# One giant hoax



## Traveler (Jan 17, 2018)

Today, in New Orleans, it was 20 degrees F.  That is 12 degrees BELOW freezing.  I lived in New Orleans for many years and I can testify that it NEVER, EVER got to the freezing point, much less 12 degrees below that.

Across the south, weather reporters are saying that in their entire careers they have never seen cold like this past few weeks.  Heck, it even snowed in Florida. FLORIDA FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. 

Simple common sense, which unfortunately is not so common, tells us that *IF *global warming is actually happening then IT SHOULD NOT BE GETTING COLDER.

IMO, the entire theory is a hoax from beginning to end.    :lies:

Relax, my friends. The sky is not falling.


----------



## Gary O' (Jan 17, 2018)

Traveler said:


> IMO, the entire theory is a hoax from beginning to end.    :lies:



We are one on this


----------



## Traveler (Jan 17, 2018)

They, who ever the heck they are, have an agenda. And that agenda has nothing to do with any mythical global warming.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 17, 2018)

Simply taking a small part of the globe into consideration, for a short period of time, does not refute what the vast majority of scientists are telling us.  I agree that this past month has been extremely cold in the eastern half of the U.S., but at the same time the readings from the Arctic and Alaska have been unusually warm...and pushing this Arctic air south.  While we are having nasty cold weather, there are reports from Australia saying they are breaking all sorts of heat records.  Global Warming....or more correctly, Climate Change...is something that will have its effects felt over a period of decades...maybe centuries.  

I remember being in Atlanta one Winter, back in the early 1980's...going to a company school...and it snowed almost 4 inches, and the temps dropped into the single digits.  That city turned into such a mess that the company called us all and canceled the classes for the day, and told us to stay put in the apartments...hitting the highways was like playing Russian Roulette.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 17, 2018)

Don M. said:


> Simply taking a small part of the globe into consideration, for a short period of time, does not refute what the vast majority of scientists are telling us.  I agree that this past month has been extremely cold in the eastern half of the U.S., but at the same time the readings from the Arctic and Alaska have been unusually warm...and pushing this Arctic air south.  While we are having nasty cold weather, there are reports from Australia saying they are breaking all sorts of heat records.  Global Warming....or more correctly, Climate Change...is something that will have its effects felt over a period of decades...maybe centuries.
> 
> I remember being in Atlanta one Winter, back in the early 1980's...going to a company school...and it snowed almost 4 inches, and the temps dropped into the single digits.  That city turned into such a mess that the company called us all and canceled the classes for the day, and told us to stay put in the apartments...hitting the highways was like playing Russian Roulette.



Without trying to start an argument, what do you say about Al Gore's idea that "global warming" could bring on a new ice age.  I just don't get that. It seems like saying that if you turn on the oven it might freeze in there.  Seems terribly goofy to me.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 18, 2018)




----------



## oldman (Jan 18, 2018)

I was in Florida (Clearwater) just last week. Tuesday through Friday temps made it into the 70's during the day. Saturday, the high was only 53°. When we arrived back in Baltimore at 9:00 p.m., the temperature was 18°. I drove an hour and a half north to get home from the airport and the temperature had dropped to 12°. It has been a brutally cold winter here in the mid-Atlantic, but the folks in Florida have told me that they have not had a good winter this season. 

Even my friends in southern Tennessee have complained that they have never been this cold before.


----------



## Pappy (Jan 18, 2018)

6:30 this morning it was 32 degrees. Right now it’s 31. Palm Bay, FL. We went through this same thing about 6 years ago. Very unusual for this part of Florida. Hopefully, the worst is coming to an end.


----------



## retiredtraveler (Jan 18, 2018)

There has been a comment about the 'miserable weather' we have in Chicago. I'll take that. We don't have hurricanes, floods. We do have cold weather, and snow, but we're prepared for it. We have salt and trucks and plows!. You can make whatever negative comments you want about midwest winters, but we keep going with a foot of snow and a few inches of snow is nothing more than 'frosting'. 20 degrees F is just a bit chilly.  We are always amazed up here that a state of emergency has to be declared for what we consider a winter nuisance.
   Those of you moving south to escape the 'bad' weather --- think again (unless you don't believe in climate change).


----------



## Pappy (Jan 18, 2018)

I was born and raised in upstate NY in the hills of Chenango county. I’m well aware of cold, snowy weather.  But I do enjoy my winters in Florida.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 18, 2018)

Sigh, I get a deja vu feeling about all this, but I'll say it yet again:

Global warming, climate change, etc. are not measured by how cold this particular winter happens to be. Temperatures go up and down all the time. Global warming is measured in geological time. The effect
on biodiversity, the melting of ice shelves, etc. takes place over centuries, maybe decades if we're extremely unlucky about it. But having a cold winter or hot summer - these prove nothing.

Want to see the actual results so far of global warming?  Take a look at one of those maps of the Arctic, showing how much of it has been covered by ice since history began, and how much is ice now. Looked at historically, the ice cap is dangerously melting, endangering animal species and leaving us vulnerable to increased flooding.  These are scientific facts, regardless of what the business/industrial community wishes us to believe. (Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain?)


----------



## EllieR (Jan 18, 2018)

It is 23 degrees here in North Central Florida.  I hate this cold weather and it will be 26 degrees tonight.  Hopefully it will warm up this upcoming week.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 18, 2018)

*Why Global Warming Can Mean Harsher Winter Weather*

Scientists look at the big picture, not today's weather, to see the impact of climate change

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter/#


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 18, 2018)

It' unfortunate that it was Al Gore who made the early statements about CLIMATE CHANGE due to global warming.  That made it political.  Some will not accept scientific if it conflicts with their politics.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 18, 2018)

I think Al Gore injecting himself into this issue was a Huge mistake.  He was just another biased "do as I say...don't do as I do" politician, and he hardened a lot of people's attitudes with his cynical behavior.  

