BajaNomad - Ocean front dwellers look out

Guess I'll move the gate back a few feet....

David,
You are good for now....just start sandbagging to protect the pizza oven when the time comes.... :saint:

dtbushpilot - 7-21-2015 at 10:57 AM

Quote: Originally posted by motoged

Guess I'll move the gate back a few feet....

David,
You are good for now....just start sandbagging to protect the pizza oven when the time comes.... :saint:

The ocean will have to rise about 50' for that to be an issue ged but I'm sure there is a "scientist" out there who will publish a report predicting such a scenario and so it will be "settled" as well. Let's start using that pizza oven more often while we have a chance, maybe I should be buying lots 3 off the beach instead of 1? :tumble:

dtbushpilot - 7-21-2015 at 11:22 AM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

Quote: Originally posted by ncampion

Let's see, that's 2.4" per year. Not sure I'm buying that prediction.

Did somebody say it's going to be linear?

You're dismissing a prediction because of an assumption on your part that has no evidence behind it.

It's good to be skeptical but the skepticism should be based upon something.

See what I mean. :no:

StuckSucks - 7-21-2015 at 11:30 AM

We didn't see this coming ...

motoged - 7-21-2015 at 12:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

It's good to be skeptical but the skepticism should be based upon something.

Like doubt? :lol:

[Edited on 7-21-2015 by motoged]

BAJA.DESERT.RAT - 7-21-2015 at 03:37 PM

Hola all,

this is some pretty serious stuff for our future generations.

i watched an eye opening documentary at 2:00 A.M. in Los Angeles that showed the effects of global warming that predicted all the doomsdays stuff on melting glaciers and more.

it showed the current effects that were very alarming around the world.

it was presented by goodplanet.org.

sorry but, i'm no techie and could not get more info as the credits were small and rolled by very quickly.

i'll follow up and try to find the video. WE BETTER WAKE UP BEFORE THERE ARE NO ROSES TO SMELL !

BIEN SALUD, DA RAT

Tomas Tierra - 7-21-2015 at 05:06 PM

I just sprayed beer out of my nose

bajacamper - 7-21-2015 at 06:49 PM

El cielo se está cayendo, correr por tu vida

mtgoat666 - 7-21-2015 at 07:36 PM

Quote: Originally posted by ncampion

Let's see, that's 2.4" per year. Not sure I'm buying that prediction.

2.4 inches per year? Not!

The rapture will happen quickly. A day, perhaps 2? You good Christians can keep on buying waterfront today. You Jews and Muslims and atheists that will be staying around after the rapture should buy a bit back from today's beach, on the fist hill.

Don't say I did not warn you!

woody with a view - 7-21-2015 at 07:43 PM

^^^words of wisdom, right there!^^^

in 50 years, who cares?

Mexitron - 7-21-2015 at 07:43 PM

While it makes sense that vaporizing 100,000,000 years of carbon deposits in the span of a couple centuries should wreak some havoc it still makes sense to keep a critical skepticism with such a politicized topic. That said, my own skepticism took a turn downward recently ...I kept wondering why in the last interglacial period we had high CO2 levels and temps (and that was before humans were barely a twinkle in the Earth's eye). Turns out that the higher temps would be caused by heating of the upper atmosphere due to the Earth's wobbly rotation over the eons. But the rising temps currently are in the lower atmosphere NOT in the upper atmosphere...so that may not have even happened yet.

BajaBill74 - 7-21-2015 at 07:59 PM

Where I live in California, it's a 30 minute drive to the beach. This is good news. It will be closer.

BAJA.DESERT.RAT - 7-21-2015 at 08:12 PM

Hola,

i went to the website and unfortunately, it's all in french, which i do not speak or read. if someone here can understand their website and find the film, i think others would appreciate it.

thank you in advance,

BIEN SALUD, DA RAT

SFandH - 7-21-2015 at 08:19 PM

Quote: Originally posted by BAJA.DESERT.RAT

Hola,

i went to the website and unfortunately, it's all in french, which i do not speak or read. if someone here can understand their website and find the film, i think others would appreciate it.

thank you in advance,

BIEN SALUD, DA RAT

Here's their youtube channel. The video you watched is probably there. Maybe you can find it.

https://www.youtube.com/user/GoodPlanetorg/

rts551 - 7-21-2015 at 09:44 PM

I went out this morning and stuck a stick in the sand where the water comes up. This afternoon it did not reach it. Now I KNOW that you guys don't know what you are talking about. Its a fact.

