BajaNomad - UPDATED: Saltwater intrusion on east coast (link)

UPDATED: Saltwater intrusion on east coast (link)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

David K - 9-29-2015 at 10:01 AM

CO2 is a natural gas and created in greater quantity by nature than man could ever dream of creating. It bubbles up out of the ocean, and the earth is mostly ocean. Now, that is just what I knew from living and listening. However, you like to read it for yourself, I will search the question online...

OK, here is what comes up from these sources:
US Geological Survey
Oregon State University, Oceanography department
National Geographic Explorer
Volcanoes National Park >>>

Carbon dioxide is a common gas that comes from primarily natural sources, when a carbon atom combines with an oxygen molecule. It makes up a small, but important part of our atmosphere, which is primarily nitrogen and oxygen. Though only a small amount of the atmosphere is made of CO2, this is still a huge amount in weight and volume. It is reasonable to wonder what the major sources are.

The greatest amount of carbon dioxide is locked up in plants, rocks, and the oceans. It should not be surprising that these each contribute more CO2 emissions than any other sources.

The people who firmly believe that man is the biggest culprit may not take it happily, but the biggest source of CO2 emissions is volcanic eruptions. There is a huge amount of carbon dioxide locked up in rocks. As the rocks melt, they give up the gas, and this is expelled during the eruption. Often, the larger the eruption, the more carbon dioxide is released along with other gases, such as hydrogen sulfide.

At any given time, according to agencies such as the USGS, there are about 13-17 volcanoes erupting somewhere on Earth. This means that yearly, volcanoes spew out hundreds or even thousands of times more carbon dioxide than man is capable of producing, even if he tried. Man is actually an insignificant producer of CO2, though he is prideful enough to think he is a major player.

Thankfully, ocean water has a great propensity for absorbing this gas, and as ice melts, as it has done for the past 11,000 years, it means that the oceans can take in a great deal more CO2. Many of the volcanoes occur in the ocean, so it has a good chance to absorb a lot of this gas. Above the surface, though, the gas is vented into the atmosphere.

Next in line for emissions is the decomposition of plant life. This can be in the form of natural death and decay, forest fire, or even use and consumption. Plants contain a great deal of carbon dioxide and carbon. These are released as the plant dies and decomposes. (Oregon State agricultural extension service, Albany, Oregon)

According to Steve (last name withheld on request), retired thermal imaging specialist, the amount of CO2 released is staggering. One major forest fire can release nearly as much carbon dioxide as a moderate volcanic eruption. That is enormous compared to other sources of emissions, excluding volcanic eruption. (US Forest Service; western fire suppression center, Boise, ID)

The next biggest emitter of carbon dioxide is probably the ocean. It absorbs a great deal of the gas, however, the colder it is, the more it can hold. The bottom of the ocean contains water that is below the freezing point, but salinity and pressure prevent it from freezing. Contained CO2 tends to stay there for a long time.

However, in some places, like the Gulf of Mexico and in the Caribbean, surface waters get relatively hot, releasing carbon dioxide in the process. Colder polar waters offset this, because the gas is absorbed again, however this is still a major source of emissions.

A person may wonder where man and other animals fit into all of this. After all, animals breathe in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide. Their bodies also contain CO2 and carbon, which is released when they die and decompose. Man also burns fossil fuels, which does release CO2 as a byproduct. However, animals including man don’t produce nearly as much carbon dioxide as the major producers with the possible exception of the death and decomposition of animals.

Note that exact figures for the amount of CO2 released through the use of fossil fuels, is hard to come by. The figures tend to range from high to low, depending on sources, though not approaching that produced by volcanic eruption, by comparing the numbers to those given by the USGS and volcano researchers. The latter figures are available from the USGS website, and through the US national park system.

The largest emitters of carbon dioxide are volcanic eruptions, forest and wild fires, and natural decomposition of plants and animals. This is a good thing, since there is a relatively stable and finite amount of both oxygen and carbon on this planet. If it weren’t for carbon dioxide, the earth could well be a frozen ball in space, and life, as we know it, would probably not be able to survive.