The earth has seen countless warming and cooling cycles over its millions of years...and will continue to do so.  However, the big concern with this cycle should be the devastation it will likely bring to millions/billions of people...who did not exist in previous cycles...and the trillions of dollars damage/loss it will cause to all the coastal cities, etc.  

Personally, I think that even the most drastic human attempts to stop this cycle...total ban of fossil fuels, etc....will do little to stave off the inevitable.  It would make far more sense, IMO, for people to begin to migrate to higher ground.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 18, 2018)

Scientists agree with you Don.  It's too late to do anything but make it better.  A complete reversal is not possible now.


----------



## Knight (Jan 18, 2018)

How could the earth be warming if it's so cold where it isn't normally cold? What we don't actually see but is happening is being blamed on mankind. Could be true but since science still can't explain why dinosaurs died off I'll go with I won't be around to get to know for sure. 


What is known and visible is this.


Everywhere on Earth ice is changing. The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80 percent since 1912. Glaciers in the Garhwal Himalaya in India are retreating so fast that researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035. Arctic sea ice has thinned significantly over the past half century, and its extent has declined by about 10 percent in the past 30 years. NASA's repeated laser altimeter readings show the edges of Greenland's ice sheet shrinking. Spring freshwater ice breakup in the Northern Hemisphere now occurs nine days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and autumn freeze-up ten days later. Thawing permafrost has caused the ground to subside more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) in parts of Alaska. From the Arctic to Peru, from Switzerland to the equatorial glaciers of Man Jaya in Indonesia, massive ice fields, monstrous glaciers, and sea ice are disappearing, fast.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/




 Those that live where cold is the norm for this time of year and they enjoy it good for them, I've been there done that.  Just checked the weather for the week ahead. It's supposed to dip down into the high 30's overnight for a couple of nights. Probably have to wear a sweat shirt if I have to go out during the day. 

No matter what. I think it would be interesting to be around 100 years from now to see what actually takes place.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 18, 2018)

Of course there is Climate Change.   The planet has been in a state of change since the very beginning of time.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 18, 2018)

C'est Moi said:


> Of course there is Climate Change.   The planet has been in a state of change since the very beginning of time.



Exactly !  The earth is going about it's business regardless of what man does.  12,000 years ago the Sahara Desert was a vast green land with lakes, rivers and all manner of water loving creatures such as: crocodiles, hippos, elephants, otters, and dozens of species of water birds. In a short 3,000 years all that changed, mankind was driven out, the animals died off and only the burning sands were left behind.

If anyone can prove that happened because of man, I'll eat my words.


----------



## rgp (Jan 18, 2018)

Just two days ago Siberia recorded a record low of -88 degrees..[colder than Mars]..I'm thinkin' those folks would welcome a tad bit of global warming bout now....


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 18, 2018)

Maybe that's why they changed the terminology to "climate change".  Cause *damn *is this climate changing!


----------



## Traveler (Jan 18, 2018)

OneEyedDiva said:


> Maybe that's why they changed the terminology to "climate change".  Cause *damn *is this climate changing!



Exactly, so.  When they changed the name to climate change, instead of global warming, they guaranteed that they would be correct, no matter what happens.  If it gets hotter and more desert is created, they were correct.  If it gets colder and a mini "ice age" starts, they were correct.  Pretty neat trick, huh ?  It would be like me saying someone is going to win the Superbowl.

Everyone may not have noticed but they have begun to call those big white bears up north, "ice bears".
Watch out when they start changing the names of people and things.  He is not an illegal alien, he is an undocumented migrant. They think they can trick us when they change the names of people and things.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 18, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Sigh, I get a deja vu feeling about all this, but I'll say it yet again:
> 
> Global warming, climate change, etc. are not measured by how cold this particular winter happens to be. Temperatures go up and down all the time. Global warming is measured in geological time. The effect
> on biodiversity, the melting of ice shelves, etc. takes place over centuries, maybe decades if we're extremely unlucky about it. But having a cold winter or hot summer - these prove nothing.
> ...



But how much of that has been going on for centuries?

Where I am sitting right now was a glacier about a mile high which melted and formed part of the Great Lakes.

That was only 10,000 years ago.

What you are saying is not scientific facts.  It's scientific predictions based on computer models.

When it happens it becomes a fact.

Where I live there is a university that does research on Polar Bears.

Their claim is that not only are they surviving, they are thriving.  And yet the Polar Bear is the poster boy for the global warming community.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 18, 2018)

I found several interesting articles on the climate cycle in the Sahara.  A fair amount of research has been done on this: it's interesting.  There are many more articles ranging from the popular to the scientifically rigorous.  Take a taste if you wish.

http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/16/...completely-unscientific/#sthash.cTCcDFR1.dpbs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_climate_cycles

https://sciencestruck.com/sahara-desert-climate


----------



## chic (Jan 19, 2018)

In 2015 we had the coldest, snowiest winter in recorded history which means even my great grandparents never lived through a winter so cold and snowy. I don't believe in global warming either. I think these things just happen. Although industrial pollution probably is a reality and impacts out weather.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 19, 2018)

It was on the news today that of the 18 hottest years on record, 17 of them have been in this century, and we have only just commenced 2018.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/long-term-warming-trend-continued-in-2017-nasa-noaa


----------



## Sunny (Jan 19, 2018)

Camper, polar bears are thriving?  Read this:

https://polarbearsinternational.org...2r8umefWKX16wbn6YPrPhivpQN6pMAjBoCFXsQAvD_BwE