Santiago - 7-22-2015 at 05:43 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron

While it makes sense that vaporizing 100,000,000 years of carbon deposits in the span of a couple centuries should wreak some havoc it still makes sense to keep a critical skepticism with such a politicized topic. That said, my own skepticism took a turn downward recently ...I kept wondering why in the last interglacial period we had high CO2 levels and temps (and that was before humans were barely a twinkle in the Earth's eye). Turns out that the higher temps would be caused by heating of the upper atmosphere due to the Earth's wobbly rotation over the eons. But the rising temps currently are in the lower atmosphere NOT in the upper atmosphere...so that may not have even happened yet.

Thinking is very dangerous, stop it.

woody with a view - 7-22-2015 at 06:30 AM

I went out this morning and stuck a stick in the sand where the water comes up. This afternoon it did not reach it. Now I KNOW that you guys don't know what you are talking about. Its a fact.

check it again over the next 2 weeks. we may be in the low phase of high tides right now.

cbuzzetti - 7-22-2015 at 06:38 AM

I watched a show the other day with dragons and they said " Winter is Coming" :cool:

CortezBlue - 7-22-2015 at 08:09 AM

Henny Penny

Pescador - 7-22-2015 at 08:12 AM

Al Gore predicted a 20 ft. rise in tide by 2013 during his film , "An Inconvenient Truth". So believing everything the good Senator said, I bought on a hill, Same hill, the only good thing is that I get lots of exercise walking down to the water every day.

Now the real question is what do we do about it to really effect any change.

BajaGringo - 7-22-2015 at 08:39 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Pescador

Al Gore predicted a 20 ft. rise in tide by 2013 during his film , "An Inconvenient Truth". So believing everything the good Senator said, I bought on a hill, Same hill, the only good thing is that I get lots of exercise walking down to the water every day.

Now the real question is what do we do about it to really effect any change.

Agree that there is way too much BS being tossed out by both political extremes on the issue. What is becoming harder to deny is that climate change is happening. It is happening on a global level and cannot be measured by the snow level in Vermont in January nor the water level relative to a sandy beach in Baja in July. The comprehensive, planetary evidence is becoming overwhelming. Personally, I believe that this is a cyclic event in our earths ongoing history being exacerbated this time around by humans increasing in numbers, industry and pollution output per capita.

Pescador asks the real question that I wish both sides of this debate would focus solely on instead of spending so much time trying to prove/deny it is happening or calling the other side idiots.

We need to be asking ourselves what can be done to reduce our footprint on this planet, minimize the human contribution to global warming and then focus on how best to deal with what is out of our reach / inevitable.

KurtG - 7-22-2015 at 08:54 AM

I have always agreed with what Bajagringo expressed that the proposed solutions to global warming are good in and of themselves independent of the cause of the warming. When I point that out to my friends who think this is a political issue they don't seem to agree. I simply think that a lifestyle that consumes fewer natural resources is good for all of us, but then our species has not shown much ability to act in our own best interests.

The dinosaurs lasted a 180 or so million years, I don't think our species will come close to that.

I just noted that this post was #666, I am obviously a tool of the devil!

[Edited on 7-22-2015 by KurtG]

SFandH - 7-22-2015 at 09:19 AM

Between now and 2050 the world's population is projected to grow by 33%, from 7.2 to 9.6 billion. With this in mind I can't imagine how we can reduce the amount green house gases that are being released into the atmosphere. Couple that with the anticipated release of methane after the permafrost begins to melt and significant global warming soon, looks inevitable.

If you're concerned about the lives of your young children or grandchildren, buy some property in the cool, clean mountain air. It could become extremely valuable a few decades out.

[Edited on 7-22-2015 by SFandH]

wessongroup - 7-22-2015 at 10:02 AM

What he said ^^

It's the elephant in the room that can't be changed, it would appear ... the desire to "reproduce" ...

Something we picked up in evolution .. The old "Biological Clock" ones hears about

Coupled to the desire for electricity, transportation and a lack of finding a source which does NOT have negative environmental impact, is the challenge we® as humans face as a species

Coal, oil and natural gas ... pretty hard to break away from these as is SEX .. :biggrin:

Did see where a "think group" that Bill Gates put together up in British Columbia have created a means to removed CO2 from the atmosphere ... only problem .. It doesn't produce a "Yield" .. It only solves the problem :biggrin:

Perhaps the new approach by the Pope may have some degree of merit ... as nothing else has worked thus far

However, I haven't heard from the Pope ... on reproduction levels being established for the world and good luck with that one :lol:

[Edited on 7-22-2015 by wessongroup]

