BajaNomad

New U.N. report out on climate change. Impact on Baja?

 Pages:  1  

rts551 - 11-2-2014 at 11:58 AM

“The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen,” the report said, adding that this has caused extreme weather all over the world. “It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions.”

"Pollution and climate change due to human influence is “clear,” and the observed effects are “unprecedented,” according to a report released Sunday by a United Nations panel. "

After this years hurricane season and ultra warm temperatures...I wonder. Most in our town agree the tides seem to be higher than ever. Because Baja is a peninsula are the changes more dramatic?

motoged - 11-2-2014 at 12:07 PM

I do not doubt their findings at all....but it will not be long before the climate change "haters" (an adolescent term at best) will put the report down and deny it as another commie plot....

Perhaps the dengue outbreak in Baja is an outcome of climate change :light:

...As is the spread of other tropical diseases northwards.

No doubt, something is happening....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIoKr9VDg3A

rts551 - 11-2-2014 at 12:07 PM

Just a couple of many conclusions the report has that impact Baja California and BCS.


Global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions, under
climate change, will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem
services, especially at low latitudes (high confidence)

Coastal systems and low-lying areas will increasingly experience submergence, flooding and
erosion throughout the 21st century and beyond, due to sea-level rise (very high confidence)

Climate change over the 21st century is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater
resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence,high agreement), intensifying competition
for water among sectors (limited evidence,medium agreement)

woody with a view - 11-2-2014 at 12:15 PM

it just seems like self flagellation and to be so full of self loathing (redundant?) to think 150 years of human history is the only thing that causes glaciers to melt, like they've never melted before, in the history of the earth. humans are so important they made Jesus in their image to prove it!:light:

[Edited on 11-2-2014 by woody with a view]

Hook - 11-2-2014 at 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551

After this years hurricane season and ultra warm temperatures...I wonder. Most in our town agree the tides seem to be higher than ever. Because Baja is a peninsula are the changes more dramatic?


Arent we in a cycle where the moon is a closer to us than it usually is? I seem to remember something about a full moon in 2014 being larger because the moon travels on an elliptical path around the earth, rather than a circle. So, it gets closer and farther away by as much as 5%. I have no idea what the complete cycle of this ellipse is.

I also have no idea whether that could affect the tides or not. Just a possible explanation.

Does anyone really pay ANY attention to what the UN says? This is an organization that is helpless to do much of anything. The Russian occupation of the Ukraine, the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Rwandan Genocide comes to mind.

I also suspect you are trolling for Giant Kierfish, aka Toyotus Magnificus. :lol:



[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Hook]

David K - 11-2-2014 at 12:45 PM

Sun spots are very active now. Woody is right and the U.N. wants more U.S. tax dollars is what their lies are about.

DianaT - 11-2-2014 at 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by motoged
I do not doubt their findings at all....but it will not be long before the climate change "haters" (an adolescent term at best) will put the report down and deny it as another commie plot....



Didn't take long :yes::yes: Science be damned.

woody with a view - 11-2-2014 at 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Woody is right.


I'm glad we can agree on one thing!:lol::P:biggrin:

wessongroup - 11-2-2014 at 01:02 PM

Would offer ... The IMF, World Bank and a few others organizations which view the "topic" somewhat differently ... and they do have some degree of impact on area's of economic growth as it relates to environmental impact

Executives: Smart Carbon Pricing Policies Can Drive Investment in a Cleaner Future

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/11/02/business...

This is not going away, any time soon ... it's Organic :lol::lol:

And we® all will be at the party together ... like it or not

[Edited on 11-2-2014 by wessongroup]

willardguy - 11-2-2014 at 01:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hook
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551

After this years hurricane season and ultra warm temperatures...I wonder. Most in our town agree the tides seem to be higher than ever. Because Baja is a peninsula are the changes more dramatic?




I also suspect you are trolling for Giant Kierfish, aka Toyotus Magnificus. :lol:



[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Hook]

you can make fun of david all you like....but he claims growing up as a boy the water level in his toilet was exactly the same height as it is today! you can't argue with that kind of logic! ;)

DaliDali - 11-2-2014 at 01:13 PM

I am running right out and buying a pair of those nifty white boots like the pangueros wear in expectation the sea will rise.

I suggest everyone do the same immediately.

rts551 - 11-2-2014 at 01:21 PM

Interesting theory about the moon since we see the impact of the moons effect on tides daily. I could not though, find any information that supports there is an effect beyond what happens daily. This is the closest I could find

According to NASA, the combination of the moon being at its closest and at full moon, should not affect the internal energy balance of the Earth since there are lunar tides every day. There is a small difference in tidal forces exerted by the moon’s gravitational pull at lunar perigee. However, they are too small to overcome the larger forces within the planet.


I am very much interested in what happens to our coastline...wonder when the next measurement of the Federal Zone is.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hook
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551

After this years hurricane season and ultra warm temperatures...I wonder. Most in our town agree the tides seem to be higher than ever. Because Baja is a peninsula are the changes more dramatic?




Arent we in a cycle where the moon is a closer to us than it usually is? I seem to remember something about a full moon in 2014 being larger because the moon travels on an elliptical path around the earth, rather than a circle. So, it gets closer and farther away by as much as 5%. I have no idea what the complete cycle of this ellipse is.

I also have no idea whether that could affect the tides or not. Just a possible explanation.

Does anyone really pay ANY attention to what the UN says? This is an organization that is helpless to do much of anything. The Russian occupation of the Ukraine, the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Rwandan Genocide comes to mind.

I also suspect you are trolling for Giant Kierfish, aka Toyotus Magnificus. :lol:



[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Hook]


[Edited on 11-2-2014 by rts551]

Sweetwater - 11-2-2014 at 01:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DianaT
Quote:
Originally posted by motoged
I do not doubt their findings at all....but it will not be long before the climate change "haters" (an adolescent term at best) will put the report down and deny it as another commie plot....



Didn't take long :yes::yes: Science be damned.


More than just science be damned, let's not forget mathematics, physics and astronomy......

Pompano - 11-2-2014 at 01:51 PM

I'm sorry, but any reports from the United Nations just have to be taken with many grains of salt.

I marvel at what Al Gore had to say on the environment...and by doing so, made great fodder for the late night tv shows.

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

p.s. Another point on this subject of Climate Change. Birth Control as a solution...something none of our politicians will talk about. I guess votes for a party are all important.

[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Pompano]

TMW - 11-2-2014 at 01:56 PM

So what are you doing or going to do to help change climate change?

chuckie - 11-2-2014 at 02:17 PM

Wow that was really quick, not even a full page and we are into Al Gore, Communism, Toyoters and religion...There cant be any global warming , cuz its snowing here....We need to get Obama and George Bush into the mix...anyone?

Pompano - 11-2-2014 at 02:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TW
So what are you doing or going to do to help change climate change?


TW, whether your question is a community one or addressed to me, I will answer for moi.

First, it is far from being proven that we (menaing humans) can or even should change the climate. First is educating yourself on the issue, second comes a rational decision as to what can be done.

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Some great ideas (to me anyway) might be:

Find a better way to generate electricity.
-with wind farming
-harnessing the ocean waves
-improving solar energy system
Also by
-developing alternate fuels-biofuels,etc
-nuclear power..end the scare.
-more experiments with water as a fuel..
-research, research, research..and then research some more.

And of course, harness our blustering politicians hot air.

[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Pompano]

rts551 - 11-2-2014 at 02:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by willardguy
Quote:
Originally posted by Hook
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551

After this years hurricane season and ultra warm temperatures...I wonder. Most in our town agree the tides seem to be higher than ever. Because Baja is a peninsula are the changes more dramatic?