----------



## HipGnosis (Jan 19, 2018)

There have been 5 ice ages and global warmings in the last 450 thousand years.
Any 'scientist' that doesn't acknowledge that the earths temperature is NOT steady needs to turn in their lab coat and propeller beanie.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 19, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Camper, polar bears are thriving?  Read this:
> 
> https://polarbearsinternational.org...2r8umefWKX16wbn6YPrPhivpQN6pMAjBoCFXsQAvD_BwE



Well read this.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/09/scientists-polar-bears-are-thriving-despite-global-warming/


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 19, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> It was on the news today that of the 18 hottest years on record, 17 of them have been in this century, and we have only just commenced 2018.
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/long-term-warming-trend-continued-in-2017-nasa-noaa



So what. By how much? In total?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 19, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Sigh, I get a deja vu feeling about all this, but I'll say it yet again:
> 
> Global warming, climate change, etc. are not measured by how cold this particular winter happens to be. Temperatures go up and down all the time. Global warming is measured in geological time. The effect
> on biodiversity, the melting of ice shelves, etc. takes place over centuries, maybe decades if we're extremely unlucky about it. But having a cold winter or hot summer - these prove nothing.
> ...



Melting sea ice does not raise the level of the oceans.


----------



## NancyNGA (Jan 19, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> I found several interesting articles on the climate cycle in the Sahara.  A fair amount of research has been done on this: it's interesting.  There are many more articles ranging from the popular to the scientifically rigorous.  Take a taste if you wish.
> 
> http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/16/...completely-unscientific/#sthash.cTCcDFR1.dpbs



Snopes says FALSE to Notrickszone article, published by Breitbart.com

_"We rank the claims made by both Breitbart and No Tricks Zone as false, because they dramatically misrepresent the findings of the scientists who conducted the research and utilize poorly-articulated straw man arguments to further misrepresent the significance of the work of those scientists. These studies were local in nature, narrow in scope, meant to address how the climate system functioned in the past, and pose no threat to the tenets of anthropogenic climate change...."
_
https://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/


----------



## nvtribefan (Jan 19, 2018)

Deliver us from those who believe a cold front belies the truth of global warming.


----------



## Giantsfan1954 (Jan 19, 2018)

It's been pretty stinking cold in Chenango county,Poppy,barely reaching double digits and dropping at night,lots of frozen pipes and water,not to much snow though,6-8 inches in most spots.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 19, 2018)

The Daily Caller, eh?  That right wing rag is really the best you can do?  Sorry, I'd rather believe the findings of science.

From Wikipedia, here's one tidbit about The Daily Caller.
[h=3]Articles by white supremacist Jason Kessler[edit][/h]_The Daily Caller has posted articles by Jason Kessler, a white supremacist who organized a rally of hundreds of white nationalists in Charlottesville.[SUP][43][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP] Before Kessler posted his article, it was known that he had spoken at white supremacist gatherings.[SUP][45][/SUP] After Kessler received attention for his organizing of the Charlottesville white supremacist rally, the Daily Caller removed his articles from its website,[SUP][46][/SUP] but The Daily Caller executive editor defended Kessler's articles._
​[h=3][/h]


----------



## Sunny (Jan 19, 2018)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ent-scientists-report/?utm_term=.f42dc3e03c72


----------



## Traveler (Jan 19, 2018)

20,000 years ago, much of the northern hemisphere was in the grip of the most recent ice age. As far south as Pennsylvania and Yosemite Valley, in California, the ice was a mile thick. At this point there were no humans in North or South America. The earth began to warm. It has been warming ever since. 

As the ice cap began to melt, land passages opened up, and humans, coming in from Asia, migrated south, beginning in aprox 16,000 BC. Hence forth, those people were known as Native Americans. The point here is quite simple. The melting of glaciers and the shrinking of the polar ice cap is nothing more than a continuation of the steadily warming planet. It has nothing to do with man, or what man has done.

Whether man is on the planet earth, or if we became extinct, the planet earth will continue to go through never ending cycles of cooling followed by warming


----------



## Traveler (Jan 19, 2018)

Sunny said:


> The Daily Caller, eh?  That right wing rag is really the best you can do?  Sorry, I'd rather believe the findings of science.
> 
> From Wikipedia, here's one tidbit about The Daily Caller.
> *Articles by white supremacist Jason Kessler[edit]*
> ...




Please, let's not bring politics into the discussion.  That is a non-starter.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 19, 2018)

Traveler said:


> 20,000 years ago, much of the northern hemisphere was in the grip of the most recent ice age. As far south as Pennsylvania and Yosemite Valley, in California, the ice was a mile thick. At this point there were no humans in North or South America. The earth began to warm. It has been warming ever since.
> 
> As the ice cap began to melt, land passages opened up, and humans, coming in from Asia, migrated south, beginning in aprox 16,000 BC. Hence forth, those people were known as Native Americans. The point here is quite simple. The melting of glaciers and the shrinking of the polar ice cap is nothing more than a continuation of the steadily warming planet. It has nothing to do with man, or what man has done.
> 
> *Whether man is on the planet earth, or if we became extinct, the planet earth will continue to go through never ending cycles of cooling followed by warming*



Agree.   And though the polar bears may be an unfortunate casualty with the loss of the polar ice cap, they would be no different than the thousands of other now-extinct species that have gone before them.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 19, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Please, let's not bring politics into the discussion.  That is a non-starter.



Face it. The topic of Climate Change is already political.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 19, 2018)

Sunny said:


> The Daily Caller, eh?  That right wing rag is really the best you can do?  Sorry, I'd rather believe the findings of science.
> 
> From Wikipedia, here's one tidbit about The Daily Caller.
> *Articles by white supremacist Jason Kessler[edit]*
> ...




You didn't read the article.  You merely dismiss the source?