BajaRat - 7-22-2015 at 10:19 AM

The pressure we are placing on this planet has to have long term effects not just the terrible damage we see man inflicting today.
One thing is certain, change.
Well, I'm going back to the pole house design and a floating vintage trailer to tie up to it :cool:

BajaRat - 7-22-2015 at 10:26 AM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup

[Edited on 7-22-2015 by wessongroup]

Yeah but doesn't the process require burning Bald Eagle heads :?:

woody with a view - 7-22-2015 at 11:10 AM

^^^and harpooning polar bears for their tails!^^^

how else would you get a polar bear tail?

dtbushpilot - 7-22-2015 at 11:17 AM

I know for sure the planet is warming, 6 months ago it was down right chilly here and now I'm sweating like crazy. Must be 30 degrees hotter.....funny thing is none of the animals have died.....whodathunkit? :lol:

Osprey - 7-22-2015 at 11:19 AM

I will keep trying to herd some of you back to the Milankovitch cycles until you get that the earth WOBBLE changes things drastically every 26,000 years.

I don't think I'll have much success until they change the name to the O'bama cycles. Has a better ring for millions more people in confusion and distress.

[Edited on 7-22-2015 by Osprey]

wessongroup - 7-22-2015 at 11:40 AM

No mention of Eagle heads that I saw ... but, I just skimmed it :biggrin:

"Startups have figured out how to remove carbon from the air. Will anyone pay them to do it?"

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jul/14/...

Certainly a different approach ... Harvesting CO2 for reuse in the production of energy, however, there was no mention it would have any impact on population growth

Enjoy it while ya can

Wonder what Baja would be like with a Billion people

[Edited on 7-22-2015 by wessongroup]

ncampion - 7-22-2015 at 11:49 AM

I think this may be a first for a "Nomad" thread. Everyone is discussing the topic in a civilized manner. Congratulations to all!!!

chuckie - 7-22-2015 at 12:09 PM

I don't even pretend to understand all the arguments pro/con rising seas....BUT there seems to be a LOT of science that says the seas are rising.....We can do no wrong, however, to clean up our acts and our planet "just in case"....Out here on the big prairies, I can find a stick or two, but no oceans to plant it by....

rts551 - 7-22-2015 at 01:15 PM

People have shown so far that they are willing to do little things... but to make big changes they are too dependent on fossil fuels.

BajaGringo - 7-22-2015 at 04:57 PM

People have shown so far that they are willing to do little things... but to make big changes they are too dependent on fossil fuels.

Yes, unfortunately that is true. I was a card carrying republican back in the 80's and admit to voting for Reagan. At the time I remember thinking that he had sent a very mistaken and negative message when it was published that Reagan had ordered the solar panels installed by his predecessor on the White House roof to be removed. The US had the economic, industrial and technology resources at the time to be able to establish itself as a world leader in alternative energy production. Instead, we poo-poo'd that awesome idea, ridiculed the "tree huggers" and gave big oil lobbyists a regular spot on the presidents weekly golf foursome.

Not only did we make ourselves even MORE dependent on oil, in the process we increased the political-economical power of mid east oil barons which further destabilized a region historically at war. And that mid east instability sucked the US into the fight to protect its "oil addiction" which in turn has cost tens of thousands of lives, left countless crippled and after throwing trillions of dollars down that black hole, there are STILL politicians calling for us to go back for more.

Many love to make fun of Jimmy Carter's presidency but he was 100% right on energy. If the US had heeded his warning on oil dependency and instead embarked on a path of developing alternative energy programs, the country today would be much stronger economically, much less dependent on imported oil and be a lot cleaner to boot.

China probably wouldn't hold the mortgage on the country either...

Osprey - 7-22-2015 at 05:11 PM

None of those people or platforms could see the future of fracking and natural gas. I pay $4 bucks a gallon way down here in Baja Sur and people in the U.S. now pay $2 1/2. Need a big computer to add all that up and make sense of it. You can spin it all the way back to Truman and it still makes no sense in this century/system/culture.

wessongroup - 7-22-2015 at 06:01 PM

Dittos Ron ...

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by wessongroup]

woody with a view - 7-22-2015 at 06:02 PM

I'm paying $4.10 in Long Beach CA.

Osprey - 7-22-2015 at 06:06 PM

Woody, ya gotta move pal. U.S. average now is $2.76

Mexitron - 7-22-2015 at 06:50 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Osprey

I will keep trying to herd some of you back to the Milankovitch cycles until you get that the earth WOBBLE changes things drastically every 26,000 years.

I don't think I'll have much success until they change the name to the O'bama cycles. Has a better ring for millions more people in confusion and distress.