I also suspect you are trolling for Giant Kierfish, aka Toyotus Magnificus. :lol:



[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Hook]

you can make fun of david all you like....but he claims growing up as a boy the water level in his toilet was exactly the same height as it is today! you can't argue with that kind of logic! ;)



Hey, I really feel left out now. My toilets are the low flow kind. I guess water conservation is a hoax as well.

CaboSur - 11-2-2014 at 02:45 PM

What a HOOT !! Keep on rising !! Maybe in 200 years i will have beach front property and be able to dock my boat right in front of mi casa.

Unfortunately i don't believe a word that comes out of the UN

motoged - 11-2-2014 at 02:52 PM

We need to consider a few things :

1) Is the climate changing? [Y] [N]

2) Are human beings and their behaviours affecting this
change? [Y] [N]

3) Can humans change their behaviours that contribute to climate
change? [Y] [N]



My belief is "Y, Y, Y"


Let us differentiate the two issues....is it changing and are we affecting this change.


I think one can consider these questions without self-flagellation, but with some intelligent inquiry.

The issue is NOT the U.N., Bill Gore, or such side-show comments....

Get with the message, not the messenger :light:

[Edited on 11-2-2014 by motoged]

Mexitron - 11-2-2014 at 02:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano
Quote:
Originally posted by TW
So what are you doing or going to do to help change climate change?


TW, whether your question is a community one or addressed to me, I will answer for moi.

First, it is far from being proven that we (menaing humans) can or even should change the climate. First is educating yourself on the issue, second comes a rational decision as to what can be done.

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

Some great ideas (to me anyway) might be:

Find a better way to generate electricity.
-with wind farming
-harnessing the ocean waves
-improving solar energy system
Also by
-developing alternate fuels-biofuels,etc
-nuclear power..end the scare.
-more experiments with water as a fuel..
-research, research, research..and then research some more.

And of course, harness our blustering politicians hot air.

[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Pompano]


These are the kind of things we should be investing in as a nation regardless if the climate is changing via our pollution or not...especially harnessing politician's hot air! :lol:

Mexitron - 11-2-2014 at 03:04 PM

On sea levels---until (if) there is a significant rise we wouldn't likely notice it on the west coast and Baja except for extreme events---that is, we won't notice it at normal tidal flow since there's a 8 or nine foot difference between high and low tide and most tides aren't that extreme. We would only notice it at the extreme high winter tides and even then when there's an extra push from a storm or something to push the water beyond former parameters.

rts551 - 11-2-2014 at 03:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
On sea levels---until (if) there is a significant rise we wouldn't likely notice it on the west coast and Baja except for extreme events---that is, we won't notice it at normal tidal flow since there's a 8 or nine foot difference between high and low tide and most tides aren't that extreme. We would only notice it at the extreme high winter tides and even then when there's an extra push from a storm or something to push the water beyond former parameters.


I don't understand. If the tides are getting higher... then one should see it on the beach. (same if they were getting lower).
We have noticed the change here on the Pacific ocean side. Over the last year the water seems to be getting higher and higher at high tide. Maybe its the shifting sands on the beach..or cliff erosion...but the water is definitely higher and eating away at some of the bluffs.

Hook - 11-2-2014 at 03:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
On sea levels---until (if) there is a significant rise we wouldn't likely notice it on the west coast and Baja except for extreme events---that is, we won't notice it at normal tidal flow since there's a 8 or nine foot difference between high and low tide and most tides aren't that extreme. We would only notice it at the extreme high winter tides and even then when there's an extra push from a storm or something to push the water beyond former parameters.


Dang, I figured we had a large percentage of the 1%ers by the short hairs, as they own all the coastal property, right? Drat!!!!

There is scientific evidence (and anecdotal evidence, in this post!) that the new astronomically higher tides will back up the sewer systems first, those being the lowest, uh, hanging fruit. ;D

I think we are seeing the first evidence of it right here.

[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Hook]

is it time for "climate change insurance plans"?

Whale-ista - 11-2-2014 at 03:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TW
So what are you doing or going to do to help change climate change?


TW- thank you for asking this ^^^

I'll add: what are people doing to prepare for the impacts,since some are already happening?

Many people voluntarily change their behaviors and/or buy insurance (sometimes at great cost) based on the chance of loss/damages due to unforeseen activities and events (floods, storms, health ailments, other people's actions, theft, accidents etc etc.).

Yet many don't want to apply this same "just in case" model to climate change. They disagree about the need for planning for higher tides/more hurricanes etc., when damage is already happening around us.

We all must carry auto insurance.
Does it make sense not to plan in the same way for climate change?

Already, some government agencies & insurance companies will NOT issue permits or pay to rebuild homes in certain hurricane-prone areas in the US. ˜Not just on Gulf Coast- up north, in New Jersey!

They look at the risks, and tell people: no more. So- Is it just a matter of time before that happens in areas in Baja as well?

And if "it's happened before", or "it is not 100% human caused", it is just a "natural cycle."- that's even more of a reason to plan for it.

If the planet is in a new warming cycle- for whatever reason- why not take action to manage or reduce the problems, e.g.: Make homes and commercial buildings more energy/water efficient etc. ?

What would it hurt? Other countries have been doing this for many years, and their GDP is fine. Germany leads the world in investments for wind & solar energy generation- and their economy is the strongest in the European Union.

If changes cost a little more initially, they still save over the operational life of the house/building/car. Many people now willingly pay more for a fuel efficient appliance or car, knowing they will save on fuel/energy costs over time.

Is changing behavior and/or paying more to be prepared for (and maybe help prevent more) climate change-related problems that much different than other insurance?

[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Whale-ista]

CaboSur - 11-2-2014 at 03:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by motoged
We need to consider a few things :

1) Is the climate changing? [Y] [N]

2) Are human beings and their behaviours affecting this
change? [Y] [N]

3) Can humans change their behaviours that contribute to climate
change? [Y] [N]



My belief is "Y, Y, Y"


Let us differentiate the two issues....is it changing and are we affecting this change.


I think one can consider these questions without self-flagellation, but with some intelligent inquiry.

The issue is NOT the U.N., Bill Gore, or such side-show comments....

Get with the message, not the messenger :light:

[Edited on 11-2-2014 by motoged]
1. Y 2. Maybe 3. Maybe The climate has been changing since the earth formed and will continue until its end.The next big climate change will be global cooling, which suits me just right living here in the Baja

MMc - 11-2-2014 at 03:59 PM

By the time "climate change" is proven we will not be able to do anything about it.

The elephant nobody wants to discuss is what are China, India, and Russia doing about it? USA does use more then anybody else right now but what about 10 years. Those guys will have caught or passed us. Russia will not consume more but they will be selling oil to China and India. They use natural gas as a chip in the euro diplomatic card game and they will be pumping oil to China soon too. Both China and India have little to any issues about increasing their carbon footprint. Lots of new bikes, cars, light bulbs, refrigerators, and C/A units that need energy, gas, something to make them go.

I think there are lots of players in this game on both sides. "Climate Change" is like Religion, Who make the best Truck/Tire, or Republican vs Democrat, it's no longer objective.

"Woody is right"

Now let me get some more popcorn.

wessongroup - 11-2-2014 at 04:20 PM

Appears some have a different view ...

"With the steady creep of the Pacific along its shores, Kiribati, a collection of small atolls, already faces food and water shortages, as seawater contaminates limited supplies of groundwater for the people who live there. Some suspect that their island will be underwater within the next three decades, as sea levels rise about half an inch each year."

Plagued by sea-level rise, Kiribati buys land in Fiji

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/1/kiribati-clim...

This was in 2012 ... when they were just talking about buying

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepac...

Guess it depends on "location" ...

rts551 - 11-2-2014 at 04:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MMc
By the time "climate change" is proven we will not be able to do anything about it.

