BajaNomad - Vanishing Baja, literally

Vanishing Baja, literally

memo - 6-24-2008 at 10:54 AM

As published in USA Today, NASA scientist James Hansen told congress this week the world has about ten years to go before global warming causes a dramatic rising of sea levels. The Baja peninsula would be hard hit by this development and coastal cities like Cabo San Lucas, Ensenada and La Paz could be wiped out. What is today arid desert could be beach front property by 2020. Is it time to start buying inland properties and unloading the overpriced beach condos? .

[Edited on 6-24-2008 by memo]

Gadget - 6-24-2008 at 11:22 AM

Since you are posting comments from Hansen who is referred to as the godfather of global warming, perhaps you would like to read info from the opposite side of the idea.

Here is a link to John Colemans thoughts on the subject. He is the founder of the weather channel.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/13681217.html

ELINVESTIG8R - 6-24-2008 at 11:37 AM

According to the Godfather of Global Warming NASA Scientist James Hansen my brother Sany who owns Rancho El Metate in San Juan De Dios will be rich when that happens. He can call it Playa San Juan de Dios en El Metate. I better tell him never to sell his land out there.

NOTE: I did not start this thread!

[Edited on 6-25-2008 by ELINVESTI8]

comitan - 6-24-2008 at 11:43 AM

Everyone has an Agenda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Money?)

Gadget - 6-24-2008 at 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by comitan
Everyone has an Agenda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Money?)

Yup, on both sides, how do we fix that?

mtgoat666 - 6-24-2008 at 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gadget
Since you are posting comments from Hansen who is referred to as the godfather of global warming, perhaps you would like to read info from the opposite side of the idea.

Here is a link to John Colemans thoughts on the subject. He is the founder of the weather channel.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/13681217.html

John Coleman is an authority. :lol:

Ha, ha, you be one funny dude. :lol:

(God save us if you were serious)

Pescador - 6-24-2008 at 11:51 AM

Many of us feel that the whole global warming issue is a political issue
based more on ones political view of the world than on hard scientific data which should be open minded and non-prejudicial. Here is another view:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Cypress - 6-24-2008 at 12:19 PM

Pescador, WOW! This "Global Warming" issue, while something to ponder, just might well be the "Flavor of the Month" of the "Chicken Little" crowd.

Is the sky actually falling? :biggrin:

Thanks! Have you been catching any fish? Dumb question, had to ask. :biggrin:

Gadget - 6-24-2008 at 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

John Coleman is an authority. :lol:

Ha, ha, you be one funny dude. :lol:

(God save us if you were serious)

MT,
and Hansen is, or algore is? They are just men like you and me who have opinions. None of these guys are my god. Are they yours? And like the other posts here of others opinions, there is much more to this than any actual facts, scientific or otherwise. MY OPINION is it is all money and politically motivated.

Will you plan on commenting on those other posts, or just mine?

No need to ask for divine intervention regarding my views, I'm just one man and no threat to you at all.

Taco de Baja - 6-24-2008 at 12:35 PM

Man caused global warming is political. Science is not about voting, politics is.

Real scientist don't vote on what is happening, to come up with something like 80% believe the earth will melt in 20 years, 15% don't believe it, 5% think it will remain the same. Therefore, the vast majority MUST be right and the debate is OVER! Real scientists view facts.

Real scientists don't massage the data to get the results they want, they don't ignore articles that disagree with their results, they don't fraudulently add in names to the "melt" vote, they don�t use scare tactics, they don't lie...The IPCC, and fat albert have done all those and more.

I have an idea, let's have JPL take a vote the next time they launch a Mars Lander on the exact time and date it will land. Based on, feelings, hunches, beliefs, opinions, hockey stick trajectory graphs.....

Speaking of JPL and calculations, we all know what happened the last time the egg heads at JPL forgot to convert metric to standard measurements in their calculations.....Many global warming models do the came thing - GIGO. Especially, when we are talking about a predicted SINGLE degree rise in temperature, a little GIGO can go a long way (By the way is that in Fahrenheit? Or Celsius?....Who really cares, as long as the graph in tenths of a degree to make it look dramatic.)

Taco de Baja - 6-24-2008 at 01:34 PM

....and even if sea level rises 20 feet, there will still be a lot of Baja left.

Think of what Baja, and the World for that matter, was like 18,000 years ago, just before the glaciers began melting (with no help for us).

Once the glaciers melted global sea level had risen 330 feet! Now that was some serious coastal flooding, climate change and habitat destruction (again no help from us). This period of sea level change (between 18,000 and 6,000 years ago) far outpaced even the most radical predictions sea level changes posited by the anthropogenic global warming crowd.

Of course 18,000 years ago you could not have visited a beautiful place like Yosemite because it was under several 1,000 feet of ice.

Change happens, naturally. Always has, always will.

David K - 6-24-2008 at 07:50 PM

Camping at sea level sites since the mid 60's... and nothing has changed!

The world is a lot more powerful than we (or the libs) give it credit for... 4.5 billion years old!

standingwave - 6-24-2008 at 09:32 PM

Grover, thanks for that article setting the record straight on Gore's contribution re: the internet. He's been bashed a lot for that "inventing the internet" comment and I appreciate this info confirming my suspicion that the criticism was unfounded.