Sources:

US Geological Survey
Oregon State University, Oceanography department
National Geographic Explorer
Volcanoes National Park

Link: http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/news-channels/global/the-m...

Sweetwater - 9-29-2015 at 10:20 AM

Once again, DK throws up pseudoscience in the face of reality. That article is "based" and interpreted to attempt to answer back for the real science of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.....CO2, which is fostering human caused climate change. Keep on keepin' on with the denial. The truth, however, will set you free.....sure, volcanoes do cause a spike in those emissions which might have an impact when they're active but they are not part of this problem and not part of any solution......just obfuscation....reminds me of the "Family Caucus" which is Tea Party sponsored.....by two of the richest brothers in the world....who have that agenda....

For the foreseeable future, fossil energy will remain the backbone of the world’s energy system, given their present dominance. Furthermore, the worlds reliance on fossil energy brings about an associated problem, namely the emissions connected to the combustion of these fossil fuels. In fact, energy production is also the dominating source of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide. In 2008, nearly 30 billion tons of CO2 were emitted due to fossil fuel consumption (IEA, 2010). Around 57% of all global anthropogenic GHGs derive from fossil fuel combustion, with energy supply as the largest contributing sector (Fig. 2). Anthropogenic global warming and climate change caused by GHG emissions exhibits a strong and fundamental link to fossil energy production and shapes how it will develop over the coming decades. Consequently, examining likely and possible trajectories of the future energy use and production are vital for understanding future climate change based on GHG emissions from human activities.

Lots of real data and science is available for those who really want knowledge of the truth: http://www.intechopen.com/books/climate-change-research-and-...

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by BajaNomad]

SFandH - 9-29-2015 at 10:42 AM

People can swap essays that support their opinions
until the cows come home.

You can find something to support whatever your position is.

For me, I'll go along with what the major scientific associations
are stating.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

My previous posts were to straighten out some statements
made that I thought to be erroneous.

bajacamper - 9-29-2015 at 10:42 AM

Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper

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

Still no one wants to comment on long range predictions as opposed to shorter versions??

SFandH - 9-29-2015 at 10:57 AM

Limbaugh's comment doesn't make any sense.

There is nothing disastrous to predict in the short term,
1, 2, or 5 years, that is related to climate change.

It's a relatively slow, long term process.

[Edited on 9-29-2015 by SFandH]

ncampion - 9-29-2015 at 01:15 PM

Gee, I just hate to prolong the agony of this thread, but if you're going to attack someone's post at least get your own facts straight. The pretty pie chart showing the sources of CO2 production FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES. That has nothing to do with the posters article which compared CO2 production from ALL sources, both man made and natural. Show me that pretty pie chart please.

Quote: Originally posted by Sweetwater

Once again, DK throws up pseudoscience in the face of reality.

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by BajaNomad]

bajacamper - 9-29-2015 at 02:02 PM

Of course any other views but yours are dangerous indeed, but thanks for the insightful thoughts anyway.

Lee - 9-29-2015 at 02:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Whale-ista

NASA's researchers emphasized that sea level is rising, rapidly and unavoidably, for all three reasons. "It's already happening right now," says UC Irvine and JPL glaciologist Eric Rignot. "This isn't some futuristic scenario." The findings are based on data from three satellite missions conducted since 1992.

www.scpr.org/news/2015/08/26/53992/sea-level-rise-unavoidabl...

[Edited on 9-16-2015 by Whale-ista]

If I can reach Prof. Rignot by phone, I"ll report back expanding on his comments.

dtbushpilot - 9-29-2015 at 02:26 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

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

From the original post:

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

emphasis added.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the lower sea levels on the west coast as a problem? Are we just going to stand by and watch sea levels drop to dangerous levels? Something has to be done about this....perhaps there isn't enough fossil fuels being burned in California. Maybe a pumping station and pipeline from somewhere where the sea levels are rising to the west coast could eliminate the discrepancy. Maybe there are some carbon tax dollars available for the project?

bajabuddha - 9-29-2015 at 02:46 PM

"On his radio show Monday, Rush Limbaugh dismissed NASA’s announcement, saying the agency was falsifying data and promoting claims about climate change. “There’s so much fraud,” he said. “What's to stop them from making up something that happened on Mars that will help advance their left-wing agenda on this planet?” An image for the segment on Limbaugh’s website depicts the face of former Vice President Al Gore superimposed over that of aliens from the 1996 film Mars Attacks!."