The elephant nobody wants to discuss is what are China, India, and Russia doing about it? USA does use more then anybody else right now but what about 10 years. Those guys will have caught or passed us. Russia will not consume more but they will be selling oil to China and India. They use natural gas as a chip in the euro diplomatic card game and they will be pumping oil to China soon too. Both China and India have little to any issues about increasing their carbon footprint. Lots of new bikes, cars, light bulbs, refrigerators, and C/A units that need energy, gas, something to make them go.

I think there are lots of players in this game on both sides. "Climate Change" is like Religion, Who make the best Truck/Tire, or Republican vs Democrat, it's no longer objective.

"Woody is right"

Now let me get some more popcorn.



Still, the report warns that “even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally.”


got butter n your popcorn?

Bajaboy - 11-2-2014 at 04:29 PM

many questioned another scientist name Aristotle....

Ateo - 11-2-2014 at 04:49 PM

Tons of good info on Climate Change and data to back stuff up here:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

The average human knows nothing about this subject, including me. When I'm ignorant on a topic, I consult with the experts. The scientists studying this are in almost (97%?) total agreement that this is real. I didn't always hold that view. 10 years ago I was a denier. I changed my mind though..................it is possible.

But yeah, this is like discussing who's God is best!



A preview:

Is there a scientific consensus on climate change?

The major scientific agencies of the United States — including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are contributing to it. In 2010, the National Research Council concluded that "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems". [1] Many independent scientific organizations have released similar statements, both in the United States and abroad. This doesn't necessarily mean that every scientist sees eye to eye on each component of the climate change problem, but broad agreement exists that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by excess greenhouse gases from human activities.

Scientists are still researching a number of important questions, including exactly how much Earth will warm, how quickly it will warm, and what the consequences of the warming will be in specific regions of the world. Scientists continue to research these questions so society can be better informed about how to plan for a changing climate. However, enough certainty exists about basic causes and effects of climate change to justify taking actions that reduce future risks.

MMc - 11-2-2014 at 04:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by MMc
By the time "climate change" is proven we will not be able to do anything about it.

The elephant nobody wants to discuss is what are China, India, and Russia doing about it? USA does use more then anybody else right now but what about 10 years. Those guys will have caught or passed us. Russia will not consume more but they will be selling oil to China and India. They use natural gas as a chip in the euro diplomatic card game and they will be pumping oil to China soon too. Both China and India have little to any issues about increasing their carbon footprint. Lots of new bikes, cars, light bulbs, refrigerators, and C/A units that need energy, gas, something to make them go.

I think there are lots of players in this game on both sides. "Climate Change" is like Religion, Who make the best Truck/Tire, or Republican vs Democrat, it's no longer objective.

"Woody is right"

Now let me get some more popcorn.



Still, the report warns that “even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally.”


got butter n your popcorn?


Butter and salt, you'll know where my beach front house was by the oil slick on the water.
I don't believe ether side but, we should do all we can to prevent "climate change" from a pragmatic point of view.
If we are wrong and there is no climate change, we will still be good.
If we do all that we can and the change happens anyway, we tried and we're domed from the start.
If we do nothing and could have prevented change, we will be to late to fix it.
I have long believed that we would make our world unlivable for humans sometime in the future. But we should strive to postpone it for as long as we can.

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by MMc]

chuckie - 11-2-2014 at 05:00 PM

One smart dude,married Jackie Kennedy....Another study also released last week, believes the warming trend cannot be reversed. AND that the current weather trends will become the norm....It was released by UP a couple of days ago...Likely contaminated to some as at some point it must have traveled through the USPS and absorbed the Gummint spin contained in the stamp...:O

rts551 - 11-2-2014 at 05:28 PM

NO. go straight to the UN report... or even Feux news is getting with the program

http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/11/02/un-climate-report-...
Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by Ateo
Tons of good info on Climate Change and data to back stuff up here:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

The average human knows nothing about this subject, including me. When I'm ignorant on a topic, I consult with the experts. The scientists studying this are in almost (97%?) total agreement that this is real. I didn't always hold that view. 10 years ago I was a denier. I changed my mind though..................it is possible.

But yeah, this is like discussing who's God is best!



A preview:

Is there a scientific consensus on climate change?

The major scientific agencies of the United States — including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are contributing to it. In 2010, the National Research Council concluded that "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems". [1] Many independent scientific organizations have released similar statements, both in the United States and abroad. This doesn't necessarily mean that every scientist sees eye to eye on each component of the climate change problem, but broad agreement exists that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by excess greenhouse gases from human activities.

Scientists are still researching a number of important questions, including exactly how much Earth will warm, how quickly it will warm, and what the consequences of the warming will be in specific regions of the world. Scientists continue to research these questions so society can be better informed about how to plan for a changing climate. However, enough certainty exists about basic causes and effects of climate change to justify taking actions that reduce future risks.


Unfortunately, many of the deniers will question the report because it comes from the EPA website and is not vetted by Fox News:light:

Pompano - 11-2-2014 at 05:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
many questioned another scientist name Aristotle....


Please excuse me Bajaboy, but you choose a bad example in naming Aristotle. I’m a history buff and have read extensively about him. Now everyone knows that Aristotle was a great thinker. He invented logic, he wrote the Politics, Poetics and Metaphysics -- philosophers read them still. He was a great scientist of his day..on a lot of things...But even Aristotle's greatest fans -- and I count myself among them -- have to concede that he got some things so very wrong.

For instance here are some examples I can quote: (Ah...history! Don't you just love it?)


He writes that women have fewer teeth than men. It's unclear why he thinks this..maybe because he only counted young women’s teeth, without the wisdoms?

He thinks that men have hotter blood than women, have a more important role in reproduction, and are generally more perfect.

He notes that if you "mutilate" a boy -- lop off his testicles -- his voice never breaks and he never grows bald: he becomes feminized.

I don't think he thought much of women, as in his 'Politics' he doesn't even consider the possibility that women could be citizens.


He concedes that prisoners of war don't deserve to be enslaved: they're free men who just got unlucky. But he also argues that some people do deserve to be enslaved. "Natural" slaves are the sort of people who have the ability to take orders, but aren't smart enough to think for themselves. They're machine people. They're not much better than animals.


Eels seem to have been a problem for Aristotle. How did they reproduce? Aristotle's solution is that they don't: they just spontaneously generate from mud. In fact, he thinks quite a lot of animals -- flies, lice, midges, oysters, clams -- also spontaneously generate out of inanimate stuff. His theory of spontaneous generation was enormously influential.

You might imagine that he thinks that some divine intelligence made the world; that he's a creationist. Plato, his teacher, was. But not Aristotle. He's something much stranger: he's an eternalist. He thinks that the cosmos, the earth, and all the species of animals and plants it contains have been there for ever. From his point of view, creationists and evolutionists aren't very different; they've both made the same mistake: they both think that the world began.

Aristotle was a geocentrist. He thought that the earth sits at the centre of the cosmos: the sun, moon, planets and stars, embedded in crystalline spheres, revolve around it.
The strangest aspect of Aristotle's cosmology, however, is not its geocentrism, but his conviction that the celestial objects are alive. They are, in fact, the most perfect living things; they're almost gods. He wonders why the moon doesn't have wings, and concludes that it doesn't need them; it's got a better way of motoring along.

But…..When trying to understand the world, we should consider theories. Really, it's the facts that matter; and if the facts change, our theories should too. Aristotle is indeed a statement about how to do science, one made 23 centuries ago, the first. It's why, as I like to read in an open-minded way, I can understand what Aristotle is saying. It's why I and so many love him so.

But...if he were alive today, he'd be questioned for sure...and then committed to a mental institution. So would Jesus.

Mexitron - 11-2-2014 at 05:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
On sea levels---until (if) there is a significant rise we wouldn't likely notice it on the west coast and Baja except for extreme events---that is, we won't notice it at normal tidal flow since there's a 8 or nine foot difference between high and low tide and most tides aren't that extreme. We would only notice it at the extreme high winter tides and even then when there's an extra push from a storm or something to push the water beyond former parameters.