I think we've all heard the expression, "food for thought".
I've added a picture to this post that shows the temperature, C02 and dust levels in Antarctica for the last 400 thousand years. A picture that I recommend to anyone hungry for some serious contemplation.
A couple of observations - 1) every spike of high temperature/CO2 in Antarctica was followed by a long time of cold (an ice age), 2)this time instead of a spike of high temperatures/CO2 like the last four, there is a plateau that seems to have lasted for 5000 years or so.
A couple of questions - 1) is there a connection between the temperature/CO2 levels plateauing in the "good" zone (ie. what we humans have come to know and enjoy over the last few thousand years) and the practice of agriculture, 2) are human contributions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over the last 400 years upsetting the ice age cycle, a la James Lovelock's The Revenge of Gaia with the inevitable result of a world too hot for most higher animals and vegetables.
A hypothesis. Humanity is the best thing to ever happen to the planet in that our influence through agriculture has stabilized the climate. However lately (last 400 years) our bad habits have upset this balance (primarily through the ignorant misuse of fossil fuels) and the climate is changing as a result. Furthermore the rate of change is accelerating. The next steady state will either be an ice age or a world too hot for comfort. The solution is lots of shrubbery; gardening the planet back to the stable climate life here has enjoyed for the last few thousand years. Or as I like to phrase it, garden gaia into eden.
Well, is that too long for a hypothesis :?:

Certainly enough, I hope, to generate some discussion.

I hope this thread stays this side of the Off-topic line. After all Nomads seem to be primarily coastal people and where that waterline will be is of great importance to all of us with an interest in Baja.

Osprey - 6-25-2008 at 07:23 AM

Living on an island (or a long skinny spit of land like Baja California) one gets a feeling for the overwhelming power of the ocean. I think of the earth as a big ball covered by water, dotted by islands. We do pollute the seas but we have little effect on their power to run the climate engines of each major section; poles and hemispheres. Some day we will and we must remember that we can't plant trees in the ocean. Until then the seas and the sun will keep us all guessing. My guess is that we ought to stop cutting down old trees. Do you think, through the internet, we all have access to the same climate data? If we do, and we still want to kill each other over our analysis, I suggest we have too much.

Taco de Baja - 6-25-2008 at 08:20 AM

That's one of those graphs, standingwave, that can "prove" almost anything.

For example: The scale is too large to show good detail but an argument can be made that: falling dust levels seem to precede rising temps, that then cause rising CO2 (in that order).

Of course, the anthropogenic crowd would say the rising CO2, causes temps to rise, which then decreases dust levels (for some reason).....or maybe rising CO2 causes lower dust levels because the CO2 is taking the place of the dust, and then temps rise.....

More question to ponder: The Dust levels are at their lowest point in 150,000 years, why?
What role is that playing, in the current scheme of things?
Is dust factored into the models? If so, what ppm? Predicted to rise, fall, or remain at the current low numbers, over time?

Seems to me, if we think we can change the climate, and we want to lower temperatures, we need to try to inject 1.0-1.2 ppm of dust into the atmosphere, that�s when the temperature is at the �ideal� median point.

Also this graph appears to show some of the most stable temperatures, on the entire graph occurring over the last 20,000 years (During the rise of human-kind out of the stone age, Coincidence? I think not. Warmer and more stable temps allowed humans to flourish)...Check out the period from 150,000 to 130,000, though, a temp rise of 12 degrees! There are numerous other extreme temp fluctuations on this graph, all naturally occurring, and all no doubt resulting in habitat destruction, coastal flooding, drought, floods, and species extinctions�..Don�t believe the hype that �Temperatures are rising faster than they ever have in the history of the World�, this graph, clearly, �proves� that statement is full of hot air.

Osprey - 6-25-2008 at 08:47 AM

I think we will see more and more Green topics on the board and they are bound to be long and full of data and revealing. The reason is that we can't even agree on which side we're on:
Here's a few sides
1. Nothing we can do, people cause no problems for the planet, if the sky falls, it falls, I'm too lazy to protest, gimme a beer.
2. People are the big cause for everything and we should never have made all the problems -- better to live with/like the Quakers, I'm so mad I'm takin' your beer.
3. Sun/moon/stars allignment -- nothing can be done, it's too late AND people have changed it TOO.
4. People have caused it all, it's not too late, it's our duty, it's unconscienable to do nothing, we owe it to our grandkids and if it gets any worse I'm gonna start killing polluters:
A. not the ones who plant trees though
B. not the ones who don't eat meat
C. I'll let you live if you'll help me save the bears/whales/bowl weevles.

5. My company will make 1,890 billion dollars in the first quarter from sales of Green Up or Die stuff -- I will personally donate 2.5% of that to the Crush the Coal People Alliance.

6. Ad nauseum

wilderone - 6-25-2008 at 08:51 AM

You're using that graph as proof? Please tell me on what factual basis was the graph derived from? 400 thousand years' data of a region of the world that has been the least populated, captured by whom? how? You don't think the science - had to be mere hypotheses because nobody was checking a thermomemeter for 400 thousand years - could be flawed? The graph is a result of one generation's academia - and every day, the same academia debunks previous science in favor of newer truths.
"We understand and believe vastly more than we know." -- Blaise Pascal

I don't doubt that there are fluctuations in climate - but to generalize without understanding one factor of the big WHY? is using the generalizations as a shield to absolve you - 2008 mankind - this generation - past generations' industrial revolution - forest slashing/burning mankind - 50 years of destruction of earth that cannot be denied - of responsibility. This is nonsense.