.....taken from an article on msn just now. I won't even dignify the web addy. It's so blatantly a perfect fit for this thread, my sides hurt from laughing... sometimes the absurd is hysterical.
:bounce:

motoged - 9-29-2015 at 03:19 PM

Ya know....I just can't get any sleep now that I know that the salty water identified on Mars recently will be "liberal/socialist" water.

And that means I will have to share it when I go to Mars......????

Those damned scientists are screwing all this up..... :rolleyes:

Zola - 9-29-2015 at 03:26 PM

There are only three points to be made, no others.

First, the climate-change deniers are doing the dirty work of the petroleum and coal industries, just like the NRA does the work of the arms merchants, and just like the pro-tobacco crowd did the work of the tobacco merchants until the crushing evidence made it impossible to challenge any longer. But most climate-change deniers aren't paid a dime for their immoral lobbying. They are doing it because they think climate-change is a liberal cause, and they hate liberals more than they care about the truth or the well-being of their own grandchildren.

Second, climate-change isn't a liberal cause, but rather is a manmade phenomenon that will likely render the planet uninhabitable for most or all mammals alive, including us. Liberals and conservatives and everyone else must learn to use energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide, and fast. Either we can switch over almost entirely to renewables and nuclear, or lean how to burn fossil fuels in a clean manner, if that is possible. Realistically, people will not stop using energy, and so we must now begin a massive switch to clean energy.

Third, stop debating with these people. They merely want to draw the world into a "debate" so that they can say that the matter remains unresolved and open to doubt. Well, the matter has been resolved. The only issue is what can we do to mitigate and adapt to man-made climate change.

SFandH - 9-29-2015 at 03:37 PM

Thanks Zola. Absolutely!

I don't think anybody that matters (top policy makers) denies anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

Even among the general population, those that do are in the minority.

As you say: "The only issue is what can we do to mitigate and adapt to man-made climate change."

[Edited on 9-29-2015 by SFandH]

SFandH - 9-29-2015 at 03:52 PM

Stop that argument. It's silly.

The fact that the climate changed before naturally has nothing to do
with what is happening now. Nothing.

What you're saying is like saying people can't cause forest fires
because they happened naturally in the past.

Ridiculous.

[Edited on 9-29-2015 by SFandH]

Skipjack Joe - 9-29-2015 at 04:13 PM

Quote: Originally posted by ncampion

Gee, I just hate to prolong the agony of this thread, but if you're going to attack someone's post at least get your own facts straight. The pretty pie chart showing the sources of CO2 production FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES. That has nothing to do with the posters article which compared CO2 production from ALL sources, both man made and natural. Show me that pretty pie chart please.

Quote: Originally posted by Sweetwater

Once again, DK throws up pseudoscience in the face of reality.

The 'NON ANTHROPOGENIC' sources have not changed in the last 200 years. The Co2 buildup started during the Industrial Age and has increased greatly recently. If you're going to quote other sources of Co2 generation you need to correlate it with events as they are occurring. Merely stating that they exist is meaningless.

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by BajaNomad]

bajacamper - 9-29-2015 at 04:38 PM

OK, please tell me how we clean up India, China, and closer to home, Mexico? Hmmmmm.

Lee - 9-29-2015 at 04:44 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

For me, the reason for my passion on this it is the taking away of our freedoms by a few special interest liberal groups who think they should control our lives.

Bi-partisan and divisive, us vs. them nonsense.