I don't understand. If the tides are getting higher... then one should see it on the beach. (same if they were getting lower).
We have noticed the change here on the Pacific ocean side. Over the last year the water seems to be getting higher and higher at high tide. Maybe its the shifting sands on the beach..or cliff erosion...but the water is definitely higher and eating away at some of the bluffs.


Well, let's say your extreme winter tides are 7'6". But most of the high tides are around 5 or 6 feet---you won't notice a few inches over the normal tides but you will notice it with the extreme tides since it will push water higher than before.

Mexitron - 11-2-2014 at 05:56 PM

When I say "notice" I'm talking as in a non-scientific observation....of course satellites can pick up even tiny differences.

Pompano - 11-2-2014 at 06:02 PM

On rising water levels, I realize that the Sea of Cortez may be affected a mite differently than the open Pacific. But this is reality and what happens in Coyote Bay. There is a concrete sea wall in front of many of the Coyote Bay homes that was built about 45 years ago. The sea levels have not changed on that wall in those 45 years...yet. We do get some very high tides in August and during other werewolf times, but nothing too alarming. Just saying....

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by Pompano]

rts551 - 11-2-2014 at 06:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
On sea levels---until (if) there is a significant rise we wouldn't likely notice it on the west coast and Baja except for extreme events---that is, we won't notice it at normal tidal flow since there's a 8 or nine foot difference between high and low tide and most tides aren't that extreme. We would only notice it at the extreme high winter tides and even then when there's an extra push from a storm or something to push the water beyond former parameters.


I don't understand. If the tides are getting higher... then one should see it on the beach. (same if they were getting lower).
We have noticed the change here on the Pacific ocean side. Over the last year the water seems to be getting higher and higher at high tide. Maybe its the shifting sands on the beach..or cliff erosion...but the water is definitely higher and eating away at some of the bluffs.


Well, let's say your extreme winter tides are 7'6". But most of the high tides are around 5 or 6 feet---you won't notice a few inches over the normal tides but you will notice it with the extreme tides since it will push water higher than before.


But aren't tides measured against a mean and therefore a 5-6 high tide 5 years ago might be lower than a 5-6 ft high Tide today?

Mexitron - 11-2-2014 at 06:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
On sea levels---until (if) there is a significant rise we wouldn't likely notice it on the west coast and Baja except for extreme events---that is, we won't notice it at normal tidal flow since there's a 8 or nine foot difference between high and low tide and most tides aren't that extreme. We would only notice it at the extreme high winter tides and even then when there's an extra push from a storm or something to push the water beyond former parameters.


I don't understand. If the tides are getting higher... then one should see it on the beach. (same if they were getting lower).
We have noticed the change here on the Pacific ocean side. Over the last year the water seems to be getting higher and higher at high tide. Maybe its the shifting sands on the beach..or cliff erosion...but the water is definitely higher and eating away at some of the bluffs.


Well, let's say your extreme winter tides are 7'6". But most of the high tides are around 5 or 6 feet---you won't notice a few inches over the normal tides but you will notice it with the extreme tides since it will push water higher than before.


But aren't tides measured against a mean and therefore a 5-6 high tide 5 years ago might be lower than a 5-6 ft high Tide today?


You might be right there, don't know if they change the mean.

Ateo - 11-2-2014 at 06:57 PM

I don't think using your eyes to look at ocean levels is considered scientific. It's probably shifting sands.

This stuff happens over large periods of time.

Fast forward 100 years and you may notice a change, but day to day, year to year, nope.

I could be wrong and I'm willing to change my mind.

:biggrin:

rts551 - 11-2-2014 at 07:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
On sea levels---until (if) there is a significant rise we wouldn't likely notice it on the west coast and Baja except for extreme events---that is, we won't notice it at normal tidal flow since there's a 8 or nine foot difference between high and low tide and most tides aren't that extreme. We would only notice it at the extreme high winter tides and even then when there's an extra push from a storm or something to push the water beyond former parameters.


I don't understand. If the tides are getting higher... then one should see it on the beach. (same if they were getting lower).
We have noticed the change here on the Pacific ocean side. Over the last year the water seems to be getting higher and higher at high tide. Maybe its the shifting sands on the beach..or cliff erosion...but the water is definitely higher and eating away at some of the bluffs.


Well, let's say your extreme winter tides are 7'6". But most of the high tides are around 5 or 6 feet---you won't notice a few inches over the normal tides but you will notice it with the extreme tides since it will push water higher than before.


But aren't tides measured against a mean and therefore a 5-6 high tide 5 years ago might be lower than a 5-6 ft high Tide today?


You might be right there, don't know if they change the mean.


I think I found it. National Tidal Datum Epoch: The specific 19-year period adopted by the National Ocean Service as the official time segment over which tide observations are taken and reduced to obtain mean values (e.g., mean lower low water, etc.) for tidal datums. It is necessary for standardization because of periodic and apparent secular trends in sea level. The present NTDE is 1983 through 2001 and is actively considered for revision every 20-25 years. Tidal datums in certain regions with anomolous sea level changes (Alaska, Gulf of Mexico) are calculated on a Modified 5-Year Epoch.

willardguy - 11-2-2014 at 08:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mexitron
On sea levels---until (if) there is a significant rise we wouldn't likely notice it on the west coast and Baja except for extreme events---that is, we won't notice it at normal tidal flow since there's a 8 or nine foot difference between high and low tide and most tides aren't that extreme. We would only notice it at the extreme high winter tides and even then when there's an extra push from a storm or something to push the water beyond former parameters.

hmmm..rising sea levels, many here have lived on the coast for many years and surely have seen evidence of such. those of us from the ventura area have probably walked out to the ventura rivermouth to see the remnants of the WWII panama gun mounts that are now completely underwater at high tide. you telling me that the beach is just sinking and the water level is the same? :?:

monoloco - 11-2-2014 at 08:51 PM

These guys measure sea level for a living, sea level change cannot be measured by comparing it to a land mass because land masses are not static. This is their conclusion based on very accurate instruments and testing procedures:

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Is sea level rising?
Sea level is rising at an increasing rate.

With the majority of Americans living in coastal states, rising water levels can have potentially large impacts.

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by monoloco]

Skipjack Joe - 11-2-2014 at 10:01 PM

Ateo's first post was the most intelligent one posted here on the subject in my opinion.

The subject has been discussed so many times that repeating yourself is just not worth the effort. Nobody ever changes their minds or even listens. And that's why the answer to Y,Y,Y is actually Y,Y,N. Nothing will be done except to build up barriers to prevent the seas from inundating areas by nations that can afford them.

Skipjack Joe - 11-2-2014 at 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano

But even Aristotle's greatest fans -- and I count myself among them -- have to concede that he got some things so very wrong.

For instance here are some examples I can quote: (Ah...history! Don't you just love it?)


He writes that women have fewer teeth than men. It's unclear why he thinks this..maybe because he only counted young women’s teeth, without the wisdoms?

He thinks that men have hotter blood than women, have a more important role in reproduction, and are generally more perfect.

He notes that if you "mutilate" a boy -- lop off his testicles -- his voice never breaks and he never grows bald: he becomes feminized.

I don't think he thought much of women, as in his 'Politics' he doesn't even consider the possibility that women could be citizens.



If I have it right one of his most interesting theories was that women were a product of 'arrested development'. The natural development of a human was to grown from childhood to manhood. Women, with a physique that to him resembled that of prepubescent men were similar to undeveloped men and were simply beings who didn't achieve full development.

I really don't think that Aristotle was particularly antagonistic towards the opposite sex. Don't forget that as little as 200 years ago scientists felt that men were intellectually superior to women because their craniums were 20% larger. Of course, at the time there was zero understanding of how the brain functions. So, more neurons - more intelligence. Shaquille O'Neal must be a genius.