[Edited on 7-22-2015 by Osprey]

In case you missed what I wrote-- the Milankovitch Cycles would warm the upper atmosphere...that's not happening currently...it's the lower atmosphere that has increasing temps.

Mexitron - 7-22-2015 at 06:57 PM

$2.36 in TX

DianaT - 7-22-2015 at 07:07 PM

Quote: Originally posted by BajaGringo

People have shown so far that they are willing to do little things... but to make big changes they are too dependent on fossil fuels.

Removing those solar panels were a reminder of when the very efficient rapid transit system in Los Angeles was stopped and all the tracks pulled up.

dtbushpilot - 7-22-2015 at 07:08 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup

Dittos Ron ...

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by wessongroup]

Awww Jimmy, we need you man, come back for one more term, it's not too late......

TMW - 7-22-2015 at 07:23 PM

You can put up all the solar panels you want or wind generators but you still need power plants for backup. The sun don't shine at night and the wind does not always blow. If you are talking about an individual home OK but not a US home on the grid.

Electric cars a OK for the city but you are not going on vacation in one unless you are rich and can afford a Tesla and even then it has only a 250 mile +/- range. Hydrogen, where is it. Before you say the car companies are holding it back then why don't the university brain-e-acts design and build one.

The best we can do is regulate for better gas mileage and cleaner emissions on cars and trucks until something better comes along. We can also get rid of coal plants and use natural gas.

I believe in nuclear power but it probably won't happen. Our nuclear polices are stupid. It is dumb that this country can't find and agree on a place to put the waste. It is also dumb that we can't recycle the nuclear waste.

rts551 - 7-22-2015 at 07:58 PM

You can put up all the solar panels you want or wind generators but you still need power plants for backup. The sun don't shine at night and the wind does not always blow. If you are talking about an individual home OK but not a US home on the grid.

Electric cars a OK for the city but you are not going on vacation in one unless you are rich and can afford a Tesla and even then it has only a 250 mile +/- range. Hydrogen, where is it. Before you say the car companies are holding it back then why don't the university brain-e-acts design and build one.

The best we can do is regulate for better gas mileage and cleaner emissions on cars and trucks until something better comes along. We can also get rid of coal plants and use natural gas.

I believe in nuclear power but it probably won't happen. Our nuclear polices are stupid. It is dumb that this country can't find and agree on a place to put the waste. It is also dumb that we can't recycle the nuclear waste.

You have been oblivious to the plants in Mojave, San Bernardino, Gila Bend, Barstow and a couple of other places. Solar has gone way beyond the home. People always find a reason not to...and never a reason to.

gnukid - 7-22-2015 at 08:07 PM

Mexican City to Become 100 Percent Solar-Powered -- Kinda

http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewire/solar/photovoltaic-...

dtbushpilot - 7-22-2015 at 08:11 PM

This has been a good exchange of thoughts and ideas, let's try to keep it that way without being insulting, we all have an opinion and that's OK.

BajaRat - 7-22-2015 at 09:03 PM

This has been a good exchange of thoughts and ideas, let's try to keep it that way without being insulting, we all have an opinion and that's OK.

How dare you :biggrin:

dtbushpilot - 7-22-2015 at 09:10 PM

How about a group hug? :bounce:

BAJA.DESERT.RAT - 7-22-2015 at 09:14 PM

Hola SFandH,

thank you for the site but, unfortunately, the item i mentioned was not there.

I,ll keep looking.

BIEN SALUD, DA RAT

elgatoloco - 7-22-2015 at 09:42 PM

:saint:

chuckie - 7-23-2015 at 01:02 AM

kumbyah! Wind farms work....

Mexitron - 7-23-2015 at 05:08 AM

Small modular nukes, like the type running on carriers, might be an option. Lockheed says they'll have a small fusion reactor market-ready in ten years. Hydrogen has been ready for years now, just a matter of having the power sources ready to fuel it. I don't like electric cars personally--too much heavy metals/disposal problems and what's the point if the electricity is generated by a coal plant?
There are ways to stores solar and wind power for night use--for instance PGE's reservoir turbine and pump they use for storing off peak power use.

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by Mexitron]

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by Mexitron]

woody with a view - 7-23-2015 at 06:18 AM

look up Thorium powered reactor.

TMW - 7-23-2015 at 09:57 AM

You missed my point. There is solar but you still have to have oil, gas or coal plants available. You can't shut down these plants because solar and wind are not reliable all the time. I am well aware of the wind farms and solar plants in So Cal.

