accomplish nothing, or worse cause a mini-revolution.

Barry

SFandH - 6-3-2014 at 09:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
There is a lot of science out there that comes to different conclusions


Conclusions about what? Enlighten me, please provide links after you specify what you're talking about..

Barry A. - 6-3-2014 at 09:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
There is a lot of science out there that comes to different conclusions


Conclusions about what? Enlighten me, please provide links after you specify what you're talking about..


The "conclusion" that Man is causing Climate Change. Many Climatologists and Meteorologists simply are not buying that, and think the studies are flawed, incomplete, and miss-stated, have an agenda, but I admit the majority do buy into Man-caused Climate Change..

If you would like to research that, then have at it. I already have to my satisfaction, but do not have the "links" at my fingertips. I constantly hear learned folks interviewed by the Media refuting the generally excepted "Man-caused Climate Change" theory, which causes me to be skeptical.

My constant (often repeated on NOMADS by me) over-riding issue is that it is not worth disrupting and partially destroying the World economy by passing draconian laws in the USA which have the possibility of changing the projected possible outcome by only 1 to 3% at best even if the entire human population cooperated, which they won't.

Barry

Mexitron - 6-3-2014 at 10:10 AM

Well I do see that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has changed their 2007 opinion that man is not altering the climate to the statement that they now have no opinion on the matter since they are not climate scientists:lol:

Skipjack Joe - 6-3-2014 at 10:20 AM

1-3%?

Perhaps by land mass. But most of the population centers are on the coast: Seattle, Boston, NYC. Our Central Valley would once again become an inland sea.

Here is an interactive map to examine the changes on all the continents if all the ice melted (216' rise in sea level).

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice...

rts551 - 6-3-2014 at 11:26 AM

Barry...the people that quote rising ocean waters, changing climate, and man altering pollution are quoting studies...Please do the same and quit telling people to find there own citations. I would like to see reputable and factual studies that say this is not happening.

Sweetwater - 6-3-2014 at 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I spent the first 7 years of my life in Del Mar, CA (1957-1964). Our home was on the beach... the most northern home in Del Mar, in fact. I think our home address was 3010 Sandy Lane. After we moved away, the old beach house was replaced by a giant stucco thing (I think my mom called it). Lot's of fun memories living on the beach...

Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz spent their summers in our home (we moved out for 3 months each summer to rent it to them). It was a deal that the previous owners had made with them and my parents continued it until 'Lucy' and 'Ricky' divorced... and then rented to Desi one more summer after.

Here is the point of this history... Sandy Lane was only a few feet higher than high tide when I lived there and over 50 years later, it STILL is a few feet higher. The San Dieguito River meets the sea just north of our old house spot. The horses from the Del Mar race track (just on the other side of 101 and the train tracks, used to be walked in the sea water there.

I mention a San Diego point of reference, which is a paved street and not getting higher like how sand bars moves.

Some of you like to discard my Baja observations of salt flats that get flooded by high lunar tides... 40 years ago.. and still do... IF the seal levels were a threat... wouldn't they be flooded by all high tides, or underwater all the time, instead of just the lunar highs?

Have a nice day... the sky is not falling (yet)... and higher taxes do not change climate!


And radiation pumped into the sea is not healthy for our biosphere according to all facts and knowledge that stands up to scrutiny....cause that's really the topic and issue that you can not bring yourself to deal with.....:D

Or maybe you're still planning to relocate to Hiroshima or Nagasaki to prove that wrong.....better still, buy beachfront in ***ushima, I hear it's much cheaper than SoCal....

Barry A. - 6-3-2014 at 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Barry...the people that quote rising ocean waters, changing climate, and man altering pollution are quoting studies...Please do the same and quit telling people to find there own citations. I would like to see reputable and factual studies that say this is not happening.


Here is the second thing on the internet today in response to "Climate Change". There are many more.

Of course you find fault with all of them, because that is what you do, and we will get nowhere. I am not a scientist, so have to rely on those that in the past have not led me astray. When I go to the actual studies, I haven't a clue what they are talking about, for the most part, but they sure LOOK impressive, and use impressive words.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

Barry

rts551 - 6-3-2014 at 01:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Barry...the people that quote rising ocean waters, changing climate, and man altering pollution are quoting studies...Please do the same and quit telling people to find there own citations. I would like to see reputable and factual studies that say this is not happening.


Here is the second thing on the internet today in response to "Climate Change". There are many more.

Of course you find fault with all of them, because that is what you do, and we will get nowhere. I am not a scientist, so have to rely on those that in the past have not led me astray. When I go to the actual studies, I haven't a clue what they are talking about, for the most part, but they sure LOOK impressive, and use impressive words.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

Barry
Come on Barry.some actual data.. something we can say "yes Barry, that proves something". Because If you don't have a clue what the studies are talking about.....Then you really don't know what you are relying on.

motoged - 6-3-2014 at 02:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwater
.....And radiation pumped into the sea is not healthy for our biosphere according to all facts and knowledge that stands up to scrutiny....cause that's really the topic and issue that you can not bring yourself to deal with.....:D....


SW,
C'mon....it's all okay because they build popular trucks :biggrin:

Barry A. - 6-3-2014 at 03:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Barry...the people that quote rising ocean waters, changing climate, and man altering pollution are quoting studies...Please do the same and quit telling people to find there own citations. I would like to see reputable and factual studies that say this is not happening.


Here is the second thing on the internet today in response to "Climate Change". There are many more.

Of course you find fault with all of them, because that is what you do, and we will get nowhere. I am not a scientist, so have to rely on those that in the past have not led me astray. When I go to the actual studies, I haven't a clue what they are talking about, for the most part, but they sure LOOK impressive, and use impressive words.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

Barry
Come on Barry.some actual data.. something we can say "yes Barry, that proves something". Because If you don't have a clue what the studies are talking about.....Then you really don't know what you are relying on.


So, if I understand you right, I am supposed to use the actual studies you refer to (which I don't understand one whit) to "back up" what I am saying??? Yeah, that is really logical!! How in the devil am I supposed to know if they are right when I read them?? I can't!!! So, believe it or not, I rely on trusted sources that DO understand these studies to tell me what they may, or may not, mean. How novel of me.

You are just throwing obstacles off the top of your head out there, it seems to me. You are not going to believe anything unless it fits your preconceived ideas, unless you yourself are a climate scientist. I have taken a full year course in Climatology, and semester course in Meteorology, but I still don't have the background & expertise to interpret or understand these "studies" you refer to, and I have serious doubts about you understanding them too..

We are wasting each other's time, it would appear. Nobody knows FOR SURE what is happening.

Barry

SFandH - 6-3-2014 at 03:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.


So, believe it or not, I rely on trusted sources that DO understand these studies to tell me what they may, or may not, mean. How novel of me.