The proof is right before your eyes in all its tangibleness - look at the snow cap on Mt. Kilomanjaro (sp?), compared with 10 years ago and you tell me why that's happening NOW? Just an expected phenomenon? I don't think so. And if you believe that, then expect the consequences of the high-peaks of the graph - which no human on this earth has ever personally experienced - because it's just a graph based on hypoetheses - which, as we know, is unproven science.

wilderone - 6-25-2008 at 10:05 AM

The "WHY": the science-based graph data (gases in bubbles from ice cores) - and the conclusion:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051125105107.ht...

As the data become more solid about the atmospheric conditions of the past, it's becoming increasingly clear that the current conditions of the past 200 years are a distinct anomaly, Brook said.
"The levels of primary greenhouse gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are up dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, at a speed and magnitude that the Earth has not seen in hundreds of thousands of years," Brook said. "There is now no question this is due to human influence.

toneart - 6-25-2008 at 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by vgabndo
Al Gore and the internet, like Patrick J Chica's (PJC) US political rant had nothing to do with Baja California. It was correct, in my judgment, to delete those posts.

It is too bad that the off-topic forum isn't a viable place to have civil discussions.

The first post in this topic, by the newby "Memo" most certainly is about Baja. I didn't get to see Grover's post so I don't know why it would be removed. If it were for political reasons, then that sucks. I appreciate reading all the contributions here and am offended that some would be removed for reasons of political biases of the Mods. We still haven't had the alleged removal confirmed or explained yet.

It is too bad that the global warming issue has become so politicized. That obscures any objective (and therefore valid) viewpoints. It behooves us all to stay informed, to read as much as we can on the subject. Wouldn't you want to CYA's in case the data is all you have to cling to as the planet is going down?

Believe what you want, but don't disbelieve anything. And especially, don't be obnoxious while expressing your disbelief. (That statement was not directed at Vgabndo.) Keep an open mind. We have a responsibility to do so. :light:

A BIG GROUP HUG IS NEEDED HERE!

ELINVESTIG8R - 6-25-2008 at 10:46 AM

toneart - 6-25-2008 at 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ELINVESTI8

Awwwwww!

DianaT - 6-25-2008 at 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Quote:

Originally posted by ELINVESTI8

Awwwwww!

Naw---too much heat. :lol:

tripledigitken - 6-25-2008 at 10:58 AM

Quote:

Perhaps not all have noticed, but there is one less moderator.

Diane,

Not counting Doug, I think there was only one moderator.

Why anyone would want to spend the hours he did and take the crap he took recently by a few here is beyond me. A thankless task for sure.

Ken

ELINVESTIG8R - 6-25-2008 at 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jdtrotter

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Quote:

Originally posted by ELINVESTI8

A BIG GROUP HUG IS NEEDED HERE!

Awwwwww!

Naw---too much heat. :lol:

I'm darned if I do and Darned if I don't.

Killing the Polar Bears ?

MrBillM - 6-25-2008 at 12:43 PM

If little children were treated to a film of Polar Bears feeding, they wouldn't be frightened by the thought of killing them off.

In fact, they'd probably think it was a damned good idea.

Has anybody noticed a change in life since the Polar Bears became more scarce ? Other than the odd Aborigine that isn't being killed by one ?

Just wondering.

BTW, I'll go along with Goring being a Visionary.

Visionary adj. 1. Characterized by vision or foresight. 2.a. Having the nature of fantasies or dreams; illusory. b. Existing in imagination only; imaginary. 3.a. Characterized by or given to apparitions, prophecies, or revelations. b. Given to daydreams or reverie; dreamy. 4.a. Not practicable or realizable; utopian. b. Tending to envision things in perfect but unrealistic form; idealistic. --vi�sion�ar�y n., pl. vi�sion�ar�ies.

Natalie Ann - 6-25-2008 at 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken

Quote:

Perhaps not all have noticed, but there is one less moderator.

I've noticed the absence of Hose A. Real sorry to see him gone. He was a good moderator and still managed some very funny posts. May he be enjoying his time away from this zoo.

Nena

ELINVESTIG8R - 6-25-2008 at 01:04 PM

WHAT! Hose A gone? Say it ain't so. I like him dangit. Get back here Gene. He and I never had a cross word and I really respect him. Get back to work in here and regulate us heathens. We need you.

Taco de Baja - 6-25-2008 at 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wilderone

The proof is right before your eyes in all its tangibleness - look at the snow cap on Mt. Kilomanjaro (sp?), compared with 10 years ago and you tell me why that's happening NOW? Just an expected phenomenon? I don't think so.

How do you know it isn't an expected phenomenon?
What caused the melting of the glaciers 18,000 years ago?
They covered a huge area of Canada, large portions of the US, Europe, Africa, the Soviet Union, China�..