Yes you lost some freedom after 9/11 but doubt you can name freedoms you've personally lost.

There's an idea. Few liberal groups wanting to control the lives…. of ALL Americans?

Looking suspiciously like a conspiracy theory, eh?

Let's focus on the earth and not conservative wallets?

SFandH - 9-29-2015 at 05:10 PM

All the major scientific organizations disagree. Why do you think that is?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Sweetwater - 9-29-2015 at 06:13 PM

You stepped right into it again. I wonder if stupid conservatives know the difference between science and their small minded beliefs about big government taking away their rights.....to be stupid.....

Quote:

The current episode of global warming is attributed primarily to increasing industrial CO2 emissions into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm to 400 ppm as of 2015.[4] The present concentration is the highest in the past 800,000 years[5] and likely the highest in the past 20 million years.[6] The increase has been caused by anthropogenic sources, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[7]

And the references:

Quote:

4.Amos, Jonathan (2006-09-04). "Deep ice tells long climate story". BBC News.
5. Retrieved 2010-04-28. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Etheridge, D. M.; L. P. Steele; R. L. Langenfelds; R. J. Francey; J.-M. Barnola; V. I. Morgan (1996).
6."Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn".
7. Journal of Geophysical Research 101 (D2): 4115–4128. Bibcode:1996JGR...101.4115E. doi:10.1029/95JD03410. ISSN 0148-0227.

You are rebuttheaded.....again.....

Quote: Originally posted by David K

The graph clearly is called "Anthropogenic" emissions... as ncampion said, it is meaningless as a rebuttal to what I posted!

I wonder if liberals use big words to confuse the masses?

Here is what anthropogenic means:

adjective
1.
caused or produced by humans:
anthropogenic air pollution.

=======================================================

So the graph is meant to scare the dollars right out of your pocket and put leftists into office... because 100% of the CO2 on that graph is only a SMALL % of the source of CO2 on the planet.

The key paragraphs from the article above the misleading pie graph, if you didn't read them:

The people who firmly believe that man is the biggest culprit may not take it happily, but the biggest source of CO2 emissions is volcanic eruptions. There is a huge amount of carbon dioxide locked up in rocks. As the rocks melt, they give up the gas, and this is expelled during the eruption. Often, the larger the eruption, the more carbon dioxide is released along with other gases, such as hydrogen sulfide.

The next biggest emitter of carbon dioxide is probably the ocean. It absorbs a great deal of the gas, however, the colder it is, the more it can hold. The bottom of the ocean contains water that is below the freezing point, but salinity and pressure prevent it from freezing. Contained CO2 tends to stay there for a long time.

However, in some places, like the Gulf of Mexico and in the Caribbean, surface waters get relatively hot, releasing carbon dioxide in the process. Colder polar waters offset this, because the gas is absorbed again, however this is still a major source of emissions.

A person may wonder where man and other animals fit into all of this. After all, animals breathe in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide. Their bodies also contain CO2 and carbon, which is released when they die and decompose. Man also burns fossil fuels, which does release CO2 as a byproduct. However, animals including man don’t produce nearly as much carbon dioxide as the major producers with the possible exception of the death and decomposition of animals.

Man is actually an insignificant producer of CO2, though he is prideful enough to think he is a major player.

mtgoat666 - 9-29-2015 at 07:10 PM

Quote:

*****

The only right or "freedom" anyone is talking about limiting is people's mistaken notion they have some kind of right to pollute! Why do polluters always think they have a right right to pollute?

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by BajaNomad]

LancairDriver - 9-29-2015 at 07:53 PM

I'VE CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT GLOBAL MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE.........

The Washington Post

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922,as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90 years ago.
WHOOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wessongroup - 9-29-2015 at 08:58 PM

"Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England has warned that climate change will lead to financial crises and falling living standards unless the world’s leading countries do more to ensure that their companies come clean about their current and future carbon emissions."