Barry


Would you trust the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the many people speaking in this video? And if not, why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nZjrPoAlbU

http://www.aaas.org/


[Edited on 6-3-2014 by SFandH]

rts551 - 6-3-2014 at 04:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Barry...the people that quote rising ocean waters, changing climate, and man altering pollution are quoting studies...Please do the same and quit telling people to find there own citations. I would like to see reputable and factual studies that say this is not happening.


Here is the second thing on the internet today in response to "Climate Change". There are many more.

Of course you find fault with all of them, because that is what you do, and we will get nowhere. I am not a scientist, so have to rely on those that in the past have not led me astray. When I go to the actual studies, I haven't a clue what they are talking about, for the most part, but they sure LOOK impressive, and use impressive words.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/

Barry
Come on Barry.some actual data.. something we can say "yes Barry, that proves something". Because If you don't have a clue what the studies are talking about.....Then you really don't know what you are relying on.


So, if I understand you right, I am supposed to use the actual studies you refer to (which I don't understand one whit) to "back up" what I am saying??? Yeah, that is really logical!! How in the devil am I supposed to know if they are right when I read them?? I can't!!! So, believe it or not, I rely on trusted sources that DO understand these studies to tell me what they may, or may not, mean. How novel of me.

You are just throwing obstacles off the top of your head out there, it seems to me. You are not going to believe anything unless it fits your preconceived ideas, unless you yourself are a climate scientist. I have taken a full year course in Climatology, and semester course in Meteorology, but I still don't have the background & expertise to interpret or understand these "studies" you refer to, and I have serious doubts about you understanding them too..

We are wasting each other's time, it would appear. Nobody knows FOR SURE what is happening.

Barry


Barry, come up with your own studies that support your conclusions if you do not like anyone elses studies. I am sure your "studies" included some factual data.

Barry A. - 6-3-2014 at 04:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.


So, believe it or not, I rely on trusted sources that DO understand these studies to tell me what they may, or may not, mean. How novel of me.

Barry


Would you trust the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the many people speaking in this video? And if not, why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nZjrPoAlbU

http://www.aaas.org/


[Edited on 6-3-2014 by SFandH]


I watched the video, and went to the other link--------I learned nothing new-----------I and my Family have been doing ALL the things that they mention that individuals can do for at least 50 years--------My Family were all Sierra Clubber's for years and years (but no more), and I was exposed to all this in the 30 years I was in the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

Climate Change is a fact, and I have never doubted that. Global warming may be a fact, but it is too early to tell for sure in our lifetime-----probably will never know for sure as it's just too complex, and can change suddenly with certain catalyst in either direction, or drag on for millions of years with tiny changes.

I don't know any of the people in these videos, but some of what they say is misleading, such as we can do things fairly cheaply that may reverse this trend--------what are they talking about? What is being proposed by many is so expensive that NO COUNTRY can accomplish them without devastating their economies. I am very skeptical, as I have said, that we can do anything about Climate Change, but I am doing my part and have always been doing same, but not for the reasons these folks want me to-------I do it to save money, act conservatively, reduce our individual impact & consumption on resources, and try to clean up the environment, or at least not harm it any more than is absolutely practical. That's my contribution, and my Families too.

Traditionally, thru the many years, most "scientific" gloom and doomer's and the optimists have been very wrong, about a LOT of things.

I remain skeptical.

Barry

Skipjack Joe - 6-3-2014 at 09:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.

So, if I understand you right, I am supposed to use the actual studies you refer to (which I don't understand one whit) to "back up" what I am saying??? Yeah, that is really logical!! How in the devil am I supposed to know if they are right when I read them?? I can't!!! So, believe it or not, I rely on trusted sources that DO understand these studies to tell me what they may, or may not, mean. How novel of me.
..
..
..
..
We are wasting each other's time, it would appear. Nobody knows FOR SURE what is happening.

Barry


Other than what you have dotted out, which is actually hypocritical, I really agree with this.

The truth is we here are babes in the woods when it comes to this subject. Global warming is not unfathomable with scientists inventing conclusions for their own agenda. That's just too cynical. Rather, due to our ignorance we wouldn't know good conclusions from bad. We spend pages talking about past geological events that supposedly prove something. We show graphs how the arctic ice cap grew last year for 6 months and decide it shows something conclusive. We talk about more vegetation to combat the co2 release. Gnukid comes out with more complex charts and reasons but he's clearly cherry picking on the internet.

You say that you don't believe scientists because they have their own agenda. Then what do you believe? Do you believe in driving a car, flying to baja, using a boat for fishing? Where did that come from? Do you have PSA screening tests? How did you make the choice to believe some and not the other?

When I fell ill I didn't come to my own conclusions about what I had. I went to the best specialists at UCSF and Stanford for THEM to provide me with their professional opinion based upon years of practice and knowledge. I got 2nd and 3rd opinions on treatment until there was a consensus. Why should the approach to global warming be any different.

So go to the experts. Sure there is not 100% agreement but 97% is good enough for me. There will always be some disagreement. I had a biology prof at SF State U who didn't believe in evolution. That was 100 years after Darwin, not 15 years as in global warming. And that was at a major university.

So, I agree, the studies are hyroglyphics to me. The pro glogal people and an anti global scientists both sound convincing when read. That's due to my ignorance, and I can accept that.

On a personal level I have seen enough retreating glaciers to know that something big is going on. I've seen glaciers that have retreated not feet but miles in my lifetime. And I'm accepting the experts that the industrial age is largely responsible for it.

David K - 6-3-2014 at 10:47 PM

Some years the glaciers shrink and some they get bigger... so what is new and different here? What happens in our tiny time on this planet is in no way an accurate measure of what is 'normal', even if there is such a thing.

Some of us want to believe people are bad and foreign here, and some of us know that people are as natural a part of this planet as orcas and puffins. Either way, the earth will continue to cool or warm, as it has for millions of years before man and will after man.

What is it that you want to argue about, and why?... To what end? Does it make us better friends or kinder Nomads? Is it not enough to just post news and ponder the possibilities?

There are no absolutes in natural science. Science is the continuous gathering of data by observation. In my lifetime, I have observed sea levels at many places over a period of 40-50 years. The levels are unchanged or so tiny as to not be noticeable when compared to the daily changes caused by tidal action. There is no cause for panic.

We can adapt to the small changes in climate, or not... Just don't ask your neighbors to foot the bill if you agree with an ex-politician turned environmentalist who still flies on private jets and has mansions with heating and air conditioning bills that would take a dozen or more typical homes to equal.

mtgoat666 - 6-3-2014 at 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
We can adapt to the small changes in climate, or not... Just don't ask your neighbors to foot the bill if you agree with an ex-politician turned environmentalist who still flies on private jets and has mansions with heating and air conditioning bills that would take a dozen or more typical homes to equal.


Why can't environmentalists enjoy luxuries? Dk, do you think environmentalists should be ascetics or take vows of poverty and minimalism?