Glaciers formed and influenced much of the world we see to day (from the Matterhorn, Mt Kilimanjaro, and Yosemite, to the sediment that forms the 'grain belt' of the USA, the Columbia River Gorge in OR and WA, and the landform of Long Island, NY, to name a few.)

Yet the glaciers melted; and quite rapidly too. The World is not static. The World does NOT have a thermostat that must set on exactly 50 degrees, all the time and if it creeps up a degree of two the World will reach a tipping point from which it will never recover.

Heck, day and night are different too, if we only lived for a few hours, there would be predictions it would continue to get brighter and brighter, or darker and darker (depending on what side of the day/night we happened to be living in).

It is very short sited (pun intended) to look at pictures and 50-150 years of temps, and habitat change when there has been changing climate on this planet for billions years.

As a paleontologist, I have found Redwood trees in 12,000 year old sediments in Orange County, California. During construction of the Red Line in Los Angeles, Redwood trees were also found deep underground�.Why did they die off? Climate change; they did not like the warming temps. Oh, and while they were living in southern California, their current habitat was under glacial ice. Who knows, there may have even been Redwoods in Baja.

oxxo - 6-25-2008 at 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
As a paleontologist,

Would you please share your professional credentials with us?

Taco de Baja - 6-25-2008 at 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
As a paleontologist,

Would you please share your professional credentials with us?

B.S. Degree in Earth Science, UC Santa Cruz

Orange County Certified Paleontologist, approved by the County of Orange Planning Commission.

The company I work for is hired by developers, utility companies, caltrans, and the like, to mitigate adverse impacts to paleontological resources that are encountered during ground disturbing activities associated with their work. We collect, identify and analyze the fossils that are found. Some eventually go to museums (some are currently on loan at the Smithsonian), we put some on display, and we take some around to local school districts to give talks about "fossils in your backyard" to first grade through high school students.

I have been doing this work since 1992 in Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, CA; Clark County, NV; and Badlands National Park, South Dakota.

No, I have not found any dinosaurs yet, very little work in sediments that old, but I did find bones and teeth from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th occurrences Saber Tooth Cats in Orange County (~15,000 years old). Along with many other �firsts� for small rodent sized animals in 15-20 million year old sediment.

mtgoat666 - 6-25-2008 at 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
As a paleontologist,

Would you please share your professional credentials with us?

B.S. Degree in Earth Science, UC Santa Cruz

That explains your deficiency -- paleo from Santa Cruz who failed geochemistry 401, and never got exposed to paleoclimatology (nor scientific method)

USC trojans rule!

oxxo - 6-25-2008 at 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taco de Baja
How do you know it isn't an expected phenomenon?

It is not the fact that it is an expected phenonmenon, it is the rapid pace of the phenonmenon that is unexpected. That is what has 99% of the world climatologists concerned. I don't know about paleontologists.

GO BEARS!

jls - 6-25-2008 at 05:27 PM

Back to Baja! Isn't one of the main reason we all love Baja --- it is still blessed with a minimum of human garbage in many places. I speak literally and figuratively. Whether we have as a species been hugely responsible for the junky and changing earth is not the point. Blaming does not help. We need, for what ever reason that turns your crank, to take care of one another, BAja, and our blue globe.
I, also, have a B.S. in Earth Science. The essence of the universe at the infinitely small to the infinitely large has been one of impermanence and change. Like it or not we as a species and our earth are both of those things: impermanent and changing. It is the how of change that we may be able to have some influence over for good or bad.
The group hug now please?

toneart - 6-25-2008 at 05:40 PM

Bump

A group hug is not possible because vital members of the group are disappearing............'Poof"! Now Vgabndo's post that I quoted has disappeared. What is going on??? There is the possibility that Vgabndo removed his own post, but it is strange following other posts disappearing mysteriously.
This is not smelling very good.

Quote:

Originally posted by toneart

Quote:

Taco de Baja - 6-25-2008 at 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

That explains your deficiency -- paleo from Santa Cruz who failed geochemistry 401, and never got exposed to paleoclimatology (nor scientific method)

USC trojans rule!

What are you braying about goat? Santa Cruz has a great Earth Science program. And I passed all my chem classes. :yes:

Go Slugs!

The main trouble with the town of Santa Cruz is they still think it is 1972..... :lol:

That and they, in cooperation with Berkeley, started the whole politically correct mindset; as well as the belief that man is the most evil thing to happen to the planet. There are truly few places more liberal than Santa Cruz; So you can�t really use that argument that the school I attended wasn�t �liberal� enough�.

How about you, goat? Ever finish that underwater basket degree form the University of Spoiled Children.

David K - 6-25-2008 at 07:02 PM

If sea levels were rising (in our lifetime)... the many sand spits that connect to islands at low tide in Baja would no longer do so... El Requeson and Alfonsina's are a couple I have camped on or seen since 1965 or '66 to today... and the still connect to the island at low tide! We camped on the sand spit at Requeson last summer at the same place I first did in 1966... it still connects with the island at low tide.