Bankers are typically adversed to "risks" and are in most cases conservative in their political thought

Additionally Banks started looking at "sustainability" well over 30 years ago ... along with major industries ... which included the Chemical Industry ... along with many others

And the movement towards "sustainability" was based on Science coupled with Economics, at the hip

As someone has already stated ... We won't be around to see "IT" ... Good luck to those who are

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by wessongroup]

The GOOD News IS ............................

MrBillM - 9-29-2015 at 09:27 PM

That there is NOTHING said here by the Liberal Druids which will have ANY (statistically significant) impact on the Climate question.

That said, it "may" be that the Web does have some positive impact on the warming issue.

In that the "typed" drivel avoids a degree of Hot Air expended when said Doomsday prophecies are voiced.

Over and over and over again ad nauseam.

There should be a scientific study done to explore the possibility.

Since mostly ALL scientists are said to be in agreement on the "Tide is Rising, Sky is Falling, Earth is Dying", there's no point in them continuing their studies so the "Blowhard" question would give them something to do.

In the meantime................"Don't Worry, Be Happy", hoist a Heineken, Steinlager or some other inferior brew and as *Confu-cius (or Charlie Chan ?) said............"When inevitable, Enjoy".

Content in the knowledge that we'll all be Dead when (if) things REALLY go Bad.

*The PC censor must have a thing about Chinamen.

With "f-u-c" in their names, anyway.

David K - 9-29-2015 at 11:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by LancairDriver

I'VE CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT GLOBAL MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE.........

The Washington Post

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922,as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90 years ago.
WHOOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perfect... Thanks for the look back almost 100 years of "Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable."

wessongroup - 9-30-2015 at 05:35 AM

Appears the early work, was just off by 90 or so years ...

Who's perfect ... :biggrin:

Not bad considering what they were working with 100 years ago ... and the mind set which was also present at that time

Hell, they were still riding horses at that time

nothing against horses ... had one ... moved on to an Indian .. motorcycle that is :lol:

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by wessongroup]

Mexitron - 9-30-2015 at 05:46 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

David, you're original source quoted the US Geological Survey as part of the article having said that volcanoes produce more CO2 than anthropomorphic sources. Here is what the USGS has to say about this (from THEIR website):

"Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011)."

Source link: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

DaliDali - 9-30-2015 at 06:00 AM

Baja Nomad climate change experts........

What are your proposals to slow or put a stop to this global phenom.

Be reasonable....one cannot just shut down all manner of carbon emissions, as that would reek havoc worldwide.

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by DaliDali]

SFandH - 9-30-2015 at 06:23 AM

World leaders are making agreements to combat global warming by reducing atmospheric CO2 emissions.

United States and China:

"Last week, during Xi Jingping’s visit to Washington D.C., President’s Obama and Xi issued a joint statement on climate change. This follows the announcement by both presidents during Obama’s visit to Beijing in November 2014 that the U.S. would cut its emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and that China would peak it carbon pollution by 2030."

An analysis of the agreements, published yesterday:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/09/29...

The European Union:

"The European Commission has set out the EU's vision for a new agreement that will, through collective commitments based on scientific evidence, put the world on track to reduce global emissions by at least 60% below 2010 levels by 2050."

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiation...

Worldwide:

"Nations are working toward a new global climate change agreement later this year in Paris. These negotiations offer governments a critical opportunity to craft a broad, balanced and durable agreement strengthening the international climate effort."

http://www.c2es.org/international/2015-agreement

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by SFandH]

DaliDali - 9-30-2015 at 07:21 AM

In California, a lot of the cap and trade income is used to finance the controversial Central valley bullet train, fund affordable housing and mitigate drought concerns.
I am not quite sure how that slows global warming?

And the cap and trade has been described as a "Christmas tree for more spending"
Based on bullet trains, housing and the drought, some of that may be accurate.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-state-budget...

bezzell - 9-30-2015 at 07:23 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

When you make man greater than God (or Nature), that makes it an argument.

oh jesus f'g christ! this level of ignorance is displayed and y'all still try to educate this clown.
c'mon people. there's way more important fish to fry.
let it go

David K - 9-30-2015 at 08:49 AM

Thanks Mexitron for posting a counter argument that look intelligent and without name calling that usually is added by man caused arguers.