P.S. Art objects don't belong in a museum because of how good they are now but because of how good they were when they were painted. Many can paint a Mona Lisa now.

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by Skipjack Joe]

BajaRat - 11-2-2014 at 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
These guys measure sea level for a living, sea level change cannot be measured by comparing it to a land mass because land masses are not static. This is their conclusion based on very accurate instruments and testing procedures:

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Is sea level rising?
Sea level is rising at an increasing rate.

With the majority of Americans living in coastal states, rising water levels can have potentially large impacts.

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by monoloco]



JESUS !
And now were supposed to believe science
Whats this world coming to

Glidergeek - 11-3-2014 at 01:21 AM

"This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year."

So last time I went to the beach I did notice a 2.5" rise since 1990:O

Osprey - 11-3-2014 at 09:01 AM

I didn't read the EPA report but I can guarantee that it contains no mention of Milankovitch Cycles (earth wobble). Somewhere in between the deniers and the true believers is an exact science dealing with how the earth moves in relation to axis and orbit. Even a quick study of the findings might convince some open minds that natural changes, over 26,000 year cycles would certainly trump the idea of spending a big part of the planet's resources to what?: change the movements of the earth, change it's speed, move the sun?

David K - 11-3-2014 at 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano
On rising water levels, I realize that the Sea of Cortez may be affected a mite differently than the open Pacific. But this is reality and what happens in Coyote Bay. There is a concrete sea wall in front of many of the Coyote Bay homes that was built about 45 years ago. The sea levels have not changed on that wall in those 45 years...yet. We do get some very high tides in August and during other werewolf times, but nothing too alarming. Just saying....

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by Pompano]


Thank you Roger, as one who can remember driving the old road along Bahia Concepcion in 1966 where it was at sea level and it is still there almost 50 years later, we can see the sea isn't swallowing the land by rising. Coast erosion is normal but the level of the ocean has been unchanged or so tiny a change in our life that this panic is reminiscent of the story of Chicken Little.

grizzlyfsh95 - 11-3-2014 at 10:34 AM

Breaking news. The UN has just announced that Bigfoot is real, and that everyone can stop searching for him. There will be some who don't believe it, but you know how backward they are. Imagine, the impeccable reputation of the UN questioned by these ignorant deniers, liars, cheats, crooks, and undesirables. Re-education..that's it...or death.

woody with a view - 11-3-2014 at 10:52 AM

UFO's are real too. that same guvmint said aliens will be found withing 10-20 years. I'm thinking they already are but big O doesn't want to deal with anymore negative press on his watch!

willardguy - 11-3-2014 at 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano
On rising water levels, I realize that the Sea of Cortez may be affected a mite differently than the open Pacific. But this is reality and what happens in Coyote Bay. There is a concrete sea wall in front of many of the Coyote Bay homes that was built about 45 years ago. The sea levels have not changed on that wall in those 45 years...yet. We do get some very high tides in August and during other werewolf times, but nothing too alarming. Just saying....

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by Pompano]


Thank you Roger, as one who can remember driving the old road along Bahia Concepcion in 1966 where it was at sea level and it is still there almost 50 years later, we can see the sea isn't swallowing the land by rising. Coast erosion is normal but the level of the ocean has been unchanged or so tiny a change in our life that this panic is reminiscent of the story of Chicken Little.
explain this.


hmmm..rising sea levels, many here have lived on the coast for many years and surely have seen evidence of such. those of us from the ventura area have probably walked out to the ventura rivermouth to see the remnants of the WWII panama gun mounts that are now completely underwater at high tide. you telling me that the beach is just sinking and the water level is the same?

monoloco - 11-3-2014 at 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano
On rising water levels, I realize that the Sea of Cortez may be affected a mite differently than the open Pacific. But this is reality and what happens in Coyote Bay. There is a concrete sea wall in front of many of the Coyote Bay homes that was built about 45 years ago. The sea levels have not changed on that wall in those 45 years...yet. We do get some very high tides in August and during other werewolf times, but nothing too alarming. Just saying....

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by Pompano]


Thank you Roger, as one who can remember driving the old road along Bahia Concepcion in 1966 where it was at sea level and it is still there almost 50 years later, we can see the sea isn't swallowing the land by rising. Coast erosion is normal but the level of the ocean has been unchanged or so tiny a change in our life that this panic is reminiscent of the story of Chicken Little.
So I guess you think that all the sophisticated instruments that NOAA scientists use to measure sea level aren't as accurate as your anecdotal evidence? It would be very difficult to perceive a 2" rise in sea level over the period of 50 years without some sort of instrumentation. We can argue the reasons for global climate change, and what the response should be, but the empirical evidence all indicates that it is happening.





[Edited on 11-3-2014 by monoloco]

[Edited on 11-3-2014 by monoloco]

willardguy - 11-3-2014 at 11:58 AM

" as one who can remember driving the old road along Bahia Concepcion in 1966 where it was at sea level and it is still there almost 50 years later"

hold on there hotrod, so you're tellin us that at nine years old you looked up from your etch-a-sketch long enough to make note of the water level as you past by bay of concepcion so you could compare it 50 years later! FASCINATING! :O

DaliDali - 11-3-2014 at 12:00 PM

Wouldn't it make sense if the air temps were rising (global warming) due to increased and more intense sunshine as claimed, that there would be more evaporation of the sea water?
Enough to mitigate any ice cap melting that is reported to be the culprit in rising sea levels?

More sunshine and higher temps.....higher rates of evaporation?
More evaporation leads to more moisture in the air and more rainfall as a result? Which ends up in the sea either by way of runoff and directly falling into the sea.
(and I am not even a white robed Bunsen burner geek)

In the end, I believe Mother Nature will figure it all out and make any corrections as need be.....all without any transfer of wealth to poorer countries or Al's LearJet
It's been that way since Adam and Eve stalked the forbidden fruit....when it comes to warmth, cold, rainfall or any other atmospheric phenomena.....Mother Nature rules the world.

Death and taxes is a constant......the rest is shear speculation based on models and driven by the almight buck.

nobodylikesyouanyway - 11-3-2014 at 12:28 PM

Attention all Dupes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

rts551 - 11-3-2014 at 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaliDali
Wouldn't it make sense if the air temps were rising (global warming) due to increased and more intense sunshine as claimed, that there would be more evaporation of the sea water?
Enough to mitigate any ice cap melting that is reported to be the culprit in rising sea levels?

More sunshine and higher temps.....higher rates of evaporation?
More evaporation leads to more moisture in the air and more rainfall as a result? Which ends up in the sea either by way of runoff and directly falling into the sea.
(and I am not even a white robed Bunsen burner geek)

In the end, I believe Mother Nature will figure it all out and make any corrections as need be.....all without any transfer of wealth to poorer countries or Al's LearJet
It's been that way since Adam and Eve stalked the forbidden fruit....when it comes to warmth, cold, rainfall or any other atmospheric phenomena.....Mother Nature rules the world.

Death and taxes is a constant......the rest is shear speculation based on models and driven by the almight buck.


I don't think Adam and Eve were given a car or provided with electricity. They did not have aerosol cans, nor did they spill a lot of oil in the ocean. Mother nature might not be happy with what we are doing to her!

mtgoat666 - 11-3-2014 at 12:51 PM

A c-cktail party debate about climate change is best way to gage a person's basic reasoning abilities in STEM. The denialists stick out like a sore thumb, when they ramble on about scientists lieing and Al Gore flying in a private jet and fleecing the populace,... get them to discuss something scientific and non-climate related, the conversation will leave you shocked at how far the decline of western civilization has progressed.

p.s. you don't want to trust any of the denialists to be your MD, dentist, engineer, etc. Watch out for the loopy ones! Their poor reasoning skills pervade all aspects of their being!

monoloco - 11-3-2014 at 12:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by nobodylikesyouanyway
Attention all Dupes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4
Oh really, how do you explain that since 2007 when that video was made, the seven lowest Arctic sea-ice extents took place?