Thank god liberals that fight for all to have freedom to live how we want to live, and fight against the conservatives that want to dictate our means of travel, house size and whether we are allowed heat or AC in our homes!

Barry A. - 6-4-2014 at 09:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.

So, if I understand you right, I am supposed to use the actual studies you refer to (which I don't understand one whit) to "back up" what I am saying??? Yeah, that is really logical!! How in the devil am I supposed to know if they are right when I read them?? I can't!!! So, believe it or not, I rely on trusted sources that DO understand these studies to tell me what they may, or may not, mean. How novel of me.
..
..
..
..
We are wasting each other's time, it would appear. Nobody knows FOR SURE what is happening.

Barry


Other than what you have dotted out, which is actually hypocritical, I really agree with this.

The truth is we here are babes in the woods when it comes to this subject. Global warming is not unfathomable with scientists inventing conclusions for their own agenda. That's just too cynical. Rather, due to our ignorance we wouldn't know good conclusions from bad. We spend pages talking about past geological events that supposedly prove something. We show graphs how the arctic ice cap grew last year for 6 months and decide it shows something conclusive. We talk about more vegetation to combat the co2 release. Gnukid comes out with more complex charts and reasons but he's clearly cherry picking on the internet.

You say that you don't believe scientists because they have their own agenda. Then what do you believe? Do you believe in driving a car, flying to baja, using a boat for fishing? Where did that come from? Do you have PSA screening tests? How did you make the choice to believe some and not the other?

When I fell ill I didn't come to my own conclusions about what I had. I went to the best specialists at UCSF and Stanford for THEM to provide me with their professional opinion based upon years of practice and knowledge. I got 2nd and 3rd opinions on treatment until there was a consensus. Why should the approach to global warming be any different.

So go to the experts. Sure there is not 100% agreement but 97% is good enough for me. There will always be some disagreement. I had a biology prof at SF State U who didn't believe in evolution. That was 100 years after Darwin, not 15 years as in global warming. And that was at a major university.

So, I agree, the studies are hyroglyphics to me. The pro glogal people and an anti global scientists both sound convincing when read. That's due to my ignorance, and I can accept that.

On a personal level I have seen enough retreating glaciers to know that something big is going on. I've seen glaciers that have retreated not feet but miles in my lifetime. And I'm accepting the experts that the industrial age is largely responsible for it.


SkipJack------I did not "dot out" anything----don't know how that happened. And yes, I am definitely a hypocrite.

You are being way to black & white when you describe me--------of course I believe (skeptically) some of what Scientists discover and ponder and write about, but I don't assume "truth" 100% on face value, but I do act on much of what I hear and read. You mention "Doctor's"-------don't get me started---------I ALWAYS believe ME first, but yes, I do check with Specialists when I don't know what to do about a health problem. 8 out of 10 times (roughly) I am more right about MY HEALTH than the Doctor's are, and it has been that way all my life. The latest example of Doctor fallibility is my GP putting me on Blood Pressure meds and arthritis meds, my opthamologist putting me on Glaucoma meds, and then having serious allergic reactions to something (??) which I never had before, and then having my Allergist conduct tests and telling me to QUIT all those meds completely and viola, the allergies went away, and I feel 100% better. I did resume the Glaucoma meds to see if I was ok with them, and I seem to be, but I am thru with all the other meds, period. My point being that even Specialists are not always right, so I am skeptical. After 20 different skin-cancer operations (for all 3 kinds) in 25 years I DO pay attention to my Dermatologist, and see her every 3 months like clock work!!!

As I have said many times on this board, I am NOT saying that Global warming/climate change is not happening, I AM saying over and over again that I am not convinced that man is causing it, and even if he is I don't think we can economically do much (if anything) about it on a World wide basis. So until we are 99% sure that man is the culprit, and in survival mode, I am NOT in favor of taking all the proposed draconian measures to supposedly help the situation, and largely destroy the world economy in the process.

Just my opinion, of course. In the mean time I will do what I can personally to reduce my footprint.

Barry

Mexitron - 6-4-2014 at 10:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.


So, believe it or not, I rely on trusted sources that DO understand these studies to tell me what they may, or may not, mean. How novel of me.

Barry


Would you trust the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the many people speaking in this video? And if not, why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nZjrPoAlbU

http://www.aaas.org/


[Edited on 6-3-2014 by SFandH]


I watched the video, and went to the other link--------I learned nothing new-----------I and my Family have been doing ALL the things that they mention that individuals can do for at least 50 years--------My Family were all Sierra Clubber's for years and years (but no more), and I was exposed to all this in the 30 years I was in the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

Climate Change is a fact, and I have never doubted that. Global warming may be a fact, but it is too early to tell for sure in our lifetime-----probably will never know for sure as it's just too complex, and can change suddenly with certain catalyst in either direction, or drag on for millions of years with tiny changes.

I don't know any of the people in these videos, but some of what they say is misleading, such as we can do things fairly cheaply that may reverse this trend--------what are they talking about? What is being proposed by many is so expensive that NO COUNTRY can accomplish them without devastating their economies. I am very skeptical, as I have said, that we can do anything about Climate Change, but I am doing my part and have always been doing same, but not for the reasons these folks want me to-------I do it to save money, act conservatively, reduce our individual impact & consumption on resources, and try to clean up the environment, or at least not harm it any more than is absolutely practical. That's my contribution, and my Families too.

Traditionally, thru the many years, most "scientific" gloom and doomer's and the optimists have been very wrong, about a LOT of things.

I remain skeptical.

Barry


I remain skeptical too though I'm sure we are having some effect----we're pouring a LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere. I'm putting solar panels on the roof, just in case.

Barry A. - 6-4-2014 at 10:23 AM

Excellent, Mexitron.

I would do your research carefully, however, before you commit. My Brother-in-law went with Solar several years ago, spent a LOT of money, and they never seemed to work right no matter how much the Techs tried to make them work, so he has now reverted back to traditional sources and abandoned the solar panels--------(they just sit there now----disconnected).

On the other hand, I have heard many good reports, so things are probably much better now.

barry

BajaGringo - 6-4-2014 at 10:23 AM

Barry A. - 6-4-2014 at 10:34 AM

BajaGringo--------------Define "better world" please.

Shall we stop travelling by air and oil-powered vehicles (example)-----that would help immensely-----are you ready to do that? Is the world ready to do that?

Realistically, I don't think so.

Barry

Mexitron - 6-4-2014 at 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
BajaGringo--------------Define "better world" please.

Shall we stop travelling by air and oil-powered vehicles (example)-----that would help immensely-----are you ready to do that? Is the world ready to do that?

Realistically, I don't think so.

Barry


We can use hydrogen as a fuel carrier for cars....and if Elon Musk would just deliver a better scenario for the hyperloop that would take care of a lot of air travel within the US.

On solar---Solar City and others will install them for free---they're making money off it so they have to work!