This is what I was talking about.  I live in Canada.  When it comes to polar bears our university knows what they are talking about.

From the link:
“They appear to be as abundant and as productive as ever, in most  populations,” Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a polar bear expert with more than 30  years of experience who teaches at Lakehead University in Canada, told the Roy Green Show.
 Taylor was responding to a recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey  which warned that one-third of polar bears could be in danger from  global warming by 2025 if nothing is done to curb carbon dioxide  emissions.
 “Addressing sea ice loss will require global policy solutions to  reduce greenhouse gas emissions and likely be years in the making,” Mike  Runge, a USGS research ecologist, said in a statement.  “Because carbon emissions accumulate over time, there will be a lag,  likely on the order of several decades, between mitigation of emissions  and meaningful stabilization of sea ice loss.”

​ *But Taylor said this warning was based on climate models, not  empirical data. *Taylor said in “essence it’s an expression of their  opinion … it’s simply their idea of what will happen if the carbon  models are correct.”

 “_t’s not an empirical result, it’s not taken from data, it’s  simply a collection of the people who contributed to this Bayesian  network model,” Taylor told the Roy Green Show. “But I guess in the  north country, where the polar bears live, we prefer to go by the data  and by what local people say.”_


----------



## Traveler (Jan 19, 2018)

Is there a single person here who denies that the earth has gone through endless cycles of warning and cooling ? Mankind has occupied this planet for only a tiny fraction of that time. I repeat, the earth will go about it's business REGARDLESS of what man does.

In any event, how are we humans supposed to live without leaving a "carbon footprint" ? Seriously, does anyone actually believe that every nation and every human is going to stop growing and living ? What do the proponents of global warming expect ? No more trains? No more jet airplanes which inject carbon directly into the upper atmosphere ? No more growing of food or even no more fireplaces. Give me a break !


----------



## Olivia (Jan 19, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Is there a single person here who denies that the earth has gone through endless cycles of warning and cooling ? Mankind has occupied this planet for only a tiny fraction of that time. I repeat, the earth will go about it's business REGARDLESS of what man does.
> 
> In any event, how are we humans supposed to live without leaving a "carbon footprint" ? Seriously, does anyone actually believe that every nation and every human is going to stop growing and living ? What do the proponents of global warming expect ? No more trains? No more jet airplanes which inject carbon directly into the upper atmosphere ? No more growing of food or even no more fireplaces. Give me a break !



But that wasn't your argument. Your argument is that it's a hoax. Who and for what purpose are those perpetuating this hoax do you think?


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 19, 2018)

Olivia said:


> But that wasn't your argument. Your argument is that it's a hoax. Who and for what purpose are those perpetuating this hoax do you think?


Why not ask who benefits?  Beneficiaries are nations not required to meet the same standards as this country who will also benefit from American payments should the Paris agreement be reanimated.  Third World countries can easily afford lobbyists and public relations firms.  Low end "scientists" are always available.  Some don't even require money; they're happy with the tiniest bit of publicity and adulation.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 19, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Melting sea ice does not raise the level of the oceans.



Melting sea ice, which is fresh water if it is produced over land, does lower the salt content of the ocean. Less saline water is less dense than it is for higher concentrations and it therefore occupies greater volume. High school science says that the height of the water column must therefore increase, even without increase in temperature.

Add to that the effect of even a small increase in the overall temperature of the oceans. One degree of warming has occurred since the advent of the technological age. A lot of this warming has been absorbed by the oceans and again, school boy science tells us that liquids expand in volume when heated.

I cannot predict mathematically how much sea levels have already risen or will rise in the future but I know that the answer has to be more than zero.

If the Antarctic ice sheets disappear there will be an effect on the deep sea currents that flow north carrying nutrient from the ocean bottom until the water rises to the surface in the Northern Hemisphere. One effect will be on the fisheries of that region. The other will be that the hotter waters of that region will no longer mix with the cold and local warming will be apparent. When that happens we much just hold on tight for bigger and better cyclones/hurricanes heading for the land. Best we stop the temperature increases due to fossil fuels before then.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 19, 2018)

Olivia said:


> But that wasn't your argument. Your argument is that it's a hoax. Who and for what purpose are those perpetuating this hoax do you think?



You ask a valid question. However, to answer you would require going deep into politics. As we all know politics are not allowed here. Besides, going into politics would degenerate into childish name calling so fast it would make our heads spin.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 19, 2018)

Traveler said:


> You ask a valid question. However, to answer you would require going deep into politics. As we all know politics are not allowed here. Besides, going into politics would degenerate into childish name calling so fast it would make our heads spin.



That's what I said, that Climate Change as a topic is already political. Good luck avoiding that.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 19, 2018)

But what if the climate change people are right? Do we really want to take the chance our careless, wasteful - just plain greedy behavior is hastening the process?


----------



## nvtribefan (Jan 19, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Is there a single person here who denies that the earth has gone through endless cycles of warning and cooling ? Mankind has occupied this planet for only a tiny fraction of that time. I repeat, the earth will go about it's business REGARDLESS of what man does.
> 
> In any event, how are we humans supposed to live without leaving a "carbon footprint" ? Seriously, does anyone actually believe that every nation and every human is going to stop growing and living ? What do the proponents of global warming expect ? No more trains? No more jet airplanes which inject carbon directly into the upper atmosphere ? No more growing of food or even no more fireplaces. Give me a break !



I would imagine all the creationists deny that.  The earth is only 6K years old according to them.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 19, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> But what if the climate change people are right? Do we really want to take the chance our careless, wasteful - just plain greedy behavior is hastening the process?