DaliDali - 11-3-2014 at 01:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by DaliDali
Wouldn't it make sense if the air temps were rising (global warming) due to increased and more intense sunshine as claimed, that there would be more evaporation of the sea water?
Enough to mitigate any ice cap melting that is reported to be the culprit in rising sea levels?

More sunshine and higher temps.....higher rates of evaporation?
More evaporation leads to more moisture in the air and more rainfall as a result? Which ends up in the sea either by way of runoff and directly falling into the sea.
(and I am not even a white robed Bunsen burner geek)

In the end, I believe Mother Nature will figure it all out and make any corrections as need be.....all without any transfer of wealth to poorer countries or Al's LearJet
It's been that way since Adam and Eve stalked the forbidden fruit....when it comes to warmth, cold, rainfall or any other atmospheric phenomena.....Mother Nature rules the world.

Death and taxes is a constant......the rest is shear speculation based on models and driven by the almight buck.


I don't think Adam and Eve were given a car or provided with electricity. They did not have aerosol cans, nor did they spill a lot of oil in the ocean. Mother nature might not be happy with what we are doing to her!


But your reading comprehension is not well it seems.
Re-read it and tell me where it says Adam and Eve were using hair spray please.

Point being, is that over time, the scars humans leave on earth are renewed without "mandating" the immense amount of wealth to be transferred to other continents as the UN wishes.

To wit:.....forests renew, radiation dissipates, gasses dissipate, fisheries come back, sands shift and replenish, reefs recede and renew, lakes rise and fall, rivers overflow and recede, it rains buckets or none at all..snow pack is deep in some years...others skiers are crying....all natural forces of nature.

This earth might have a finite life....I don't know, but if the UN is in charge of making the call, count me out.

Skipjack Joe - 11-3-2014 at 01:41 PM

Hair grows and recedes. I'm with you Dali. You da man.

DaliDali - 11-3-2014 at 01:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
A c-cktail party debate about climate change is best way to gage a person's basic reasoning abilities in STEM. The denialists stick out like a sore thumb, when they ramble on about scientists lieing and Al Gore flying in a private jet and fleecing the populace,... get them to discuss something scientific and non-climate related, the conversation will leave you shocked at how far the decline of western civilization has progressed.

p.s. you don't want to trust any of the denialists to be your MD, dentist, engineer, etc. Watch out for the loopy ones! Their poor reasoning skills pervade all aspects of their being!


Your the LAST person I would ever believe on ANYTHING. Period.
You have shown over and over again to be an extremist radical who thrives on discontent and breeding hostilities.

Kindly keep your posterior OFF these general discussion pages and stay on the other side where you belong!!

DaliDali - 11-3-2014 at 01:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Hair grows and recedes. I'm with you Dali. You da man.


Ha....no global calamity where I am.....I have a full head of the stuff.

Pompano - 11-3-2014 at 02:12 PM

In those immortal words of that renowned consultant and 'idea man', J. Colossal McGenius who, aided by none other than his most efficient secretary, Miss Pennypacker....


"We each have our own SPECIAL causes."


rts551 - 11-3-2014 at 02:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DaliDali
Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by DaliDali
Wouldn't it make sense if the air temps were rising (global warming) due to increased and more intense sunshine as claimed, that there would be more evaporation of the sea water?
Enough to mitigate any ice cap melting that is reported to be the culprit in rising sea levels?

More sunshine and higher temps.....higher rates of evaporation?
More evaporation leads to more moisture in the air and more rainfall as a result? Which ends up in the sea either by way of runoff and directly falling into the sea.
(and I am not even a white robed Bunsen burner geek)

In the end, I believe Mother Nature will figure it all out and make any corrections as need be.....all without any transfer of wealth to poorer countries or Al's LearJet
It's been that way since Adam and Eve stalked the forbidden fruit....when it comes to warmth, cold, rainfall or any other atmospheric phenomena.....Mother Nature rules the world.

Death and taxes is a constant......the rest is shear speculation based on models and driven by the almight buck.


I don't think Adam and Eve were given a car or provided with electricity. They did not have aerosol cans, nor did they spill a lot of oil in the ocean. Mother nature might not be happy with what we are doing to her!


But your reading comprehension is not well it seems.
Re-read it and tell me where it says Adam and Eve were using hair spray please.

Point being, is that over time, the scars humans leave on earth are renewed without "mandating" the immense amount of wealth to be transferred to other continents as the UN wishes.

To wit:.....forests renew, radiation dissipates, gasses dissipate, fisheries come back, sands shift and replenish, reefs recede and renew, lakes rise and fall, rivers overflow and recede, it rains buckets or none at all..snow pack is deep in some years...others skiers are crying....all natural forces of nature.

This earth might have a finite life....I don't know, but if the UN is in charge of making the call, count me out.


Oh well. guess we will disagree. I don't think any rain forests will be returning soon. And as I look at some of the air now in SOCAL I think we can do something about it (ughh I lived in Riverside and LA in the mid-late 60's)....but I am with you on one thing, I don't think the answer is to just throw money at it.

The elections

Skipjack Joe - 11-5-2014 at 07:42 AM

Well, I guess now we can put it to rest. There is no global warming.

:lol::lol::lol:

BajaGringo - 11-5-2014 at 09:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Well, I guess now we can put it to rest. There is no global warming.

:lol::lol::lol:



If it truly were only that simple...

MitchMan - 11-5-2014 at 10:57 AM

BajaGringo, glad to see that you brought your avatar back. Love that photo. Don't know if that is you or not, but the photo reflects the fun Baja/Jimmy Buffet-type spirit to me.

A really key and pivotal point was made by Pompano:
“When trying to understand the world, we should consider theories. Really, it's the facts that matter; and if the facts change, our theories should too.”

With that in mind, I have to ask the deniers a question or two.

But first, you all know about the basics of thermodynamics that all of us were taught in high school, don't you? You know, matter is neither created nor destroyed, etc.? Right? One of the tenets is that there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between stuff (matter) and energy. It is what Einstein talked about and is reflected in E=MC2. One of the things it means is that stuff (matter) can be converted to energy and vice versa. And, that there is only so much stuff and only so much energy because, well, it is neither created nor destroyed.

OK, this is where I am going with this. To you deniers, when petroleum products are converted to heat energy, where does that heat energy go? I mean, since we humans have been burning fuels that were essentially room temperature before being burned and thereby providing heat that didn't exist before such burning; where did it go? And, what do you think is the cumulative affect today?

I mean, do you deny that burning a room temperature fuel creates more heat than existed before such burning?

larryC - 11-5-2014 at 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MitchMan
BajaGringo, glad to see that you brought your avatar back. Love that photo. Don't know if that is you or not, but the photo reflects the fun Baja/Jimmy Buffet-type spirit to me.

A really key and pivotal point was made by Pompano:
“When trying to understand the world, we should consider theories. Really, it's the facts that matter; and if the facts change, our theories should too.”

With that in mind, I have to ask the deniers a question or two.

But first, you all know about the basics of thermodynamics that all of us were taught in high school, don't you? You know, matter is neither created nor destroyed, etc.? Right? One of the tenets is that there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between stuff (matter) and energy. It is what Einstein talked about and is reflected in E=MC2. One of the things it means is that stuff (matter) can be converted to energy and vice versa. And, that there is only so much stuff and only so much energy because, well, it is neither created nor destroyed.

OK, this is where I am going with this. To you deniers, when petroleum products are converted to heat energy, where does that heat energy go? I mean, since we humans have been burning fuels that were essentially room temperature before being burned and thereby providing heat that didn't exist before such burning; where did it go? And, what do you think is the cumulative affect today?

I mean, do you deny that burning a room temperature fuel creates more heat than existed before such burning?