This photo below of Bahia San Luis Gonzaga taken from the island trail, above where the sand spit connect to it. That's my Subaru on the sand spit (picture taken about 22 years ago).

nomad 034.jpg - 48kB

Bob H - 6-25-2008 at 07:07 PM

I usually don't get involved in these discussions.... if one checks record high temperatures in every state in the US over the last 100+ years, you will learn that record high temps in the U.S. occurred in the late 1800's and very early 1900's. I don't know what that means... but we are cooler today (avg temps) since that period.
Bob H

Skipjack Joe - 6-25-2008 at 10:47 PM

You can't make any conclusions about sea level by the height or presence of a beach. Beaches are dynamic features that are controlled by wind, waves, currents, and the amount of available sediment. Here in Half Moon Bay we have beaches that completely disappear in the winter. There's nothing but solid bedrock. Even at Carlsbad where you live there are sections of the upper beach which are completely removed in the winter.

If the sea level rose the sand spit at Gonzaga would rise right up with it. Sand would continue to be deposited in areas of least energy. Remove the island and there goes the beach. No matter what the sea level.

oxxo - 6-26-2008 at 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob H
if one checks record high temperatures in every state in the US over the last 100+ years, you will learn that record high temps in the U.S. occurred in the late 1800's and very early 1900's.

I love it when someone makes this kind of assertion without providing any links to their information. The fact of the matter is that there were only 4 reporting stations in all of California 100 years ago compared with 100's today. Yes, some of those 4 stations do show higher temperatures 100 years ago and some of them show lower or comparable temperatures from 100 years ago. So, it depends on which of the 4 reporting stations you want to base your conclusions on. Temperatures have been rising all over California at all reporting stations over the last 50 years. 50 years does not provide sufficient data to indicate a long term trend, but it does provide a reference point to warrant further research.

What is alarming to scientists is the buildup of manmade greenhouse gasses over those same 50 years. We did not have accumulations of manmade greenhouse gasses to any extent 100 years ago. This is what has almost 100% of climatologists concerned today. Average temperatures, amount of rainfall, snowpack, etc. are only ancillary issues. That kind of historical data can be manipulated, both pro and con, to support one's conclusions. The main concern is greenhouse gasses.

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
If sea levels were rising (in our lifetime)... the many sand spits that connect to islands at low tide in Baja would no longer do so...

One's personal observation can hardly be considered a scientific study. Sea levels are determined by comparing to a fixed, known datum. I am unable to find any of this type of study in Mexico. However there are several in California and research has shown that sea levels, at least in California, are rising. For example, San Francisco Bay is indeed experiencing higher sea levels over the last 50 years in a steady upward trend. The presumption is that if sea levels are rising in California, they are probably rising in Baja California too.

Now if you would like to verify my information you can do so at this very easy to read paper prepared by the State of California, co-authored and co-signed by some of the State's preeminent scientists: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-077/C...

Apparently, the rising cost and dwindling supply of hydrocarbon fuels is going to result in lower greenhouse emissions in the future - whether we believe in the concept of global warming or not. So change is coming on a number of different fronts in our immediate future. Some of us will be prepared for that change - accept and embrace it and adapt to it, and some of us won't.

David K - 6-26-2008 at 06:38 AM

What do you plan to do about volcanos... since just 1 volcanic eruption produces more greenhouse emissions than all of man's doings?

Also, there is a growing supply of hyrocarbon fuel... we just keep finding more of the stuff waiting to be used!

ELINVESTIG8R - 6-26-2008 at 07:15 AM

David K sorry I am late with your exhibits for your presentation above but traffic was the pits today!

P.S. Don't pay attention to what the rest of them say...Everyone here is an expert.

[Edited on 6-26-2008 by ELINVESTI8]

oxxo - 6-26-2008 at 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
What do you plan to do about volcanos... since just 1 volcanic eruption produces more greenhouse emissions than all of man's doings?

Also, there is a growing supply of hyrocarbon fuel... we just keep finding more of the stuff waiting to be used!

Could you please provide links for the two statements above. I would like to research this further.

oxxo - 6-26-2008 at 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
As for sea levels rising... forget the sand spit... and use the homes or restaurant at Alfonsina's as a mark... some there since 1961... still far above sea level... Shell Island would never be connected to Baja again... yet I still drive onto it at low tide, at the same place... 30 years since I first did.

David K, we are talking about inches over the last 30 years, not feet. You don't seem to read what is posted. The shoreline is a dynamic ecosystem. Your personal observations are meaningless from a scientific standpoint. Get a grip man! But IF the ocean rises a foot or two over the next 100 years, it could prove devasting to places like the Mississippi River Delta and Florida and perhaps a number of places in Baja. Man can adapt to those changes if they begin to formulate contingency plans now.

jls - 6-26-2008 at 10:31 AM

A book to discuss? George Monbiot's ---Heat: How to Keep the Earth from Burning.
He covers it all. Way beyond Gore. Both theoretical and practical.
:!:

jls - 6-26-2008 at 10:32 AM

sorry the tongue smilie was an error. Please ignore.

DENNIS - 6-26-2008 at 10:40 AM

I think it was Al Gore who said: "The earth is like a big water balloon filled with oil so, it's more like an oil balloon. When the oil supply is depleted, the earth will flop around in space like an old empty ****** bag."
Yep....Al said that and, he meant it. [ please don't ask for references ]

[Edited on 6-26-2008 by DENNIS]

Mexitron - 6-26-2008 at 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

Could you please provide links for the two statements above. I would like to research this further.