Greedy behavior, is it ?  Hmm.  What, pray tell, would you have us give up ? Hmm ?  Would you have us walk miles to the grocery store instead of taking public transportation ? Perhaps we could eat less ? There are already tens of thousands of Vegans who are desperately trying to force us to give up meat. Or, perhaps we could learn to live without any heating in our homes ?  

I, for one, refuse to allow the government to control my life. Enough is enough.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 19, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Greedy behavior, is it ?  Hmm.  What, pray tell, would you have us give up ? Hmm ?  Would you have us walk miles to the grocery store instead of taking public transportation ? Perhaps we could eat less ? There are already tens of thousands of Vegans who are desperately trying to force us to give up meat. Or, perhaps we could learn to live without any heating in our homes ?
> 
> I, for one, refuse to allow the government to control my life. Enough is enough.



Maybe read up on fossil fuel alternatives. We have solar panels on our house which cuts down on oil-based electricity. There's wind power, hybrid cars, etc. Doesn't make you give up anything.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 19, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Is there a single person here who denies that the earth has gone through endless cycles of warning and cooling ? Mankind has occupied this planet for only a tiny fraction of that time. I repeat, the earth will go about it's business REGARDLESS of what man does.
> 
> In any event, how are we humans supposed to live without leaving a "carbon footprint" ? Seriously, does anyone actually believe that every nation and every human is going to stop growing and living ? What do the proponents of global warming expect ? No more trains? No more jet airplanes which inject carbon directly into the upper atmosphere ? No more growing of food or even no more fireplaces. Give me a break !





nvtribefan said:


> I would imagine all the creationists deny that.  The earth is only 6K years old according to them.



Good point. I forgot about creationists. If they choose to deny hundreds of years of research by geologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists and numerous other disciplines, then that is their choice. However, the few years of research by those who claim man is responsible for any climate change is a very different matter. This entire concept of MAN CAUSED climate change is a new and unproven concept. At this stage of the game, climate change is merely a dubious hypothesis and still a very long way from a theory.


----------



## Knight (Jan 19, 2018)

Proven fact earth has gone thru cycles, but there is a difference now isn't there? Is mankind making an impact or not? Probably to anser that the 3 monkey rule of thumb applies. Hear nothing, see nothing & say nothing about what science is observing.  


I look at Population 7 billion plus using carbon based fuel sources for just about everything. Rain forests being depleted. No real mystery or denial of how that impacts our planet. On the lighter side there are even some that buy into rockets sent into space are poking holes in the atmosphere. 


This all by itself is kind of mind boggling to me.


Every day, the FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) provides service to more than 42,000 flights and 2.5 million airline passengers across more than 29 million square miles of airspace. With an airspace system as vast and complex as ours, it is helpful to have an easy-to-reference source for relevant facts and information. View the infographic below for a glimpse into ATO, or for more information.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/


This I'm used to.


Freeway traffic in major cities around the globe awesome to see the quantity of people driving for whatever reason. 


As I've posted before I'd like to be around in 100 years to see what takes place. Meanwhile what humans really have to curtail is the flatulance by cows waiting to be slaughtered.


----------



## HipGnosis (Jan 19, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> school boy science tells us that liquids expand in volume when heated.


When I was a school boy, I learned that water EXPANDS when it FREEZES - that's why ice floats.


----------



## Gary O' (Jan 19, 2018)

Knight said:


> Meanwhile what humans really have to curtail is the flatulance by cows waiting to be slaughtered.



We can debate this, but I firmly believe it's not all cows

...ahem


----------



## Traveler (Jan 19, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Maybe read up on fossil fuel alternatives. We have solar panels on our house which cuts down on oil-based electricity. There's wind power, hybrid cars, etc. Doesn't make you give up anything.



All of that is true. It, unfortunately, applies only to people with sufficient money to spare. A huge percentage of the earth's population has trouble staying housed and feeding their families. Those folks have about as much chance of buying solar panels and hybrid cars as I do of suddenly developing wings and taking flight.

In any event we have blow-hard politicians, like Al Gore, who wrote, "An Inconvenient Truth", preaching to us how we should live our lives, BUT that, of course, does not apply to him. He lives in an 8,500 sq, ft. home with the air-conditioning running 24/7 during the summer. And, if he wants to go somewhere, he just hops into his private jet and zooms off to do more preaching about "global warming". 

Back a few years ago, when Senator Ted Kennedy was alive, he advocated for "green energy" such as wind turbines. But wait. Hold everything. It seems that did not mean within sight of HIS mansion on Cape Cod. He pulled every string to stop those wind turbines from ever being built.

Yeah, guys. Do as I say, not as I do. If they TRULY believed what they say, they would not merely talk the talk, they would walk the walk. So, why don't they?  Quite simple, THEY DON'T TRULY BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY.  Ironic, isn't it ? The very people who advocate for green this, and green that, have convinced me that the whole thing is a hoax.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 19, 2018)

Traveler said:


> All of that is true. It, unfortunately, applies only to people with sufficient money to spare. A huge percentage of the earth's population has trouble staying housed and feeding their families. Those folks have about as much chance of buying solar panels and hybrid cars as I do of suddenly developing wings and taking flight.



Again, you DON'T have to do anything. Solar and wind are being produced by power companies for their customers.  Please read up on stuff instead of getting all wound up into unnecessary knots. Although, developing wings and taking flight might be just what you need.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 19, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> Melting sea ice, which is fresh water if it is produced over land, does lower the salt content of the ocean. Less saline water is less dense than it is for higher concentrations and it therefore occupies greater volume. High school science says that the height of the water column must therefore increase, even without increase in temperature.


https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1524



Warrigal said:


> Add to that the effect of even a small increase in the overall temperature of the oceans. One degree of warming has occurred since the advent of the technological age. A lot of this warming has been absorbed by the oceans and again, school boy science tells us that liquids expand in volume when heated.


https://water.usgs.gov/edu/density.html



Warrigal said:


> I cannot predict mathematically how much sea levels have already risen or will rise in the future but I know that the answer has to be more than zero.