Mexitron - 6-4-2014 at 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaGringo


Seen that one before---love it!

Barry A. - 6-4-2014 at 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
BajaGringo--------------Define "better world" please.

Shall we stop travelling by air and oil-powered vehicles (example)-----that would help immensely-----are you ready to do that? Is the world ready to do that?

Realistically, I don't think so.

Barry



We can use hydrogen as a fuel carrier for cars....and if Elon Musk would just deliver a better scenario for the hyperloop that would take care of a lot of air travel within the US.

On solar---Solar City and others will install them for free---they're making money off it so they have to work!


I was not aware of either-------hydrogen as a viable safe fuel, or Elon Musk and "hyperloop". I will look into those.

Also, good news on the solar installs-------not aware of that, either.

Thanks, Mexitron.

Barry

BajaGringo - 6-4-2014 at 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
BajaGringo--------------Define "better world" please.

Shall we stop travelling by air and oil-powered vehicles (example)-----that would help immensely-----are you ready to do that? Is the world ready to do that?

Realistically, I don't think so.

Barry


Really Barry? Why is it that so many from the right insist on going to the other extreme when discussing these issues? Who here is proposing that we completely abandon petroleum based fuels tomorrow? What we are asking for is to consider spending more on alternative energy ideas in search of a better balance for the planet. Just with the trillions we have spent on Iraq, Afghanistan and the future long term care for those who have returned injured from these wars, we could have installed solar panels on every rooftop in America and have lots of money left over for reinvestment into education and other new technologies.

Could you imagine what that would have done to offset our need for imported oil???

Instead, we follow politicians (bought and paid for) who insist on throwing trillions down black holes of wars and corporate/banking bailouts.

I agree with you Barry that spending is out of control but the right simply refuses to give up their sacred cows in the annual budget battles and the left doesn't do much better. But at least I like the reinvestment ideas from the left that puts more money in more pockets of the middle class. The right prefers to spend it on wars, tax deductions for those who don't need it and both sides voted to bailout the richest of the rich. Where is the bailout for the middle class? At least let's consider spending more on something that will benefit EVERYBODY - saving on energy in an eco-friendly way.

In the meantime, America is falling further and further behind...

Mexico keeps leading the green revolution...



[Edited on 6-4-2014 by BajaGringo]

Skipjack Joe - 6-4-2014 at 09:28 PM

Likely radiation related cancer to the cast and crew of the movie "The Conqueror" filmed near a nuclear test site in Utah -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conqueror_%28film%29



The exterior scenes were shot on location near St. George, Utah, 137 miles (220 km) downwind of the United States government's Nevada National Security Site. In 1953, extensive above-ground nuclear weapons testing occurred at the test site as part of Operation Upshot-Knothole. The cast and crew spent many difficult weeks on location, and in addition Hughes later shipped 60 tons of dirt back to Hollywood in order to match the Utah terrain and lend verisimilitude to studio re-shoots.[5] The filmmakers knew about the nuclear tests[5] but the federal government reassured residents that the tests caused no hazard to public health.[12]

Director Dick Powell died of cancer in January 1963, seven years after the film's release. Pedro Armendáriz was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 1960, and committed suicide in 1963 after he learned his condition had become terminal. Hayward, Wayne, and Moorehead all died of cancer in the 1970s. Cast member actor John Hoyt died of lung cancer in 1991. Skeptics point to other factors such as the wide use of tobacco — Wayne and Moorehead in particular were heavy smokers. The cast and crew totaled 220 people. By 1981, 91 of them had developed some form of cancer and 46 had died of the disease. Several of Wayne and Hayward's relatives also had cancer scares as well after visiting the set. Michael Wayne developed skin cancer, his brother Patrick had a benign tumor removed from his breast and Hayward's son Tim Barker had a benign tumor removed from his mouth. [12][13]

Dr. Robert Pendleton, professor of biology at the University of Utah, stated, "With these numbers, this case could qualify as an epidemic. The connection between fallout radiation and cancer in individual cases has been practically impossible to prove conclusively. But in a group this size you'd expect only 30-some cancers to develop. With 91, I think the tie-in to their exposure on the set of The Conqueror would hold up in a court of law." Indeed, several cast and crew members, as well as relatives of those who died, considered suing the government for negligence, claiming it knew more about the hazards in the area than it let on.[12][14]



This is in regards to the suggestion of how well things went for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

tripledigitken - 6-5-2014 at 11:40 AM

So what's new with the kelp?:rolleyes:

Barry A. - 6-5-2014 at 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by tripledigitken
So what's new with the kelp?:rolleyes:


:lol::lol: A good point. Nothing, apparently, which is why this thread has taken another tact, but still related to the original topic, in my view.

Barry

Sweetwater - 6-5-2014 at 01:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Some years the glaciers shrink and some they get bigger... so what is new and different here? What happens in our tiny time on this planet is in no way an accurate measure of what is 'normal', even if there is such a thing.

Some of us want to believe people are bad and foreign here, and some of us know that people are as natural a part of this planet as orcas and puffins. Either way, the earth will continue to cool or warm, as it has for millions of years before man and will after man.

What is it that you want to argue about, and why?... To what end? Does it make us better friends or kinder Nomads? Is it not enough to just post news and ponder the possibilities?

There are no absolutes in natural science. Science is the continuous gathering of data by observation. In my lifetime, I have observed sea levels at many places over a period of 40-50 years. The levels are unchanged or so tiny as to not be noticeable when compared to the daily changes caused by tidal action. There is no cause for panic.

We can adapt to the small changes in climate, or not... Just don't ask your neighbors to foot the bill if you agree with an ex-politician turned environmentalist who still flies on private jets and has mansions with heating and air conditioning bills that would take a dozen or more typical homes to equal.


Hey DK..........the issue is pumping radiation into our biosphere, specifically the unnatural products of nuclear reactors which didn't exist on our planet until we created them......and now they're running into our Pacific Ocean which has currents that bring them right to the front door of our fisheries and cities. And you are shouting about what? Are you really stupid or just blind to facts? And all this so you can run your electric Toyota to go live the high life.......

SFandH - 6-5-2014 at 02:01 PM

I use the Google news portal and have it customized to my interests. I set up a news alert for ***ushima when it happened. What that means is that news articles about ***ushima take up a section of my news homepage, which I look at everyday.

From what I've read, the radiation threat that should be of the most concern to people on the U.S. west coast is the danger of eating contaminated fish that have migrated here from the ***ushima region. They are finding fish on the west coast containing Cs-137. That's a common fission fragment that is easy to detect by gamma spectrometers. The amounts of Cs-137 being detected are very small. The danger is directly proportional to the amount.

Marine biologists interested in migratory patterns are actually pretty excited about this because now when the find a fish with Cs-137, they know it migrated here from the ***ushima region.