The point is that we are putting gases into the atmosphere in addition to what is naturally occurring (whether or not you buy into the global warming idea).

A growing supply of hydrocarbon fuel...um, have you seen the price lately? Why aren't we extracting it? Why are there proposals to resurrect the nuclear power plant industry?

David K - 6-26-2008 at 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexitron

Quote:

Originally posted by oxxo

Quote:

Could you please provide links for the two statements above. I would like to research this further.

"Why aren't we extracting it?":

Ask there Democratic party why there is a halt to drilling in US territory... We have more oil reserves than any other country, from the latest I heard... They seem to want us to be dependent on other countries when there is no need to be.

We need the oil now while we continue advancements to new technology, hybrids, etc.

There is also a lot of products from petroleum that aren't fuel we still need... plastics, PVC and poly pipe (my business), etc.

[Edited on 6-27-2008 by David K]

CaboRon - 6-26-2008 at 07:14 PM

David,

Even if we started the final destruction of our coastal waters today .... to extract more oil for your burners .... you wouldn't see any of it for fifteen to twenty years.

Not near fast enough for your next run to La Baja :lol:

Think Globally ... act Locally

CaboRon

David K - 6-26-2008 at 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaboRon
David,

Even if we started the final destruction of our coastal waters today .... to extract more oil for your burners .... you wouldn't see any of it for fifteen to twenty years.

Not near fast enough for your next run to La Baja :lol:

Think Globally ... act Locally

CaboRon

I am not in the petro busines... but I think the turn around time is a bit sooner than that...

Burners? Like to cook on... yes, I like some meals hot... sushi is not an every day food for me. :lol:

ELINVESTIG8R - 6-26-2008 at 07:18 PM

Some may think the following is total...

but according to the Mayan Calendar December 21, 2012 will be the end of the world as we know and I don�t think global warming will matter after that anyway. Do you? So let's all stop...

ing on each other and start making peace with each other while we still have a chance.

Quick add the

so they don't think you are too crazy.

NOTE: I did not start this thread. :lol:

[Edited on 6-27-2008 by ELINVESTI8]

Woooosh - 6-26-2008 at 07:24 PM

OK All You Global Warming Naysayers- Better roll up the pantslegs! The Mayan calendar ends on 2012 (wish I knew the exact day :lol

seems about right...

Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole...Polar scientists reveal dramatic new evidence of climate change

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Friday, 27 June 2008

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

The disappearance of the Arctic sea ice, making it possible to reach the Pole sailing in a boat through open water, would be one of the most dramatic � and worrying � examples of the impact of global warming on the planet. Scientists say the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the summer.

"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important. There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water," said Mark Serreze of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.

If it happens, it raises the prospect of the Arctic nations being able to exploit the valuable oil and mineral deposits below these a bed which have until now been impossible to extract because of the thick sea ice above.

Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally icefreeNorth Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by hugeswathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.

This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during thesummer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeksshows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when therewas an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.

"The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the NorthPole is covered with extensive first-year ice � ice that formed last autumn and winter. I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out," said Dr Serreze.

Each summer the sea ice melts before reforming again during the long Arctic winter but the loss of sea ice last year was so extensive that much of the Arctic Ocean became open water, with the water-ice boundary coming just 700 miles away from the North Pole.

This meant that about 70 per cent of the sea ice present this spring was single-year ice formed over last winter. Scientists predict that at least 70 per cent of this single-year ice � and perhaps all of it � will melt completely this summer, Dr Serreze said.

"Indeed, for the Arctic as a whole, the melt season startedwith even more thin ice than in 2007, hence concerns that we may even beat last year's sea-ice minimum. We'll see what happens, a great deal depends on the weather patterns in July and August," he said.

Ron Lindsay, a polar scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, agreed that much now depends onwhat happens to the Arctic weather in terms of wind patterns and hours of sunshine. "There's a good chance that it will all melt awayat the North Pole, it's certainly feasible, but it's not guaranteed," Dr Lindsay said.

Thepolar regions are experiencing the most dramatic increasein average temperatures due to global warming and scientists fear that as more sea iceis lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise local temperatures even further. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, who was one of the first civilian scientists to sail underneath the Arctic sea ice in a Royal Navy submarine,said that the conditions are ripe for an unprecedented melting of the ice at the North Pole.

"Last year we saw huge areas of the ocean open up, which hasnever been experienced before. People are expecting this to continuethis year and it is likely to extend over the North Pole. It isquite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer � it's not happened before," ProfessorWadhamssaid.

There are other indications that the Arctic sea ice is showingsigns of breaking up. Scientists at the Nasa Goddard Space Flight Centre said that the North Water 'polynya' � an expanse of open water surrounded on all sides by ice � that normally forms near Alaska and Banks Island off the Canadian coast, is muchlarger than normal. Polynyas absorb heat from the sun and eat away at the edge of the sea ice.

Inuit natives living near Baffin Bay between Canada and Greenland are also reporting thatthe sea ice there is starting to break up much earlier than normal and that they have seen wide cracks appearing in the ice where it normally remains stable. Satellite measurements collected over nearly 30 years show a significant decline in the extent of the Arctic sea ice, which has become more rapid in recent years.