See above.



Warrigal said:


> If the Antarctic ice sheets disappear there will be an affect on the deep sea currents that flow north carrying nutrient from the ocean bottom until the water rises to the surface in the Northern Hemisphere. One effect will be on the fisheries of that region. The other will be that the hotter waters of that region will no longer mix with the cold and local warming will be apparent. When that happens we much just hold on tight for bigger and better cyclones/hurricanes heading for the land. Best we stop the temperature increases due to fossil fuels before then.


No.



> This property of water is critical for all life on earth. Since water at  about 39°F (4°C) is more dense than water at 32°F (0°C), in lakes and  other water bodies the denser water sinks below less-dense water. If  water was most dense at the freezing point, then in winter the very cold  water at the surface of lakes would sink, the lake could freeze from  the bottom up, and all life in them would be killed. And, with water  being such a good insulator (due to its heat capacity), some frozen lakes might not totally thaw in summer.


See USGS citation above.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 19, 2018)

It would be better if you could summarize those references yourself for the rest of us, especially if you feel you know that stuff so well and feel so strongly about it.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 19, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Again, you DON'T have to do anything. Solar and wind are being produced by power companies for their customers.  Please read up on stuff instead of getting all wound up into unnecessary knots. Although, developing wings and taking flight might be just what you need.



Where does the power come from to build the solar panels and wind farms?

Nothing is free in this world.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 19, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Where does the power come from to build the solar panels and wind farms?
> 
> Nothing is free in this world.



Man power, maybe?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 19, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Man power, maybe?


Not even manpower. If you don't eat you can't work.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 19, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Not even manpower. If you don't eat you can't work.



I guess I missed something. Would you like to explain?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 19, 2018)

HipGnosis said:


> When I was a school boy, I learned that water EXPANDS when it FREEZES - that's why ice floats.



There is a small temperature range where water behaves anomalously but once the temperature exceeds about 3oC water behaves like any other liquid and expands when heated.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 19, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Not even manpower. If you don't eat you can't work.



Yes, yes, of course. Sorry to be so slow on the uptake.

Yes, it means manpower which means jobs--paid jobs.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 19, 2018)

Thanks for your response, Big Horn. You have challenged me to rethink my sloppy reasoning.




> Originally Posted by *Warrigal*
> 
> 
> Melting sea ice, which is fresh water if it is produced over land, does lower the salt content of the ocean. Less saline water is less dense than it is for higher concentrations and it therefore occupies greater volume. High school science says that the height of the water column must therefore increase, even without increase in temperature.



 Big Horn responded https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1524

Density = mass/volume. Adding salt, i.e. increasing the mass/unit volume increases the density because the volume is little affected by the addition of the ions but the mass of the ions does increase the mass and hence the density. 

 Adding fresh water from glaciers and Antarctic ice shelves  lowers the salinity and therefore the mass/unit volume. If a fixed amount of saline water has extra water added to it due to melting, the level of the water will rise simply because of the extra water, but it will also be less dense and if it continues to warm it will expand and the level will rise even more as it expands in volume.



> Originally Posted by *Warrigal*
> 
> 
> Add to that the effect of even a small increase in the overall temperature of the oceans. One degree of warming has occurred since the advent of the technological age. A lot of this warming has been absorbed by the oceans and again, school boy science tells us that liquids expand in volume when heated.


https://water.usgs.gov/edu/density.html

I see  what you are getting at. When ice that is floating on the surface of water, say ice cubes or an iceberg/sea ice, the melt water will not have any effect on the water level because the ice has already displaced just about all of its volume of water and when it melts the melted ice will simply fit into the space left where the ice used to be. However, if the ice was out of the water like ice cubes from the fridge or ice flowing down from a glacier or continental ice sheet then this ice will cause the water level to rise when it melts because it is the same as simply pouring extra water from a tap into a glass of water and ice cubes.



> Originally Posted by *Warrigal*
> 
> 
> I cannot predict mathematically how much sea levels have already risen or will rise in the future but I know that the answer has to be more than zero.


See above. 
See my addendum above My point being that the melt has to come from the land surface. Melting sea ice such as Arctic ice won't have much of an effect except on animals that depend on it.



> Originally Posted by *Warrigal*
> 
> 
> If the Antarctic ice sheets disappear there will be an affect on the deep sea currents that flow north carrying nutrient from the ocean bottom until the water rises to the surface in the Northern Hemisphere. One effect will be on the fisheries of that region. The other will be that the hotter waters of that region will no longer mix with the cold and local warming will be apparent. When that happens we much just hold on tight for bigger and better cyclones/hurricanes heading for the land. Best we stop the temperature increases due to fossil fuels before then.



 No. No? I say yes. 
 If the ocean's surface warms locally because the natural heat exchange system is disrupted there will be more energy transmitted to large scale weather systems. i.e. bigger and more powerful hurricanes.  These systems grow more powerful as a function of oceanic surface temperature and the time the system stays over the water.



> This property of water is critical for all life on earth. Since water at  about 39°F (4°C) is more dense than water at 32°F (0°C), in lakes and  other water bodies the denser water sinks below less-dense water. If  water was most dense at the freezing point, then in winter the very cold  water at the surface of lakes would sink, the lake could freeze from  the bottom up, and all life in them would be killed. And, with water  being such a good insulator (due to its heat capacity), some frozen lakes might not totally thaw in summer.



 See USGS citation above.                                                               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



The above was not my contribution but I can provide an answer of sorts.