BajaGringo - 6-5-2014 at 02:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH
...Marine biologists interested in migratory patterns are actually pretty excited about this because now when the find a fish with Cs-137, they know it migrated here from the ***ushima region.


Radioactive tracers in our food supply...

Gee whiz, that would get me excited too!!!

SFandH - 6-5-2014 at 02:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaGringo
Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH
...Marine biologists interested in migratory patterns are actually pretty excited about this because now when the find a fish with Cs-137, they know it migrated here from the ***ushima region.


Radioactive tracers in our food supply...

Gee whiz, that would get me excited too!!!


You got it!

Skipjack Joe - 6-5-2014 at 05:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by tripledigitken

So what's new with the kelp?:rolleyes:



Thanks for the kelp, Ken. We needed that. <groan>

Personally when people talk about economics and the related politics my eyes glaze over and I start yawning. Is there anything more boring? I find that politics and their related view on economics are created very early in life, by parents and close friends and seldom change as a man grows up. People just expound what they were raised to believe, over and over. It's really uninteresting. No matter what argument one side or the other presents, nothing changes. It's just such a waste of time.

Science, on the other hand, is fascinating(I am in complete agreement on that with Ken Bondy). It's for this reason that suggesting that scientific truth should somehow be driven by economics that I find particularly unpalatable. The idea that man made global warming should be accepted or denied based upon it's cost really sits bad with me, Barry. It's just so ... dishonest.

[Edited on 6-6-2014 by Skipjack Joe]

wessongroup - 6-5-2014 at 09:07 PM

Strange what "Kelp" does to folks ...

Say, can ya smoke it .... just asking

Cuz, if just talking about the plant, results in this much mental activity ... WOW :biggrin::biggrin:

Ateo - 6-6-2014 at 09:05 AM

We need magic mushrooms. That'll fix everything. :P:P:P

wessongroup - 6-8-2014 at 09:43 AM

This would appear to be visual evidence ... for some

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands. For many people this scenario is very scary as environmentalists present ever difficult picture of future.

http://nvonews.com/rising-sea-levels-destroy-world-war-ii-gr...

Some may wish to put things on the porch :lol::lol:

this would be an example of human impact on the environment in a global manner negatively and is related to global warming ... human impact has many forms ... radiation included .. along with many other chemical substances

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by wessongroup]

Skipjack Joe - 6-8-2014 at 10:10 AM

Record of sea levels and project sea levels:

Barry A. - 6-8-2014 at 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
This would appear to be visual evidence ... for some

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands. For many people this scenario is very scary as environmentalists present ever difficult picture of future.

http://nvonews.com/rising-sea-levels-destroy-world-war-ii-gr...

Some may wish to put things on the porch :lol::lol:

this would be an example of human impact on the environment in a global manner negatively and is related to global warming ... human impact has many forms ... radiation included .. along with many other chemical substances

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by wessongroup]


The "rest of the story"???

What this article fails to mention is that there is strong "scientific" evidence that the Marshall Islands, as well as many other coral/limestone atolls, may be subject to subsidence. In an environment like the Marshalls where the highest point in the entire chain of islands is only 32 feet, this is highly probable. Also, the coral reefs associated with the islands go down to depths where it is impossible for coral to grow, yet there they are------a strong indicator of subsidence. (but also rising ocean levels). There are 5 other "indicators" that subsidence is happening in the Marshall's.

(source: My head, plus Lobecks "Geomorphology")

Barry

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by Barry A.]

rts551 - 6-8-2014 at 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
This would appear to be visual evidence ... for some

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands. For many people this scenario is very scary as environmentalists present ever difficult picture of future.

http://nvonews.com/rising-sea-levels-destroy-world-war-ii-gr...

Some may wish to put things on the porch :lol::lol:

this would be an example of human impact on the environment in a global manner negatively and is related to global warming ... human impact has many forms ... radiation included .. along with many other chemical substances

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by wessongroup]


The "rest of the story"???

What this article fails to mention is that there is strong "scientific" evidence that the Marshall Islands, as well as many other coral/limestone atolls, may be subject to subsidence. In an environment like the Marshalls where the highest point in the entire chain of islands is only 32 feet, this is highly probable. Also, the coral reefs associated with the islands go down to depths where it is impossible for coral to grow, yet there they are------a strong indicator of subsidence. (but also rising ocean levels). There are 5 other "indicators" that subsidence is happening in the Marshall's.

(source: My head, plus Lobecks "Geomorphology")

Barry

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by Barry A.]


Scientific?? Are you sure your head qualifies? how long did iit take to find a book on landscapes written in 1939 to support your conclusions?

Barry A. - 6-8-2014 at 01:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
This would appear to be visual evidence ... for some

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands. For many people this scenario is very scary as environmentalists present ever difficult picture of future.

http://nvonews.com/rising-sea-levels-destroy-world-war-ii-gr...

Some may wish to put things on the porch :lol::lol:

this would be an example of human impact on the environment in a global manner negatively and is related to global warming ... human impact has many forms ... radiation included .. along with many other chemical substances

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by wessongroup]


The "rest of the story"???

What this article fails to mention is that there is strong "scientific" evidence that the Marshall Islands, as well as many other coral/limestone atolls, may be subject to subsidence. In an environment like the Marshalls where the highest point in the entire chain of islands is only 32 feet, this is highly probable. Also, the coral reefs associated with the islands go down to depths where it is impossible for coral to grow, yet there they are------a strong indicator of subsidence. (but also rising ocean levels). There are 5 other "indicators" that subsidence is happening in the Marshall's.

(source: My head, plus Lobecks "Geomorphology")

Barry

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by Barry A.]


Scientific?? Are you sure your head qualifies? how long did iit take to find a book on landscapes written in 1939 to support your conclusions?


-----about 5 seconds to pull the book off my shelf after finding NOTHING about it on the net.

Lobecks "Geomorphology" is STILL THE EXCEPTED by many best textbook written on the subject. As I have said, it is mostly all theory, which makes me still skeptical as to what is the truth about man-caused "Global Warming" and it's projected (by some) outcome? I have no doubt about "Climate change" however------it's happening, and probably always will. Live with it.

My "head" comment was made in jest---------if we can't laugh about stuff, then we are all lost and just crazy, IMO.

If you and others are willing/anxious to start spending other peoples money (trillions) on attempting off-setting Global Warming by maybe 3% max., then why not trillions spent on anti-meteorite technology, or more disease prevention/curing, or moving people away from the Oceans, or away from volcanoes and faults, or safer highways/vehicles, etc. etc. etc.-------all are real and known problems?

If you feel THAT strongly about it--------YOU can take the initiative and MOVE yourself to where you think you might be safer, but don't ask me to pay for it until you can convince me it is the right thing to do.

Barry

rts551 - 6-8-2014 at 01:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
This would appear to be visual evidence ... for some

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands. For many people this scenario is very scary as environmentalists present ever difficult picture of future.

http://nvonews.com/rising-sea-levels-destroy-world-war-ii-gr...