Just to be sure I understand what you are try to say. are you proposing that as we burn fossil fuels and anything else for that matter, the heat produced stays here and that is what is responsible for global warming?
Larry

gnukid - 11-5-2014 at 12:00 PM

Mitch,

You are making a good point but need to follow through. The earth is constantly producing matter from energy, and energy from matter, there is a proven cycle of creation of coal/oil, turned into energy and returned to coal/oil. Oil is both biotic and abiotic, it is found in both rocks and in organic matter and is constantly produced in a cyclical nature. The earth and it's atmosphere is a living thing. Plants and animals have a homeostatic co-exstence that support each other. There is not a set amount of oil, coal that once turned into heat or energy are never to return to oil/coal. As you have seen, there are oil wells which may become dry and later replenish and provide oil again, oil is constantly being discovered and rediscovered. Today it understood that Hubbert's Peak oil theory is a myth and is reflected by lower prices due to high reserves and increased efficiency.

You drive your truck and burn oil, the truck outputs CO2 and other elements. Plants and algaes use the CO2, trees grow, the atmosphere recycles CO2. Animals eat the vegetables and fruits and use the trees and produce CO2 which feeds the cycle of life in flux, at times there is undergrowth or overgrowth of plants and animals. Carbon is the key to life not a pollutant, nor static.

Images of walrus on southern beaches are a sign of high population. Certainly waste and pollution should be managed, industrial waste, military waste and proliferation of weapons, depleted uranium, nuclear waste, over production of fishing resources, heavy poisons in agriculture, and certainly genetic modification of organisms, non organic food products, and geo engineering are something to be aware of and manage more closely.

Keep in mind the earth is tiny compared to the sun which is the greatest source of energy for the earth, the sun is more than 1 million times larger than the earth. The slightest change in sun spots are a huge influence on the earths eco-system, the earth has little if any exhibited effect on the sun and the solar system.

To understand global climate cycles, consider looking at Solar Cycles affect on Co2, temperature and glaciation.

Maunder Minimum
Milankovitch Cycles

woody with a view - 11-5-2014 at 12:01 PM

doesn't heat rise? when it reaches a certain altitude, what does it do then?

:?:

equilibrium, my friend!

Skipjack Joe - 11-5-2014 at 12:10 PM

Al Gore had it right when he called it an inconvenient truth. If it had been an convenient truth there would be acceptance and no further discussion. We would all make money from this new discovery and go home with our pockets full.

Unfortunately truth has no heart. It makes no difference what impact it has on our lives. Facts are .... well, just facts. Information. You cab spin them, twist them, ignore them, deny them, hate them, repudiate them. They just remain unaffected.

That's what's great about our universe. It's consistent. Reliable. Psychology plays no role.

MitchMan - 11-5-2014 at 12:23 PM

If I was proposing something, I would have done just that.

What I am doing is ASKING DENIERS how they handle certain facts that I believe are absolutely fundamental/pivotal to the question of climate change/global warming.

What do you think has happened to/with all that heat since inception of burning fossil fuels to now and is there a cumulative affect at this time?

MitchMan - 11-5-2014 at 12:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano
I feel the cooling affects from all the wings fleeing from Obama.


I feel the heat of more economy-destroying inequitable lopsided disparity of wealth and income, more un-American voter restriction, and more disregard for women's reproductive rights on its way to our country from the hot air of the incoming Senate majority.

woody with a view - 11-5-2014 at 12:45 PM

break out the sunscreen!

MitchMan - 11-5-2014 at 12:51 PM

Good point, gnukid, but the question is also quantitative. While the earth is a living thing and while the earth is constantly producing matter from energy, and energy from matter, and coal/oil, turned into energy and returned to coal/oil, the question is at what differing rates? Are these rates in balance at all times and in the long run? Are they in balance now? What is the short term affect of a rate imbalance?

It seems to me that since there is an acceleration of global temperatures, that would signal an imbalance and a vector going in a certain direction instead. I, in no way, believe for a minute that the earth's eco system is capable at all times and under all circumstances will and can always remain in balance. I think there are limits...quantitative limits.

Even septic tanks need to be emptied from time to time.

larryC - 11-5-2014 at 12:57 PM

One of the best presentations about global warming that I have seen is the last episode of "Cosmos, a space time odyssey" an 8 or 9 part tv series. In the last episode Neil deGrasse Tyson lays out the evidence and explains in laymans terms the causes and future effects of global warming. Worth watching.
Larry

wessongroup - 11-5-2014 at 01:45 PM

Mother Nature is a serial killer … with out compassion for living and non living things

And Mitch ... spot on

There is a big difference

In the "case" of the "Greenhouse Effect" ... there are TWO concepts in discussion at the same time: Quantitive research and Qualitative research

Additionally this concern, isn't new ... "The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Qualitative

"Qualitative research is a method of inquiry employed in many different academic disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market research and further contexts.[1] Qualitative researchers aim to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The qualitative method investigates the why and how of decision making,what, where, when. Hence, smaller but focused samples are more often used than large samples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research


Quantitive

"In natural sciences and social sciences such as sociology, economics, anthropology, psychology and others, quantitative research is the systematic empirical investigation of observable phenomena via statistical, mathematical or numerical data or computational techniques.[1]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_research

There is a difference, and each must be separated to discuss each as individual and separate entities of "data" in order to draw fact based conclusions on which a prudent courses of action can be adopted



[Edited on 11-5-2014 by wessongroup]

gnukid - 11-5-2014 at 01:47 PM

It's quite an offense to call people with differing yet valid thoughts deniers. This tactic is among many faulty methods used by promoters of anthropogenic warming. One should not rely on name calling as a method to theorize, in fact skepticism is a trait of science, to discount skepticism is to discount science.

Keep in mind, throughout this topic, the great proponents, Gore, Mann, etc... have profited greatly while embellishing.

Over 17 years now the global temperature is stable, yet that is hardly the point.

Focus on the great polluter=military industrial war machine.

Bajaboy - 11-5-2014 at 02:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gnukid
It's quite an offense to call people with differing yet valid thoughts deniers. This tactic is among many faulty methods used by promoters of anthropogenic warming. One should not rely on name calling as a method to theorize, in fact skepticism is a trait of science, to discount skepticism is to discount science.

Keep in mind, throughout this topic, the great proponents, Gore, Mann, etc... have profited greatly while embellishing.

Over 17 years now the global temperature is stable, yet that is hardly the point.

Focus on the great polluter=military industrial war machine.


Scientists using science are overwhelmingly stating that man made climate change is occurring. What does Al Gore have to do with the facts:light:

MitchMan - 11-5-2014 at 02:35 PM

I have no intent of using the term 'denier' as a tactic, and I sincerely apologize to anyone that I have offended that has differing valid thoughts and genuinely founded altruistic skepticism that is based on science.

But, I do make a distinction between skepticism and refusal to acknowledge fact because of a preference to adopt dogmatic approach to what is clearly a physical science objective issue.

Also, cherry picking certain facts and ignoring or not taking into account all relevant facts and not taking into account both qualitative and quantitative information relating to the facts does not constitute true skepticism, but, instead, is mere denial.

FWIW, I haven't accused anybody of anything.

I don't think I or anyone else can know whether or not there is or is not anthropogenic global warming/climate change without knowing what happened to the heat.

But, I am still waiting for a response to my simple question posed directly to those that deny that there is any anthropogenic warming of any consequence : What has happened to the heat? Valid question.

The answer to the question must make sense in BOTH a qualitative and quantitative way, otherwise the answer is incomplete and therefore not valid.

[Edited on 11-5-2014 by MitchMan]

Pompano - 11-5-2014 at 04:03 PM

Valid....

....the short answer is that the energy we encounter and use everyday has always been with us since the beginning of the universe and always will be with us. It just changes form all around us. Hint: The Big Bang Theory. That is called 'the law of conservation of energy'. This morning I exercised that law and used just enough energy to put a nice fat goose on the dining room table, which will equate an equal amount for my body's chemical energy.