How can a volcanic eruption be anything but a most powerful carbon releasing event? The other side of the volcano coin is the tonnage of debris put into the atmosphere, which actually cools the earth. I recall the volcano "Pinatubo" (sp?) in the Philippines that was so "dirty" the earth's temperature dropped enough to cause measurable global temperature drop.

I still think the earth is in control, and man is a natural part of the earth. We can do some bad stuff, but either we or Nature cleans it up pretty well.

DianaT - 9-30-2015 at 09:17 AM

Quote: Originally posted by LancairDriver

One really should do further research on this article. Yes, this appeared in 1922, but the line,

Quote:

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

was added when it became a mass e-mail sometime around 2009.

The article was based on a study done in Norway in one small area where they had an exceptionally warm spell. And it was ONLY about that one small area and sensationalized by the news media. It has nothing to do with the current studies.

DK --- why do you never answer a couple of questions. How are our freedoms being taken away and why would scientists worldwide join in a conspiracy to take away freedoms?

I will say that I agree with one thing DK --- nature will clean up the mess after we have polluted ourselves to extinction and there is no longer the destructive footprint left by 7 billion people.

bajacamper - 9-30-2015 at 09:49 AM

Quote: Originally posted by DaliDali

Baja Nomad climate change experts........

What are your proposals to slow or put a stop to this global phenom.

Be reasonable....one cannot just shut down all manner of carbon emissions, as that would reek havoc worldwide.

First off thank you Mr Bill. To your question Dali, I think we would solve many problems if we could just stop all those cows from farting. I know, unreasonable.

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by DaliDali]

bajacamper - 9-30-2015 at 12:17 PM

Even the absurd makes perfect sense to some.

bajacamper - 9-30-2015 at 12:24 PM

If you ever get to San Ysidro CA on a warm day, stroll down towards the fence and look South. Now turn 180 degrees and look North. You may notice the big difference in air quality. We ain't perfect, but we are doing a hell of a lot more than most regarding breathing. Bout as scientific as any of the rest of the observations.

rts551 - 9-30-2015 at 02:13 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajacamper

Even the absurd makes perfect sense to some.

Couple of months ago David said that the salt flats were filling with water between Punta Abreojos and Bahia Asuncion because the ground was sinking. Maybe that is why his palm trees appear not to move. The beach on the gulf side of the peninsula is rising! :lol:

wessongroup - 9-30-2015 at 02:57 PM

Speaking of air quality and man made pollutants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog#Natural_causes

Lee - 9-30-2015 at 03:45 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bezzell

Quote: Originally posted by David K

When you make man greater than God (or Nature), that makes it an argument.

oh jesus f'g christ! this level of ignorance is displayed and y'all still try to educate this clown.
c'mon people. there's way more important fish to fry.
let it go

David might be a clown, but he's OUR clown. Try to control yourself.

In fact, if David's a clown, so am I. And, if you would, leave JC out of this?

rts551 - 9-30-2015 at 04:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by David K

I do try and answer all questions... but when they are buried deep in the doo doo in this thread, I may miss them.

Freedoms lost due to big (liberal) government:

Your money... you will have less so you can't do as much as you wish or help your family as you should, government takes that freedom from you with unreasonable taxes to fund insane projects, like the hoax of man-caused climate change.

Your mobility... you will be restricted on how to drive or operate your vehicle from either closing once open public areas, or needing permits to travel (ala Soviet Union), or taxes causing fuel to be too high to afford traveling.

Your personal relaxation needs... that may include a gasoline powered device... gardening, fishing, going to museums, four wheeling... and the liberals want to control your movement by adding taxes so much as to prevent you from buying gasoline to do any of these things.

Eating... liberals want you to stop eating animals and especially beef cattle as they repeatedly point to the amount of methane produced by cattle as being a greenhouse gas that must be reduced.