TMW - 7-23-2015 at 10:05 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron

I had a neighbor who was in the navy on a nuke sub and I asked him about nuke power plants and he said the problem with commercial plants was the safety training compared to the navy. On a ship they are always training for something going wrong and he did not think the commercial plants did so. In my opinion they should build nuclear plants the same or close to the same similar to what France did or does.

As for hydrogen cars I've been reading it would be available for about 50 years or more. I'm still waiting.

bezzell - 7-23-2015 at 10:09 AM

Civilization is a heat engine.

NEXT !?

(and be forever grateful you're not the grandkids)

edit: unless of course, someone comes along with a greenhouse gas extraction method. So far, not.

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by bezzell]

Mexitron - 7-23-2015 at 10:37 AM

TMW (heh, David should love this!)

http://www.toyota.com/mirai/?srchid=sem|google|Mirai|Segment...

Mexitron - 7-23-2015 at 10:40 AM

Quote: Originally posted by bezzell

Civilization is a heat engine.

NEXT !?

(and be forever grateful you're not the grandkids)

edit: unless of course, someone comes along with a greenhouse gas extraction method. So far, not.

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by bezzell]

A fellow awhile back thought that simply seeding the less nutrient-rich areas of the oceans with phosphorus would result in algae/microbial growth which would absorb carbon as it grew...when the organisms died they would sink to the bottom and essentially become a carbon sink...

wessongroup - 7-23-2015 at 10:48 AM

The "waste stream" from nuclear power generation, if used by the entire world, would pose a significant disposal problem in a number of ways

"A long cooling-off period for San Onofre nuclear plant"

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/08/local/la-me-san-onof...

IF we could deal with radio active waste generation an/or contamination from a release .. It would make a lot of sense in solving our energy problem

Some just don't see nuclear power generation as viable long term .. like Germany and apparently the people of Japan and a number of other countries within the EU

Japan to restart nuclear reactors, despite political opposition

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2015/0609...

This one is a very hard "nut" to crack ... power without environmental problems

I still think we® can come up with something ... just have to put more money into science to find the solution ... The "LHC" is our only hope IMHO .. in the mean time, about all we can do is tread water ... as the population is forecast to increase, which of course will demand even greater amounts of "energy" .. not less

And was Carter off the mark, or, was his suggestions to move away from greater use of "oil" incorrect, looking at where we are today ?

And bringing him back would have little effect ... given the current view by most folks on this subject ... which would include the providers of "power" along with our Government ... "Bama" ok'ed the building out of MORE nuclear generators to help

A tough one, asking people to do with LESS ... here in the United States ... and most other places in the world, we have become accustomed to this level of living conditions ... and I'm not complaining .. we live a good life here in the Untied States, regardless what we read in the papers daily .. sure there are problems, but, over all not bad for the vast majority of people in the country ... and no one said it would be "fair"

We just need to clean it up ... as other industries have had to do over the past half century or more ... and it will cost more, not less .. Its the way it works in this world

"Startups have figured out how to remove carbon from the air. Will anyone pay them to do it?"

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jul/14/...

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by wessongroup]

TMW - 7-23-2015 at 11:05 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Mexitron

TMW (heh, David should love this!)

http://www.toyota.com/mirai/?srchid=sem|google|Mirai|Segment...

I'm all for it and hope it works out.

It's interesting about electric cars, at the auto museum in Reno there is an electric car built in 1916 that could go 80 miles. Today we have only one that can exceed that mileage, the Tesla.

TMW - 7-23-2015 at 11:14 AM

I was listening to a guy on radio several months ago who said that all the nuclear waste produced by power plants in the US would fit in a cube the size of a football field. He also said if we recycled the waste for use the resulting waste would fit in a cube 12ftx12ftx12ft. If that is correct surely we can find a place to put it for the next million years.

I get it that people are scared to death of nuclear energy and they like to use the Three Mile Island accident as an example but to set the record straight no one was killed by the TMI accident. Nor were there any increase in cancer deaths as many claim. It was an accident and the radioactive release should have been prevented.

Look Out

bombero - 7-23-2015 at 11:19 AM

Melting ice packs, rising oceans, increasing footprints on the earth,climate change??? There won,t be any more discussions on these topics soon. There wont need to be. But there will be ever decreasing footprints on this Earth. As soon as the Muslim extremists " act badly " after getting a nuclear bomb and missiles, the dust clouds will cover the earth, the ice age will return. No more melting ice packs, no rising oceans no more increasing foot prints, no more worry. Religious Extremists will destroy the Earth long before carbon emissions. If the human race gets a second chance, maybe then, we can get it right.

wessongroup - 7-23-2015 at 11:21 AM

"U.S. Nuclear Waste Increasing With No Permanent Storage Available

The U.S. nuclear industry says the waste is being stored safely at power-plant sites, though it has long pushed for a long-term storage facility. Meanwhile, the industry's collective pile of waste is growing by about 2,200 tons a year; experts say some of the pools in the United States contain four times the amount of spent fuel that they were designed to handle.