Some may wish to put things on the porch :lol::lol:

this would be an example of human impact on the environment in a global manner negatively and is related to global warming ... human impact has many forms ... radiation included .. along with many other chemical substances

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by wessongroup]


The "rest of the story"???

What this article fails to mention is that there is strong "scientific" evidence that the Marshall Islands, as well as many other coral/limestone atolls, may be subject to subsidence. In an environment like the Marshalls where the highest point in the entire chain of islands is only 32 feet, this is highly probable. Also, the coral reefs associated with the islands go down to depths where it is impossible for coral to grow, yet there they are------a strong indicator of subsidence. (but also rising ocean levels). There are 5 other "indicators" that subsidence is happening in the Marshall's.

(source: My head, plus Lobecks "Geomorphology")

Barry

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by Barry A.]


Scientific?? Are you sure your head qualifies? how long did iit take to find a book on landscapes written in 1939 to support your conclusions?


-----about 5 seconds to pull the book off my shelf after finding NOTHING about it on the net.

Lobecks "Geomorphology" is STILL THE EXCEPTED by many best textbook written on the subject. As I have said, it is mostly all theory, which makes me still skeptical as to what is the truth about man-caused "Global Warming" and it's projected (by some) outcome? I have no doubt about "Climate change" however------it's happening, and probably always will. Live with it.

My "head" comment was made in jest---------if we can't laugh about stuff, then we are all lost and just crazy, IMO.

If you and others are willing/anxious to start spending other peoples money (trillions) on attempting off-setting Global Warming by maybe 3% max., then why not trillions spent on anti-meteorite technology, or more disease prevention/curing, or moving people away from the Oceans, or away from volcanoes and faults, or safer highways/vehicles, etc. etc. etc.-------all are real and known problems?

If you feel THAT strongly about it--------YOU can take the initiative and MOVE yourself to where you think you might be safer, but don't ask me to pay for it until you can convince me it is the right thing to do.

Barry


I would have EXCEPTED it as well. more disease prevention/safer highways and vehicles. Yes. glad you are coming along Barry.. Finally...... oh, only if its not your dollar. Bet you just hated that there was a cure for polio, or that a man was sent to the moon, huh?

Skipjack Joe - 6-8-2014 at 02:28 PM

You need to be careful with pulling old textbooks off the shelf like that. Things change too fast. I do the same, with books written in the late 60's - early 70's. One of the greater pleasures of having a child in school is that you need to reread all that information again. It's amazing how much more they're taught. Oh yes, and it's more fun the 2nd time around (for the parent).

David K - 6-8-2014 at 02:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wessongroup
This would appear to be visual evidence ... for some

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands

Rising sea levels destroy World War II graves in Marshall Islands. For many people this scenario is very scary as environmentalists present ever difficult picture of future.

http://nvonews.com/rising-sea-levels-destroy-world-war-ii-gr...

Some may wish to put things on the porch :lol::lol:

this would be an example of human impact on the environment in a global manner negatively and is related to global warming ... human impact has many forms ... radiation included .. along with many other chemical substances

[Edited on 6-8-2014 by wessongroup]


Sea level is a base point because it is fairly consistent within the range of normal tidal change. So the sea level in Del Mar, California and the sea level in the Marshall Islands is the same level.

How is it graves are going underwater in these islands but city streets in Del Mar are still the same height above sea level after the same time period? If the sea level has not raised several feet, then the OBVIOUS conclusion to a scientific mind is the island has dropped in elevation. In fact many Pacific islands are dropping as coral degrades and volcanic soil erodes.

Please think about these things folks before you blindly accept the media's 'science' as being fact. :light:

wessongroup - 6-8-2014 at 02:40 PM

Yep, that subsidence is what it is ... happening in AK too along with the Solomon Island's down in the South Pacific ... there are numerous examples which are NOT related to subsidence ...

Climate-Induced
Displacement of Alaska
Native Communities

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/...

Displacement of the people of the Solomon Islands

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/solomon-sealevel.htm

Additionally the "root" cause is NOT subsidence ... rather increase levels of ocean waters due to "ice melting" ... which is documented and supported by "current" science

thus far, there are three examples of raising sea levels ... in some cases enough to where the population has to be "moved"

All three examples are not related to subsidence, rather Global Warming

Sorry I don't buy the PC term which has developed a political following ... for obvious reasons

rts551 - 6-8-2014 at 02:46 PM

http://www.sdfoundation.org/TSDFProjects/BlaskerRoseMiahforEnvironment/PublishedBlaskerResearch/SeaLevelRiseMaps.aspx


Just why is it that I put more credence in a Scripps Institution of Oceanograph Study and conclusion, than an unemployed drip installer's conclusion. Maybe if you published your study David?

David K - 6-8-2014 at 02:48 PM

Hi Wesson, is it your belief that sea level is not really level and is taller in the middle of the Pacific than along the east side of the Pacific? Is the beautiful bridge over the entrance to Sydney Harbor now blocking ships because of higher sea level in Australia (also on the Pacific Ocean). The Hotel Del Coronado (San Diego) was built on the beach over 100 years ago... IT STILL IS THERE and not in the water!

wessongroup - 6-8-2014 at 02:54 PM

:lol::lol: I find it interesting that folks would dismiss out of hand ... some of the most respected scientific informational sources on health and the environment in the world

Rather than use this information for better planning ... in the future

But, then .... I have seen this happen before ... for about 40 plus years ... so I don't get to excited about anymore

It is fun to talk about ... at least here ya don't get pushed into a subcommittee every time ya bring it up :lol::lol:

Hey Barry, you still believe in medical benefits of "bleeding" ... :):)

David K - 6-8-2014 at 02:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
http://www.sdfoundation.org/TSDFProjects/BlaskerRoseMiahforEnvironment/PublishedBlaskerResearch/SeaLevelRiseMaps.aspx


Just why is it that I put more credence in a Scripps Institution of Oceanograph Study and conclusion, than an unemployed drip installer's conclusion. Maybe if you published your study David?


Obviously facts are less important than insults?

I have not been unemployed for many many years... Been busy every day lately. I (and most other Americans) just did a whole lot more business about 6-7 years ago and wish our current government would preserve, protect and defend the constitution instead of most everything it has been doing.

tripledigitken - 6-8-2014 at 02:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kgryfon
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/kelp_watch_2014_no_ra...

They've tested samples off the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Baja and have found no indication of radiation from ***ushima in any samples. Good news!


As someone who enjoys a seaweed salad occasionally, this is good news.

rts551 - 6-8-2014 at 03:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
http://www.sdfoundation.org/TSDFProjects/BlaskerRoseMiahforEnvironment/PublishedBlaskerResearch/SeaLevelRiseMaps.aspx


Just why is it that I put more credence in a Scripps Institution of Oceanograph Study and conclusion, than an unemployed drip installer's conclusion. Maybe if you published your study David?