When a body of water  begins to freeze the ice expands and being less (not more) dense than liquid water at 0oC, floats on the surface of the water. The surface layer thickens  as more ice forms but hydraulic pressure keeps the liquid at greater depths in the liquid state. In addition, a thin layer of air is trapped between the water surface and the ice above it. It is this air layer that allows life to survive the freeze.

Hoping I have made myself clearer on my second attempt.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 20, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Again, you DON'T have to do anything. Solar and wind are being produced by power companies for their customers.  Please read up on stuff instead of getting all wound up into unnecessary knots. Although, developing wings and taking flight might be just what you need.



Ah. I was wondering when the personal attacks would begin.   So, no comment on the above.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 20, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> Thanks for your response, Big Horn. You have challenged me to rethink my sloppy reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please supply citations for the above from universities or geological, biological, and oceanographic agencies.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 20, 2018)

Not going to bother with that as it is late at night now.

Those were my own reasonings and the physics is rather elementary. A school text book would be sufficient. Try Google for a simple explanation.


----------



## dpwspringer (Jan 20, 2018)

Originally Posted by *Warrigal* 

 
 				 school boy science tells us that liquids expand in volume when heated.





HipGnosis said:


> When I was a school boy, I learned that water EXPANDS when it FREEZES - that's why ice floats.



That's nice to know but ice is not a liquid. Water is a liquid and it does expand when heated and contract as it cools. 

In a static state like a pond, the deeper you go the cooler the water. Here's a good test of what you learned in school: since the water at the bottom of a pond is cooler, why does ice form at the surface instead of the bottom of a pond?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 20, 2018)

Here is one simple explanation of the reason ice forms on the surface of a body of water.
The temperature gradient is not as simple as one might assume since water is a fluid and surface conditions are a bit different to lower layers. 



> [FONT="q_serif"]The water's surface is usually slightly cooler than the rest of the body of water due to evaporative cooling. As water cools below 4 C, it also becomes slightly less dense, rising to the surface. Ice is also slightly less dense than the slightly warmer water below, so it floats on the water's surface. Once ice crystals begin to form, they provide nucleation sites for additional ice to grow along the water's surface. The islands of ice expand, until they cover the entire surface of the water.[/FONT]​


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 20, 2018)

Olivia said:


> I guess I missed something. Would you like to explain?



Well in order to work (manpower) you have to have strength.  So you have to eat.

In order to eat you have to buy food or grow your own but then you have to buy seeds.

And protein in meat is not cheap to come by.  Even hunting takes money.

So what I am saying is that nothing in this world is free. 

In the old days you would barter, but now you need cash.

I suppose if you lived on a desert island with all the resources to keep you alive, that might work, but that's rare.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 20, 2018)

nvtribefan said:


> Deliver us from those who believe a cold front belies the truth of global warming.



Deliver us from those who claim that a .01 increase in a temperature for a year makes it the hottest year on record.

Actually.  There's no way to measure the temperature of the Earth accurately.

And to compare it to previous years and previous methods is an exercise in futility.

My question is this.  If global warming is real, where the heck is it.  Certainly not in my back yard where I can observe it.

The average temperature where I live hasn't changed in 100 years.  I was able to track the records.

Perception is not fact.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 20, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> Melting sea ice, which is fresh water if it is produced over land, does lower the salt content of the ocean. Less saline water is less dense than it is for higher concentrations and it therefore occupies greater volume. High school science says that the height of the water column must therefore increase, even without increase in temperature.
> 
> Add to that the effect of even a small increase in the overall temperature of the oceans. One degree of warming has occurred since the advent of the technological age. A lot of this warming has been absorbed by the oceans and again, school boy science tells us that liquids expand in volume when heated.
> 
> ...



They won't disappear.  Stopping fossil fuels won't do a thing to stop the natural cycle of the Earth.

Bigger cyclones, hurricanes, have nothing to do with the claim of Earth warming.

That is a proven fact.  Everything that happens now is blamed on climate change.  It's ridiculous.

Cyclones and hurricanes have been with us for decades.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 20, 2018)

The government schoolteacher thinks she knows more than professionals.  They know how to avoid work, but not much else.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 20, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Ah. I was wondering when the personal attacks would begin.   So, no comment on the above.


You classify her comment as a personal attack?


----------



## Olivia (Jan 20, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Ah. I was wondering when the personal attacks would begin.   So, no comment on the above.



 You chose this topic so that we could all sing Kumbaya together?  Is everyone happy yet? :triumphant:

How do you expect this thread will close other than one side or the other will be the "winner"?


----------



## Traveler (Jan 20, 2018)

There has been much back and forth discussion about whether the earths temperature is rising or not, but I have yet to see any proof that there is a connection between man's use of fossil fuels and climate change.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 20, 2018)

Traveler said:


> There has been much back and forth discussion about whether the earths temperature is rising or not, but I have yet to see any proof that there is a connection between man's use of fossil fuels and climate change.



Okay, thank you. I agree that there is much disagreement and controversy about how humans are affecting earth and its climate.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 20, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Okay, thank you. I agree that there is much disagreement and controversy about how humans are affecting earth and its climate.



Perhaps I could have worded it better. I have yet to see any proof that humans are effecting the climate in any way.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 20, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Perhaps I could have worded it better. I have yet to see any proof that humans are effecting the climate in any way.



No, you were clear about you not seeing any proof that humans are affecting the earth's climate.


----------



## kteas1 (Jan 20, 2018)

Traveler said:


> Without trying to start an argument, what do you say about Al Gore's idea that "global warming" could bring on a new ice age.  I just don't get that. It seems like saying that if you turn on the oven it might freeze in there.  Seems terribly goofy to me.


