| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
10 |
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| 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! 
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9009
Registered: 3-13-2004
Location: Sonora
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive
|
|
| 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. 
I think we are seeing the first evidence of it right here.
[Edited on 11-2-2014 by Hook]
|
|
|
Whale-ista
Super Nomad
Posts: 2009
Registered: 2-18-2013
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sunny with chance of whales
|
|
is it time for "climate change insurance plans"?
| 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]
\"Probably the airplanes will bring week-enders from Los Angeles before long, and the beautiful poor bedraggled old town will bloom with a
Floridian ugliness.\" (John Steinbeck, 1940, discussing the future of La Paz, BCS, Mexico)
|
|
|
CaboSur
Nomad
Posts: 108
Registered: 9-10-2014
Location: San Jose del Cabo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Irrelevant
|
|
| 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 
[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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1679
Registered: 6-29-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Current
|
|
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.
"Never teach a pig to sing it frustrates you and annoys the pig" - W.C.Fields
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
many questioned another scientist name Aristotle....
|
|
|
Ateo
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5898
Registered: 7-18-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1679
Registered: 6-29-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Current
|
|
| 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]
"Never teach a pig to sing it frustrates you and annoys the pig" - W.C.Fields
|
|
|
chuckie
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6082
Registered: 2-20-2012
Location: Kansas Prairies
Member Is Offline
Mood: Weary
|
|
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...
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Pompano
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8194
Registered: 11-14-2004
Location: Bay of Conception and Up North
Member Is Offline
Mood: Optimistic
|
|
| 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.
I do what the voices in my tackle box tell me.
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| 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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
When I say "notice" I'm talking as in a non-scientific observation....of course satellites can pick up even tiny differences.
|
|
|
Pompano
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8194
Registered: 11-14-2004
Location: Bay of Conception and Up North
Member Is Offline
Mood: Optimistic
|
|
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]
I do what the voices in my tackle box tell me.
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
10 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