====================================================

Ralph: If the sea level has not risen more than 3" (per gov't scientists) since you first saw a normally dry salt flat... but now it is always wet, then the logical deduction is that region is dropping in elevation, and that is a normal event from plate tectonics and not evil corporations or under-taxed Americans.

On the gulf side of Baja, the salt flats I have been on for over 35 years that were mostly dry, are STILL mostly dry... The bar at Alfonsina's is still just above sea level, as it was many years ago, and those palm trees are still just above the typical high tide line.

Now maybe, just maybe, all of Baja is tilting with the Pacific side getting lower and the gulf side getting higher (but the gulf level looks identical because the sea level is rising to offset the land rise??? !!!

The only problem with that is San Diego is attached to the same coast as Abreojos, and my home on the beach when I was a kid is still just as high above the sea as it was in 1957... The salt pans around Scammon's Lagoon would be underwater always instead of only when water is pumped into them... etc.

You do realize that it was those very taxes that enabled you to collect welfare, that allows you to have roads and highways, that allows you to have flood control, police, fire protection, and on, and on.

The Peninsula is twisting..while it is sinking.....now that is a new one. Talk about doom and gloom. We have now left the absurd behind and are in the realm of plain obnoxious.

bezzell - 9-30-2015 at 04:13 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Lee

And, if you would, leave JC out of this?

you're so blind you can't see that in fact, JC IS a large part of the problem!?
you know, magical sky wizards that are really in control, and such phewey!

holy crap

don't worry. I'll take my own advice from here on out!

NEXT

David K - 9-30-2015 at 04:15 PM

I said "unreasonable" taxes Ralph... and my twisting comment was to answer your puzzled reaction to what geologist have known for years.
Do try to read all of what I say if you are going to continue to criticize everything I post on Nomad that doesn't agree with you.

rts551 - 9-30-2015 at 04:22 PM

Yo
u are now starting to make things up. The plates might be sinking but they are not twisting..... And don't be so obnoxious to say that the only good tax is one you directly benefit from.

[img]

[/img]

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by rts551]

Sweetwater - 9-30-2015 at 04:48 PM

Interesting which industries are changing their tunes....

"Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to rising greenhouse gases"
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

"Total is consolidating its efforts to address climate change by supporting three international initiatives backed by the Global Compact, the World Bank and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition"
http://www.total.com/en/media/news/...es-combat-climate-chan...

"We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate. "

http://www.conocophillips.com/susta...rinciples/positions/Pa...

Happening now: King tides and saltwater intrusion=infrastructure underwater

Whale-ista - 9-30-2015 at 04:52 PM

Put this in first post, likely not read by others so... I'll try again here

This week, many residents of the U.S. East Coast communities are witnessing flood waters rise with each high tide. These people are getting a taste of the future. Almost like being picked to try out some futuristic device for a few days — only this is messy, costly, and, if you realize it’s a taste of things to come, unnerving. Unwilling pioneers, in a way, these people are living on the front line of sea level rise and experiencing the periodic soaking that others don’t yet know, but will.

It started in some places on Saturday – salt water creeping onto roads and sidewalks, into basements and businesses. It continued under the supermoon eclipse. And over the last several days, we’ve had repeated demonstrations of the new reach of the tide – and we should expect it in places for several days to come.

Yes, this is a “king tide” – one of those instances when the moon exerts a slightly stronger tug on the tides than normal. It happens several times each year. This one even has a cool astronomical twist that you can read about here. But in certain affected places it is some of the biggest tidal flooding in memory. We should get used to it, says the latest science. With sea level rise, the highest tides are only getting higher, and the flooding they bring is only getting more frequent.

http://blog.ucsusa.org/sea-level-rise-and-the-march-of-king-...

[Edited on 9-30-2015 by Whale-ista]

rts551 - 9-30-2015 at 05:48 PM

As we pump more and more water, combined with high tides (or sinking peninsulas) salt water intrusion is going to become a significant issue for coastal communities...unfortunately most of these communities are already facing water shortages.

Pages: 1 2 3 4