[Edited on 6-27-2008 by Woooosh]

David K - 6-26-2008 at 07:27 PM

Did you read this part of that article?: "If it happens..."

Woooosh - 6-26-2008 at 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Did you read this part of that article?: "If it happens..."

Yes, it's a "shock story". But whether 70% or 100% is completely gone it's still problematic. When I was a kid I remembr the north pole as the most forbidding place on earth. It was a huge feat to eben get there. Now you can sail to it.

oxxo - 6-26-2008 at 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
We have more oil reserves than any other country, from the latest I heard...

Who did you hear that from? Are you talking about oil reserves or oil deposits? I keep asking you for references and you do not respond. Until you give some references, you have no credibility. It is nothing more than apriori nonsense.

The US may in fact have more oil reserves (that means oil in storage tanks) than any other country. I don't know. But the reason the US maintains any oil reserves is because we use way more oil on a daily basis than what we produce as a nation. We have to import oil to meet our daily needs. So we keep emergency reserves to have a supply of short term oil if our supply, either internal or external, is interrupted.

Apparently, the US may have very little in the way of untapped oil deposits. Nobody can say for sure. And we have no way of knowing how much undiscovered oil deposits are left in the world today. And what there is in the way of known deposits in the US territory is difficult and expensive to extract, of lower quality requiring more sophisticated and expensive refining, and with a looooong period of start-up to full production.

So, my understanding is that the US maintains a level of reserves is to meet immediate emergencies, for example military use or a catastrophe. If you want to tap into current reserves, because you think $5 a gallon gasoline constitutes an "immediate emergency", then let your favorite Congressman know. But be aware that you make yourself a potential hostage to any military threat or catastrophe in the future.

David you are all over the board on this one - Al Gore, global warming, sea level, gasoline reserves. What next, the price of tea in China? Having trouble focusing?

Gadget - 6-26-2008 at 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ELINVESTI8
Some may think the following is total...

but according to the Mayan Calendar December 21, 2012 will be the end of the world as we know and I don�t think global warming will matter after that anyway. Do you? So let's all stop...

ing on each other and start making peace with each other while we still have a chance.

Quick add the

so they don't think you are too crazy.

NOTE: I did not start this thread. :lol:

[Edited on 6-27-2008 by ELINVESTI8]

Hyjack;
Love the cartoon icons EL. Care to share the source?

ELINVESTIG8R - 6-26-2008 at 08:58 PM

Gadget take any I put out there and use them if you want to. You also can get them on the internet too. All of them are free. download them to imageshack before using them in the forum.

Now do you believe me?

Skipjack Joe - 6-26-2008 at 09:13 PM

global_warming.jpg - 48kB

Bajabus - 6-27-2008 at 04:54 AM

Skipjack just posted the definitive proof...

Does someone know Mel Brooks? Maybe he will loan us "Mega-Maid" to clean up the global warming problem.

ELINVESTIG8R - 6-27-2008 at 06:39 AM

Quick David add the

so they do not think you are too looney toons!

[Edited on 6-27-2008 by ELINVESTI8]

WE are all going to die.

The Gull - 6-27-2008 at 08:16 AM

tripledigitken - 6-27-2008 at 08:29 AM

A question to all you scientists.

North Pole Ice is floating ice (not on land). When it melts it has no effect on the level of the oceans, correct?

Ken

David K - 6-27-2008 at 08:31 AM

In 1957, didn't a U.S. nuclear powered submarine go to the North Pole, and surface there... or any other year, other subs for that matter? The ice would need to be thin for that to happen, right?

The earth is not static... it changes. What we experience in one lifetime is hardly a way to determin what 'normal' weather is. Maybe we are warming... maybe we are cooling... maybe neither... but to think man is greater than Nature, Mother Earth or God and can change what the earth is doing is just plain crazy. The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times, long before man... and will continue to do so.

Common sense people... volcanoes poison the atmosphere daily with more junk than man can produce in a lifetime... and the earth is still alive and well.

Petroleum deposits, by-the-way... we have tons. The U.S. is the third largest oil producer, even now with the limits on extracting. I am all for new and unique research and technology for new energy sources. I was really hoping for cold fusion to be a reality... alas, not yet.

Anyway, oxxo... I am here because of Baja... and to tell you Baja is not sinking... or at least not that we would ever be aware of in our life or for a few hundred more years, I would say... Baja (and California west of the San Andreas fault) is moving north, however!

Have a nice day...

Pescador - 6-27-2008 at 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

I guess Skipjack has finally shone through with the most definitive and accurate measure of the reality of Global Warming that has conclusively been exhibited to date. When algore talks I feel all sticky and sappy and kind of want to take a shower to wash off all of the yech stuff he exudes, but when Skipjack talks I feel enlightened and informed. I think we need to recall the 1/2 postition Nobel Prize and reward it to it's rightful owner, SKIPJACK JOE>

oxxo - 6-27-2008 at 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken
When it melts it has no effect on the level of the oceans, correct?

Actually, this is a good question. The simple answer is "no" water level in the ocean does not change when floating ice melts. But the answer is more complex than that because it depends on water temperature and amount of solids (perhaps minute) in the ice. Cold water is more dense than warm water. So the complex answer is maybe yes, maybe no, depending on variables.