The AP analyzed a state-by-state summary of spent fuel data based on information that nuclear power plants voluntarily report every year to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry and lobbying group. The NEI would not make available the amount of spent fuel at individual power plants."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/us-nuclear-waste-ra...

Of note ... the former head of the NRC resigned over "Bama's" adoption of using the "type" of reactors which will be going in and/or up in states across the nation

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by wessongroup]

Mexitron - 7-23-2015 at 11:44 AM

I was listening to a guy on radio several months ago who said that all the nuclear waste produced by power plants in the US would fit in a cube the size of a football field. He also said if we recycled the waste for use the resulting waste would fit in a cube 12ftx12ftx12ft. If that is correct surely we can find a place to put it for the next million years.

I get it that people are scared to death of nuclear energy and they like to use the Three Mile Island accident as an example but to set the record straight no one was killed by the TMI accident. Nor were there any increase in cancer deaths as many claim. It was an accident and the radioactive release should have been prevented.

Well, there was a suitable site called Yucca Mountain but folks got scared I guess. Might indeed find a use for the spent fuel someday.

mtgoat666 - 7-23-2015 at 11:53 AM

I get it that people are scared to death of nuclear energy and they like to use the Three Mile Island accident as an example but to set the record straight no one was killed by the TMI accident. Nor were there any increase in cancer deaths as many claim. It was an accident and the radioactive release should have been prevented.

TMI was nothing! What about chernobyl and ***ushima? Yikes!

mtgoat666 - 7-23-2015 at 11:55 AM

The japanese disaster was so bad that nomad censors the name!

monoloco - 7-23-2015 at 12:07 PM

It must be true if "some guy" said it on the radio. LOL.

motoged - 7-23-2015 at 01:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup

... .. we live a good life here in the Untied States...

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by wessongroup]

"Untied".....

perhaps a typo....perhaps not....but it fits.

There seems to be a dis-integration of political boundaries all over the planet....which can't help but slow down a unified process of addressing these universal issues...

Some good links offered.

wessongroup - 7-23-2015 at 01:27 PM

Thanks moto ... was thinking in terms of folks around the world that don't even have: water, food, shelter or medicine ...

Compared to those poor folks, we live beyond their comprehension .. . for them to "cut back" is not possible, unless through death

A 10' rise would have impact ... and it would appear at this time there is no way back ... even if we could "suck" all the CO2 out of the Atmosphere ... the largest heat sinks know to man (oceans) have been working over time for a while ... and all that energy will have to go some place

We could worry about Global Cooling ... as that is projected to be the next step, by some

I don't have concern over warming and cooling cycles ... only the "extreme's" ... which is true in most situations

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by wessongroup]

SFandH - 7-23-2015 at 01:46 PM

nuclear "waste"? Some of those uranium 238 atoms in the fuel rods absorbed a neutron and became plutonium 239.

A gram of Pu 239 metal is worth $10,990. So an ounce would be 28 * 10,990 or

one ounce Pu 239 metal is worth $307,720!

Plus even though spent fuel rods are no longer useful for power generation they still contain considerable uranium 235 and 238.

Spent fuel rods sitting in pools of water while they cool off (short lived radionuclides decay away) at the reactor facilities are not waste.

At least that's the way some see it.

http://science.energy.gov/nbl/certified-reference-materials/...

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by SFandH]

PaulW - 7-23-2015 at 01:48 PM

Sad situation. Glaciers have increased in size or stayed the same for the last 5 years and this discarded NASA crackpot says they are melting.
And the real qualified scientists are reluctant to speak up for fear that they will be shouted down by the lefty's and could loose their research support for the real science.
Be a skeptic and wait for real facts not frivolous projections based of political influence.
PW

rts551 - 7-23-2015 at 03:12 PM

Sad situation. Glaciers have increased in size or stayed the same for the last 5 years and this discarded NASA crackpot says they are melting.
And the real qualified scientists are reluctant to speak up for fear that they will be shouted down by the lefty's and could loose their research support for the real science.
Be a skeptic and wait for real facts not frivolous projections based of political influence.
PW

Who are the REAL qualified scientists?