Obviously facts are less important than insults?

I have not been unemployed for many many years... Been busy every day lately. I (and most other Americans) just did a whole lot more business about 6-7 years ago and wish our current government would preserve, protect and defend the constitution instead of most everything it has been doing.


Does this mean you are not going to publish your studies?

Oh and I am sorry, I was left with the impression that the current political environment was keeping you from thriving. My bad.

rts551 - 6-8-2014 at 03:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by tripledigitken
Quote:
Originally posted by Kgryfon
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/kelp_watch_2014_no_ra...

They've tested samples off the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Baja and have found no indication of radiation from ***ushima in any samples. Good news!


As someone who enjoys a seaweed salad occasionally, this is good news.


Just think, if there was no testing you wouldn't know any better.
In that case no news might be good news.

wessongroup - 6-8-2014 at 06:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Hi Wesson, is it your belief that sea level is not really level and is taller in the middle of the Pacific than along the east side of the Pacific? Is the beautiful bridge over the entrance to Sydney Harbor now blocking ships because of higher sea level in Australia (also on the Pacific Ocean). The Hotel Del Coronado (San Diego) was built on the beach over 100 years ago... IT STILL IS THERE and not in the water!


Are you rejecting the three examples given ... as non science and untrue ?

Rising sea level:

"The waters are not just threatening to overwhelm their defences, they are eroding roads while the salt makes the land infertile."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27742957

And would say, each location has it's own unique environment which would be effected uniquely ... it's not all the same

[Edited on 6-9-2014 by wessongroup]

A Rising Tide .............

MrBillM - 6-8-2014 at 08:05 PM

Brings the Beach Closer.

WHAT could be wrong with THAT ?

Mexitron - 6-8-2014 at 08:21 PM

With the nightmare scenario of a 300-foot sea rise I'll just have to drive an hour south to Waco for the beach....and looks like a killer, eh, bad choice of words, excellent point break into a huge bay.

Skipjack Joe - 6-8-2014 at 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K

Sea level is a base point because it is fairly consistent within the range of normal tidal change. So the sea level in Del Mar, California and the sea level in the Marshall Islands is the same level.



Not true again, DK.

The sea height in the western pacific, near the phillipines, is higher than the eastern pacific, panama, at the same sea level. That's the normal pattern based upon the Walker circulation model. The situation reversed during an El Nino year. Introductory Oceanography.

mtgoat666 - 6-9-2014 at 08:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
...the sea level in Del Mar, California and the sea level in the Marshall Islands is the same level.


you flat-earthers crack me up!

tripledigitken - 6-9-2014 at 08:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH
BG,

.....
I'd prefer it if the thread went back to ***ushima even though it looks like there is no imminent threat to the western hemisphere from the disaster.


expect insults for that suggestion.

The Canary at the Beach

MrBillM - 6-9-2014 at 07:03 PM

Today saw another Newspaper story detailing the danger faced by Bangladesh from the rising seas.

Which concerned me to the extent that I HOPE the clothing factories where so many of my shirts are produced are not in danger.

BUT, it may not be that big a problem given that a lot are also sewn in India, China, Jordan and Vietnam.

Thankfully.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

MrBillM - 6-10-2014 at 12:18 PM

Were the Devils getting their just deserts.

And, gaining from the experience.

By selling so much stuff to the U.S. afterwards.

Win-Win for all.

Excepting, of course, those turned into crispy critters or consumed by Radiation.

Don't start something that you won't want the other guy to finish.

monoloco - 6-11-2014 at 08:55 AM

***ushima released 168 times more radiation than Hiroshima. There is a massive coverup by TEPCO and the Japanese government of the fact that it's much worse than the official line. Here's a good video about it:

http://youtu.be/AAEvT_UdhNI

Skipjack Joe - 6-11-2014 at 09:02 AM

Doug is constantly pruning this thread. All talk about global warming and obamacare is unwelcome.

rts551 - 6-11-2014 at 09:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Doug is constantly pruning this thread. All talk about global warming and obamacare is unwelcome.


doesn't affect Baja nor does it tow the party line:lol::lol:

wessongroup - 6-11-2014 at 09:57 AM

***ushima is a direct result of the worlds need to find "energy" .... to allow continued "growth" without immediate negative environmental feed back loops ....

And from the video .... it ain't looking to good, at this time or in the near future

Just wait a while on the "kelp" .... :biggrin::biggrin:

[Edited on 6-11-2014 by wessongroup]

Skipjack Joe - 6-11-2014 at 10:41 AM

Speaking of ***uyama and energy needs ..... <grin>

I recently came across this video of an invention by an Idaho couple of paving our roads with solar panels. Somehow they managed to build the solar cells directly into these hard blocks that generate power but can withstand the weight of vehicles.

Probably far down the road (roll eyes) but I can see a distant future like that.

SFandH - 6-11-2014 at 10:46 AM

I think solar roofing shingles are in the future. Improve the current two part system, a roof with solar panels on top, and just make the roof itself out of photovoltaic materials. Every building generates electricity and feeds it into the grid.

This is a step in that direction:

http://www.dowpowerhouse.com/

[Edited on 6-11-2014 by SFandH]

Mexitron - 6-11-2014 at 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Speaking of ***uyama and energy needs ..... <grin>

I recently came across this video of an invention by an Idaho couple of paving our roads with solar panels. Somehow they managed to build the solar cells directly into these hard blocks that generate power but can withstand the weight of vehicles.

Probably far down the road (roll eyes) but I can see a distant future like that.


I've seen that video, what an awesome concept---talk about revolutionizing our labor force and reducing the dependence on oil and more ***ushima type power sources (;D )

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways

Mexitron - 6-11-2014 at 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SFandH
I think solar roofing shingles are in the future. Improve the current two part system, a roof with solar panels on top, and just make the roof itself out of photovoltaic materials. Every building generates electricity and feeds it into the grid.

This is a step in that direction:

http://www.dowpowerhouse.com/

[Edited on 6-11-2014 by SFandH]


Yes!

Sweetwater - 6-13-2014 at 08:48 AM

At least there is real research and current information regarding the radiation in the ocean.....and the blowhard seems to have abandoned his trail of denial.....It sure is interesting to be a test subject isn't it.....
Quote:

Radiation levels in Albacore tuna have tripled post-***ushima, according to Oregon State University (OSU) researchers. The scientists came to that conclusion after conducting a study on fish caught off the coast of Oregon. According to Delvin Neville, a graduate research assistant at OSU, these trace levels are too small to be a realistic concern. "A year of eating albacore with these cesium traces is about the same dose of radiation as you get from spending 23 seconds in a stuffy basement from radon gas, or sleeping next to your spouse for 40 nights from the natural potassium-40 in their body," said Mr. Neville. However, researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences say the worst is yet to come and that the most highly radioactive water hasn't reached US shores yet. Regardless, all scientists apparently agree that the radioactive contamination is still traveling in ocean currents, the long-term effects of which remain to be seen.