The bigger problem is melting ice, snowpack, and glaciers in all parts of the world particularly Antartica and the Arctic. This will raise ocean levels.

oxxo - 6-27-2008 at 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
but to think man is greater than Nature, Mother Earth or God and can change what the earth is doing is just plain crazy.

Quote:

volcanoes poison the atmosphere daily with more junk than man can produce in a lifetime

What is your source for this assertion? Sheesh!

Gadget - 6-27-2008 at 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

I'm convinced, and have to admit I secretly support global warming since I have switched from boxers to tangerine speedos.

Awwwe, what happened to the underwear picture???

[Edited on 6-27-2008 by Gadget]

Sharksbaja - 6-27-2008 at 10:49 AM

Those who believe in "global warming" believe in "evolution". Those who don't go to church. :lol:

Lots of jibberish here. :rolleyes:

Yes David, make sure to end it with a big smiley! :biggrin:

gibson - 6-27-2008 at 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
... but to think man is greater than Nature, Mother Earth or God and can change what the earth is doing is just plain crazy. The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times, long before man... and will continue to do so.

Common sense people... volcanoes poison the atmosphere daily with more junk than man can produce in a lifetime... and the earth is still alive and well.

stick to gardening.

ELINVESTIG8R - 6-27-2008 at 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
In 1957, didn't a U.S. nuclear powered submarine go to the North Pole, and surface there... or any other year, other subs for that matter? The ice would need to be thin for that to happen, right?

The earth is not static... it changes. What we experience in one lifetime is hardly a way to determin what 'normal' weather is. Maybe we are warming... maybe we are cooling... maybe neither... but to think man is greater than Nature, Mother Earth or God and can change what the earth is doing is just plain crazy. The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times, long before man... and will continue to do so.

Common sense people... volcanoes poison the atmosphere daily with more junk than man can produce in a lifetime... and the earth is still alive and well.

Petroleum deposits, by-the-way... we have tons. The U.S. is the third largest oil producer, even now with the limits on extracting. I am all for new and unique research and technology for new energy sources. I was really hoping for cold fusion to be a reality... alas, not yet.

Anyway, oxxo... I am here because of Baja... and to tell you Baja is not sinking... or at least not that we would ever be aware of in our life or for a few hundred more years, I would say... Baja (and California west of the San Andreas fault) is moving north, however!

Have a nice day...

Huff Huff Huff

Sorry Boss for being late yet again with your exhibits. The traffic was worse today. Here are the exhibits to illustrate your statements, supra.

Boss I hope this was the layout. I think I got it straight here, but I am sure it will be critiqued anyway.

[Edited on 6-28-2008 by ELINVESTI8]

The Sky is Falling. The Sky is Falling.

MrBillM - 6-27-2008 at 03:37 PM

Oh, No, Right.

The Ocean's Rising. The Ocean's Rising.

At least the water will be nearer in on the Neap Tides and swimming will be more convenient.

Iflyfish - 6-27-2008 at 04:27 PM

I guess someone moved the signs showing where the glaciers were in 1937 that I saw when touring the Canadian Rockies and glaciers last year. Kids no doubt!

See link below regarding shrinking glaciers:

http://www.google.com/search?q=receding+glaciers&rls=com...

I recall when studying theology how scholors argued over how many angels would fit on the head of a pin.

It would seem to me that anything that will spur our development of safe alternative sources of energy is a good thing. Some no doubt would argue this point also, particularly if they had an oil ox to gore.

I am curious as to what role religion plays in this debate? I have read and discussed the end of the world with a Mayan and understand his world view. I don't understand the Christian right's perspective on this issue and why it is politicized.

Iflyfish

CaboRon - 6-27-2008 at 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gibson

Quote:

stick to gardening.

I will second that .... go back to posting trip reports, you are very good at that.

David K - 6-27-2008 at 08:06 PM

Why can't all opinions be heard? No need to silence one side... unless the other fears the evidence...

I know that the places I have camped at sea level, or just a few feet above sea level are still there, in Baja... That is what this thread is about... Vanishing Baja... right? People who live along the beaches and bays of Baja would sure be confirming a rising sea level, don't you think?

Could it be that the Global Warming scare is just a tool at gaining more power by the elites over our lives... to tell us to get along with less... After all, they don't want riots when their announced tax increases take affect... You know... you said you wanted 'change'... and that's about all you will have left, if they get in total power!

I am for freedom... to come and go to Baja as I wish... The more taxes taken from our income, the less freedom we have to do for our families and ourselves.

By the way, I do not do gardening... I do irrigation so others can have a beautiful garden!

Live long and prosper, my friends!

Late addition: I just saw a set of photos from Antarctica of beautiful ice formations... here was one of the captions (inside quotes):

"Antarctica Frozen Wave Pixs - Nature is amazing!

The water froze the instant the wave broke through the

ice. That's what it is like in Antarctica where it is the

coldest weather in decades. Water freezes the instant

it comes in contact with the air. The temperature of the

water is already some degrees below freezing. "

:lol:

Yup... COLDEST in decades!

[Edited on 6-28-2008 by David K]