PaulW - 7-23-2015 at 03:25 PM

Difficult to ID them because they are the silent majority. And they do not want publicity as I said before. Their studies and findings are out there and not in the general public view. We only get snips if their findings and they contradict the reports that have the warming agenda to publicize.

SFandH - 7-23-2015 at 03:58 PM

We only get snips if their findings and they contradict the reports that have the warming agenda to publicize.

Agenda? What do you think the agenda is? Do you believe the scientists who say global warming is happening have an objective other than informing people of what they think? If so, what is it?

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by SFandH]

wessongroup - 7-23-2015 at 04:08 PM

Federal Laws and regulations are written with business realities incorporated ...

That consideration is part of the Legislative process by Law

Think of the Supreme Courts ruling on Coal emissions

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/29/supreme-c...

And to think that business concerns are not part of the Legislative process for these "sites" is disingenuous at best

If there were no risk and/or a reasonable risk, they wouldn't be having such a hard time finding a home for it

Unless an "Immediate threat to Health and Environment" ... economics are a part of all Legislation ... and even under emergencies, some folks make a buck

All we're arguing about is the "cost" IMHO

That there isn't "risk" associated with radio active waste is not a valid argument, that's why it is classified as radio active waste by the Federal Government, along for how one "store's" and/or "handing's" radio active waste until it becomes non radio active by Federal definition

The Law and regulations also how to classify all "waste stream"s and how that "waste" shall be handled

To have such Regulatory requirements is an indication of the "risk" inherent with radio active materials and/or their use

and when storage fills up ... we can always do what ***ushima does ... dump into the Oceans ... :lol:

... 4 years at 20 tones a day ... :lol:

http://www.infowars.com/japan-begins-purposely-dumping-100s-...

[Edited on 7-23-2015 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 7-24-2015 by wessongroup]

rts551 - 7-23-2015 at 05:25 PM

Difficult to ID them because they are the silent majority. And they do not want publicity as I said before. Their studies and findings are out there and not in the general public view. We only get snips if their findings and they contradict the reports that have the warming agenda to publicize.

Its only for the secret society Huh? When you meet, do you bring your medical MJ?

mtgoat666 - 7-23-2015 at 05:52 PM

a silent majority? ha! hogwash! you denialists got to come up with a better argument than that!

DianaT - 7-23-2015 at 06:47 PM

Okay, I want to learn more. Since they won't go public, where can we access information as to their existence and their findings?

It is difficult to know if something is valid or not if it remains in the shadows.

I am serious as for the sake of my grandchildren, I would LOVE to know that all the other scientists are wrong.

monoloco - 7-23-2015 at 06:59 PM

Ask yourself who is more likely to have an agenda, independent research scientists from around the world or scientists who are paid by the fossil fuel industry?

wessongroup - 7-23-2015 at 07:05 PM

A significant approach is being introduced, which may have greater positive effects, than previous comprises from Business as it relates to "Growth" and the environment

"But more than a stage for the simple signing of declarations, the Vatican summit represents a fundamental shift in how the issue of climate change is framed. Not only did the participants sign their names to a joint statement declaring that human-induced climate change must be countered, they also agreed that doing so is a “moral imperative.”

Which is something that has not been all that successful in the past ... Individual moral responsibility ... Even Islam has taken the same basic position, and that would be both Sunni and Shia

Considering both religions comprise around 2.5 billion people .. we might see some change, if there is time left

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/pope-represents-fu...

[Edited on 7-24-2015 by wessongroup]

bezzell - 7-23-2015 at 08:14 PM

Sad situation. Glaciers have increased in size or stayed the same for the last 5 years and this discarded NASA crackpot says they are melting.

Ye gods man. 'Listen' to yourself.
Whenever there's collapse, its followed by some recovery ... by default!! (It's called 'noise' that accompanies the 'trend'. The trend is DOWNWARD!!! Please stop w/ the nonsense! Maybe spend some time and actually do your own research? Just a suggestion.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siVilq2oI50 (wade thru the first few minutes of attempted humor)

dtbushpilot - 7-23-2015 at 08:38 PM

Well, there it went, spiraling the drain. As soon as someone dares to question the "man made climate change" club they come out gun's a blazing with insults. Nice going guys and gals, carry on, this thread will be all yours now :no:

bezzell - 7-23-2015 at 08:41 PM

Some folks have obviously swallowed way too much Koch (bros) ! :lol:

(or, there's a guilt aspect (unfounded) maybe?