The Bottom Line is ...................

MrBillM - 6-15-2014 at 04:15 PM

That ***-U was an extraordinary event AND the result (according to OSU) to the Fishes (+ us) was Negligible.

Life is GOOD.

Sweetwater - 6-15-2014 at 06:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
That ***-U was an extraordinary event AND the result (according to OSU) to the Fishes (+ us) was Negligible.

Life is GOOD.


Are you insisting to be as ignorant as the DK?

It ain't over till it's over.....and it's a long way from over.....

It's a LONG Ways until it's OVER ?

MrBillM - 6-15-2014 at 07:43 PM

I certainly HOPE so.

We just bought a New Travel Trailer and plan on getting some use out of it.

Before the Radioactive Fish kill us all ?

Fortunately, that's not a BIG part of my diet.

It's a good thing that the Cows and Pigs aren't getting a Dose from the ***u.

THAT would be a concern.

Life IS Good !

redhilltown - 6-19-2014 at 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
I certainly HOPE so.

We just bought a New Travel Trailer and plan on getting some use out of it.

Before the Radioactive Fish kill us all ?

Fortunately, that's not a BIG part of my diet.

It's a good thing that the Cows and Pigs aren't getting a Dose from the ***u.

THAT would be a concern.

Life IS Good !



Yeah...Thank GOD that cows and pigs are free from disease and other nasty imperfections that may plague fish. Antibiotics, hormones, factories, crap ponds that burst and send rivers of...well, crap into nearby streams. Thank GOD all is good.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/344807/livestock-f...

chuckie - 6-20-2014 at 04:03 AM

Stop eating...

Dead Cows STILL taste Good

MrBillM - 6-20-2014 at 08:36 PM

Including the Hot Dog this a.m.

AND the Steak tonight.

People eating them are living long lives.

YES, Life as a Carnivore IS GOOD.

motoged - 6-22-2014 at 12:15 PM

Mr. Bile,
Your avatar suggests a person hiding behind a fence.

Is that you?:?:

P.S. Yes, I know all about the "Kilroy was here" bit...

[Edited on 6-22-2014 by motoged]

No Need to Hide

MrBillM - 6-22-2014 at 02:06 PM

I'm prepared for whatever comes my way.

Locked and Loaded, as they say.

wessongroup - 6-22-2014 at 02:15 PM

Gotta tells us how that works on radiation ... :biggrin::biggrin:

David K - 6-22-2014 at 02:30 PM

My happy sun avatar must really concern some. After all more radiation comes from it than any of the made up stuff that will not harm anyone. I am sitting by the pool right now soaking up the deadly rays of sunshine.

wessongroup - 6-22-2014 at 02:42 PM

Watch out for skin cancer ..

IF you're worried about Radiation ..............

MrBillM - 6-22-2014 at 08:09 PM

You've got too much time on your hands.

SOMETHING ELSE is going to kill you before THAT does.

Bet the Farm.

Mayday, mayday, mayday!

mtgoat666 - 6-23-2014 at 03:20 PM

What's your carbon footprint?

Last Month Was The Hottest May In Recorded History

This past May was a scorcher. According to a new report, it was the hottest May in recorded history.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday that combined average May temperatures on land and sea surfaces were at 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average of 58.6 degrees. "Four of the five warmest Mays on record have occurred in the past five years," the NOAA also wrote in its report. The previous hottest May on record was in 2010.

The warmest regions last month were reportedly eastern Kazakhstan, central and northwestern Australia and parts of Indonesia, according to The Washington Post.

Scientists believe the higher temperatures are likely a sign of an impending El Niño, a periodic warming of Pacific Ocean waters which brings heavy rainfall but could also be beneficial to parts of the globe experiencing droughts. The Climate Prediction Center says there is a 70 percent chance of El Niño returning this summer, increasing to an 80 percent chance by fall. The last major El Niño occurred in 1997, resulting in billions of dollars of damage around the world.

Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who's been monitoring sea levels, told Science magazine a forthcoming El Niño later this year could likely rival the one in '97. “I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this before,” he said.

Barry A. - 6-23-2014 at 03:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
My happy sun avatar must really concern some. After all more radiation comes from it than any of the made up stuff that will not harm anyone. I am sitting by the pool right now soaking up the deadly rays of sunshine.


I grew up on a CA beach-----lived there for 30 years. Flew airplanes exposed to the sun for several other years. My job as a Ranger was mostly outside, tho I did wear a smoky-B hat much of the time.

In the last 25 years (I am 76) I have had 20 actual surgeries for skin cancer removal----3 melanomas, and numerous Squamous and Basal Cell Carcinoma. I am fair-haired, blue eyed, and light-skinned which doesn't help. In addition, I have had literally dozens and dozens of thingy's frozen off my skin.

The "SUN" is nothing to fool around with.

Barry

wessongroup - 6-23-2014 at 03:43 PM

Dittos ... Barry

[Edited on 6-23-2014 by wessongroup]

Skipjack Joe - 6-23-2014 at 05:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
My happy sun avatar must really concern some. After all more radiation comes from it than any of the made up stuff that will not harm anyone. I am sitting by the pool right now soaking up the deadly rays of sunshine.


I grew up on a CA beach-----lived there for 30 years. Flew airplanes exposed to the sun for several other years. My job as a Ranger was mostly outside, tho I did wear a smoky-B hat much of the time.

In the last 25 years (I am 76) I have had 20 actual surgeries for skin cancer removal----3 melanomas, and numerous Squamous and Basal Cell Carcinoma. I am fair-haired, blue eyed, and light-skinned which doesn't help. In addition, I have had literally dozens and dozens of thingy's frozen off my skin.

The "SUN" is nothing to fool around with.

Barry


Well son of a gun, they don't agree on everything after all.

Barry A. - 6-23-2014 at 08:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
My happy sun avatar must really concern some. After all more radiation comes from it than any of the made up stuff that will not harm anyone. I am sitting by the pool right now soaking up the deadly rays of sunshine.


I grew up on a CA beach-----lived there for 30 years. Flew airplanes exposed to the sun for several other years. My job as a Ranger was mostly outside, tho I did wear a smoky-B hat much of the time.

In the last 25 years (I am 76) I have had 20 actual surgeries for skin cancer removal----3 melanomas, and numerous Squamous and Basal Cell Carcinoma. I am fair-haired, blue eyed, and light-skinned which doesn't help. In addition, I have had literally dozens and dozens of thingy's frozen off my skin.

The "SUN" is nothing to fool around with.

Barry


Well son of a gun, they don't agree on everything after all.


Yes, very rare indeed. The wisdom of age & personal experience, in this case. :lol:

Barry
 Pages:  1  2