Later, I will expel that energy in the form of a fart, which will escape into space...so we hope. I should add that the fart energy is transferred into a form of electromagnetic energy called 'far infared radiation'. As it reaches space it is known as 'background radiation constant.' The background radiation constant is average amount of radiation that the universe holds. This means that all radiation released eventually becomes part of the background warmth of the universe.

My lab tells me that you cannot hear a fart in outer space...so that's the place to do it.

He also tells me that I've not had so much fun since being in my sophomore debate class. ;)

[Edited on 11-5-2014 by Pompano]

mtgoat666 - 11-5-2014 at 04:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gnukid
It's quite an offense to call people with differing yet valid thoughts deniers.


but not offensive for you deniers to call scientists "liars?" :?::?::?::lol::lol:

and i dont agree with your supposition that deniers have "valid" thoughts. nothing valid in debating science by labeling anyone that disagrees with your dogma "liars."

motoged - 11-5-2014 at 04:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Pompano
....ater, I will expel that energy in the form of a fart, which will escape into space...so we hope. ....

[Edited on 11-5-2014 by Pompano]


Roger,
So it's YOUR methane, not the cow's?

Glad I am "north" of that energy transformation :biggrin:

Mexitron - 11-5-2014 at 04:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MitchMan
BajaGringo, glad to see that you brought your avatar back. Love that photo. Don't know if that is you or not, but the photo reflects the fun Baja/Jimmy Buffet-type spirit to me.

A really key and pivotal point was made by Pompano:
“When trying to understand the world, we should consider theories. Really, it's the facts that matter; and if the facts change, our theories should too.”

With that in mind, I have to ask the deniers a question or two.

But first, you all know about the basics of thermodynamics that all of us were taught in high school, don't you? You know, matter is neither created nor destroyed, etc.? Right? One of the tenets is that there is a direct 1 to 1 relationship between stuff (matter) and energy. It is what Einstein talked about and is reflected in E=MC2. One of the things it means is that stuff (matter) can be converted to energy and vice versa. And, that there is only so much stuff and only so much energy because, well, it is neither created nor destroyed.

OK, this is where I am going with this. To you deniers, when petroleum products are converted to heat energy, where does that heat energy go? I mean, since we humans have been burning fuels that were essentially room temperature before being burned and thereby providing heat that didn't exist before such burning; where did it go? And, what do you think is the cumulative affect today?

I mean, do you deny that burning a room temperature fuel creates more heat than existed before such burning?


I don't believe its the heat created by burning its the CO2 and NH4 that are set adrift in the atmosphere which creates the greenhouse affect. We know that in the past few interglacial maximums (similar to this current period) that CO2 levels were equally high. this, before man was on the scene in any significant way. We also know, however that we are taking all this underground carbon which has been sequestered for millions of years and throwing into the atmosphere all at once, relatively. And yes its much more than most volcanic activity generally produces. And we know how volcanoes can alter the climate. So, it seems hard to believe that we aren't having some kind of effect. I guess we'll see what happens.

chuckie - 11-5-2014 at 04:49 PM

I think a cought a whiff of it here in Colorado....Fired back....SHOOT LOW DEPITY< THEY RIDIN SHETLANDS

MitchMan - 11-5-2014 at 05:22 PM

Good point, Mexitron. The greenhouse effect by combustion of fossil fuels makes the earth more of a closed system. And, the law of conservation is defined in terms of a closed system.

Which begs the question that no one here who says there is no global warming/climate change caused by us humans can answer: where is the heat that has been generated by burning fossil fuels in this closed system known as planet earth?

Skipjack Joe - 11-5-2014 at 05:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajaboy
Quote:
Originally posted by gnukid
It's quite an offense to call people with differing yet valid thoughts deniers. This tactic is among many faulty methods used by promoters of anthropogenic warming. One should not rely on name calling as a method to theorize, in fact skepticism is a trait of science, to discount skepticism is to discount science.

Keep in mind, throughout this topic, the great proponents, Gore, Mann, etc... have profited greatly while embellishing.

Over 17 years now the global temperature is stable, yet that is hardly the point.

Focus on the great polluter=military industrial war machine.


Scientists using science are overwhelmingly stating that man made climate change is occurring. What does Al Gore have to do with the facts:light:


Exactly! And what does the UN have to do with the facts. It's just messenger for scientists.

If you're going to cry foul over the usage of 'deniers' than be consistent and not hide behind the veil of al gore and the UN.

motoged - 11-5-2014 at 06:20 PM

.....So drop the AL Gore, UN, etc references....:light:

And stick to evidence, facts, and potential explanations/hypotheses.

Science is clear about not confusing correlation with causation.

mtgoat666 - 11-5-2014 at 06:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by motoged
.....So drop the AL Gore, UN, etc references....:light:

And stick to evidence, facts, and potential explanations/hypotheses.

Science is clear about not confusing correlation with causation.



Why drop al gore? He is a good at delivering the message. You all need to move past shooting the messenger and start listening to the message. Give him credit for bringing the issue to public attention. Your focus on al gores electric bill is ridiculous. You can't see the forest for the trees.

gnukid - 11-5-2014 at 08:49 PM

Here are IPCC scientist prediction of global temperature vs actual reported global temperature:






Key facts about global temperature:

The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 215 months from October 1996 to August 2014. That is more than half the 428-month satellite record.

The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.

The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.

The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.

Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.

The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.

In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.

The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.

Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.

The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.

The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.

From 1 April 2001 to 1 July 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.

Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.

gnukid - 11-5-2014 at 09:01 PM

Al Gore



[Edited on 11-6-2014 by gnukid]

gnukid - 11-5-2014 at 09:04 PM

Michael Mann



[Edited on 11-6-2014 by gnukid]

gnukid - 11-5-2014 at 09:07 PM

Climate Change




[Edited on 11-6-2014 by gnukid]

wessongroup - 11-5-2014 at 09:14 PM

Graphs are fun ...

This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)



The Preindustrial and/or Industrial Revolution changed everything … with the development of the “internal combustion engine” it was all over .. in 1859

"The first commercially successful internal combustion engine was created by Étienne Lenoir around 1859.[1]”

Scientific American advised in September 1860 the Parisian newspaper Cosmos had pronounced the steam age over,[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Étienne_Lenoir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

And what has followed is history. based on the need for natural resources in ever increasing amounts ... The Great Game, WWI, WWII and all the rest up to and including present day

Don't think there were ever internal combustion engines used by man, prior to the 1859 date "quoted" :light::light:

The scale of impact, by MAN, is what is missing in the earlier studies and/or findings .. .we didn't have the same degree of impact roughly 200 years ago

150 years ago, the earths population was estimated to be well under 2 billion ... and none had cars,trucks,busses et al ..

This would make a difference in CO2 production and is proven out by "ice core samples"

Those are factual findings by NOAA and other Scientific Organizations World Wide :):)

[Edited on 11-6-2014 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 11-6-2014 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 11-10-2014 by BajaNomad]

gnukid - 11-5-2014 at 09:15 PM

gnukid - 11-5-2014 at 09:19 PM

motoged - 11-5-2014 at 09:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666


Why drop al gore? He is a good at delivering the message. You all need to move past shooting the messenger and start listening to the message. Give him credit for bringing the issue to public attention. Your focus on al gores electric bill is ridiculous. You can't see the forest for the trees.


Goat,
I agree and did not say it so clearly....the side-show of attacking the messenger is only a distraction...

gnukid - 11-5-2014 at 09:25 PM

Rise in U.S. Gas Production Fuels Unexpected Plunge in Emissions
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873247634045784...

USA CO2 down 12% since 2007
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/05/whats-behind-t...

20 year low in CO2
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-impact-co2-emissions-us-dr...
 Pages:  1