)

SFandH - 7-23-2015 at 08:45 PM

Well, there it went, spiraling the drain. As soon as someone dares to question the "man made climate change" club they come out gun's a blazing with insults. Nice going guys and gals, carry on, this thread will be all yours now :no:

What's happening is people are asking PaulW to further explain his "agenda" remark. He hasn't. Perhaps you can shed some light on what he means.

dtbushpilot - 7-23-2015 at 08:45 PM

Quote: Originally posted by monoloco

Ask yourself who is more likely to have an agenda, independent research scientists from around the world or scientists who are paid by the fossil fuel industry?

Did you really say "independent scientists from around the world"? Someone pays them for their opinion.....just follow the money. Before you start bloviating about NASA or the other alphabet organizations ask yourself where they get their funding and what is the source of their funding's agenda just like you would if it was big oil.

SFandH - 7-23-2015 at 08:47 PM

The gov funds NASA. So?

dtbushpilot - 7-23-2015 at 09:17 PM

Quote: Originally posted by SFandH

The gov funds NASA. So?

Thank you for making my point so clearly.

wessongroup - 7-23-2015 at 09:42 PM

The transition from Science to Politics is the nature of the beast ... only difference is that Religion has been added on this one ... by the Pope

Which should make things a lot of fun ... :biggrin:

Look what it has done for Islam with Sunni vs Shia thingy

[Edited on 7-24-2015 by wessongroup]

mtgoat666 - 7-23-2015 at 09:56 PM

Quote: Originally posted by monoloco

Ask yourself who is more likely to have an agenda, independent research scientists from around the world or scientists who are paid by the fossil fuel industry?

Did you really say "independent scientists from around the world"? Someone pays them for their opinion.....just follow the money. Before you start bloviating about NASA or the other alphabet organizations ask yourself where they Jget their funding and what is the source of their funding's agenda just like you would if it was big oil.

You denialists are pathetic. You don't like what science tells us, so you claim it is all lies. Pathetic.

monoloco - 7-23-2015 at 11:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by monoloco

Ask yourself who is more likely to have an agenda, independent research scientists from around the world or scientists who are paid by the fossil fuel industry?

Also universities in every country on the planet, and NOAA, I personally know a few NOAA scientists and I guarantee that they get funded no matter what their data shows. Do you really believe that it is more likely that there is a vast conspiracy between the majority of governmental and university climate scientists to fudge the data, than there is that the fossil fuel industry is trying to protect their profits? Maybe it's just a coincidence that almost all the scientists that deny there is a link between co2 emissions and climate change, just happen to be employed by the fossil fuel industry or one of their trade groups, and maybe there is a perfectly innocent reason that they try so very hard to hide that fact.

dtbushpilot - 7-24-2015 at 07:43 AM

Wow, I was gone for a bit and ended up in the middle of Paul's dog pile.
My first comment was about piling up on someone with insults and demands because they have an opinion contrary to yours. Paul has an opinion, it doesn't agree with yours, so what?
Apparently I'm a pathetic "denialist" according to the goat. I haven't said anything about my beliefs on the topic but my momentary association with someone who shares a different view than yours makes me a target of ridicule and scorn. Well, ok, if that's what gets you through the day I'm glad to help out.
There are plenty of research scientists out there researching stuff, most of them get a pay check from somewhere. The student scientists are doing research for their university who is also funded from somewhere. Research costs money, someone is paying for it. There is a lot of science out there for both sides to ponder, if your mind is already made up you probably won't give much credence to views that conflict with yours, that's just human nature not right or wrong.
I won't share my personal beliefs about the climate change topic because it wouldn't add anything to the conversation, I think all of our minds are made up on one side or another.
Do I think that scientific findings funded by the energy companies could be skewed by their personal agenda? Of course. The same holds true for science funded by our government (who has an agenda of it's own) or any other source. It is naïve to assume otherwise in my opinion but if you don't agree that's ok with me. :biggrin:

wessongroup - 7-24-2015 at 07:54 AM

We are talking about "people" ... variation is to be expected, and welcomed ... in most cases ..

Just think how boring it would be if everyone agreed ...

[Edited on 7-24-2015 by wessongroup]

rts551 - 7-24-2015 at 08:07 AM

Dt you got thin skin man. Or in denial, and can't stand the question. Which is it?

A guy posts "Difficult to ID them because they are the silent majority. And they do not want publicity as I said before. Their studies and findings are out there and not in the general public view. We only get snips if their findings and they contradict the reports that have the warming agenda to publicize. "

And people ask for an explanation and you jump on your soap box. Let the someone explain what he means. Maybe its a secret society that has all the answers. :lol:

bezzell - 7-24-2015 at 09:11 AM