It's a possibility. Had to do with the melting of ice in the Antarctica I believe. Methane is like 8x worse that co2. As it melts  it releases a lot of methane  but methane does off in 7 years. Once melted no methane being released. This creates changes in current and wind patterns. These changes can bring in an ice age. 

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 20, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Cyclones and hurricanes have been with us for decades.



Just one question- how many decades have cyclones and hurricanes been with us?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 20, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> The government schoolteacher thinks she knows more than professionals.  They know how to avoid work, but not much else.



Uncalled for Big Horn. 

I don't claim to know more than experts. I have a high school grasp of simple physics but climate and weather systems are not at all simple. However, to explain even simple concepts it is sometimes necessary to be a bit reductionist.

If I were still in the classroom I would do it with a demonstration involving a beer glass, some ice cubes and salt water. I would then be able to show that melting water from ice sheets does result in some increase in water depth. This demonstration would not say anything about other factors that might remove some water by evaporation, or what the effect of that evaporation might be.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 20, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> The government schoolteacher thinks she knows more than professionals.  They know how to avoid work, but not much else.



I think we can all live without snide remarks. Especially those directed toward a particular person.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 20, 2018)

Radish, LOL!  (Uh, let's see... a decade is about a million years, right?)


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 20, 2018)

My observation.

If you agree with global warming you are suddenly imbued with scientific knowledge and able to quote science even though you flunked every science course you ever took.

On the other hand if you disagree with global warming even though you aced science you are a dummy and don't understand scientific principles.

This is a sarcastic comment and meant in general and not directed at any one specific person.

Remember. The experts said that smoking wouldn't hurt you.


----------



## dpwspringer (Jan 21, 2018)

How much does sun activity affect our global temperature and if it does how much does it vary (if it does in fact vary at all)... a tiny bit, a little bit, some, or a whole lot? Just sayin'... 

And if you think humans are causing global warming and making the earth eventually uninhabitable, should not population controls/reduction be part of any solution?


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 21, 2018)

Traveler said:


> I think we can all live without snide remarks. Especially those directed toward a particular person.


Being truthful has never made me popular, but popularity has never been my goal.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 21, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Radish, LOL!  (Uh, let's see... a decade is about a million years, right?)



I think that sounds about right, Sunny. So, a score would be 2 million?


----------



## HipGnosis (Jan 21, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> Being truthful has never made me popular, but popularity has never been my goal.



Are you actually calling your previous post "truthful"?!?!?


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 21, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> Being truthful has never made me popular, but popularity has never been my goal.


Truthful as YOU see it?   You may not seek popularity but it might be a good idea to at least have the respect of others.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 21, 2018)

dpwspringer said:


> How much does sun activity affect our global temperature and if it does how much does it vary (if it does in fact vary at all)... a tiny bit, a little bit, some, or a whole lot? Just sayin'...
> 
> And if you think humans are causing global warming and making the earth eventually uninhabitable, should not population controls/reduction be part of any solution?




The sun affects the Earth quite a bit.

If a volcano erupts and spreads ash in the atmosphere it will cool things down.  I think that happened with Krakatoa.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 21, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> The sun affects the Earth quite a bit.
> 
> If a volcano erupts and spreads ash in the atmosphere it will cool things down.  I think that happened with Krakatoa.



Yeah, we need to pass a law against volcanic eruptions ASAP.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 22, 2018)

C'est Moi said:


> Yeah, we need to pass a law against volcanic eruptions ASAP.



I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Krakatoa gave us a very cold winter.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 22, 2018)

C'est Moi said:


> Yeah, we need to pass a law against volcanic eruptions ASAP.



I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Krakatoa gave us a very cold winter.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uption-that-led-to-the-year-without-a-summer/


----------



## Knight (Jan 22, 2018)

Can't beat these two links with pictures and text to show changes.


https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/




http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/




Funny thing about those links I tried them on Chrome, Internet Explorer & Microsoft Edge & none opened directly to the link. They are there just have to look for the wording to match.  Probably no interest anyway in seeing the shrinkage and reading about the loss of ice surface. Global climate change has happened on our earth before so what is the big deal now? 


Could be a big deal if the expectation of the oceans to rise and wipe out land areas with millions of people comes true. Not that millions would die surely cruise ships converted to arks would be put to use.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 22, 2018)

Knight said:


> Can't beat these two links with pictures and text to show changes.
> 
> 
> https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/
> ...


Some would move to higher ground.  Those who did not would help reduce population.  Since the smart and assertive would be the ones who move, it would be very positive for the future.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 22, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> Some would move to higher ground.  Those who did not would help reduce population.  Since the smart and assertive would be the ones who move, it would be very positive for the future.



Wow! You're such a caring compassionate person


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 22, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
> 
> Krakatoa gave us a very cold winter.



The point I was trying to make is that there are changes that will occur on this planet regardless of mankind and his "laws."   OK?


----------



## Traveler (Jan 22, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> Some would move to higher ground.  Those who did not would help reduce population.  Since the smart and assertive would be the ones who move, it would be very positive for the future.





Dragonlady said:


> Wow! You're such a caring compassionate person




There is caring and compassion and then there is the simple plain truth.  I would not choose to build my house literally on top of the San Andreas Fault. Why ? Because I have some small measure of common sense. If people choose to live in known danger zones then they can't complain when the statistical odds finally catch up with them.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 22, 2018)

C'est Moi said:


> The point I was trying to make is that there are changes that will occur on this planet regardless of mankind and his "laws."   OK?



Absolutely spot on. Unfortunately, some people just don't get the reality of totally natural climate change.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 22, 2018)

Traveler said:


> There is caring and compassion and then there is the simple plain truth.  I would not choose to build my house literally on top of the San Andreas Fault. Why ? Because I have some small measure of common sense. If people choose to live in known danger zones then they can't complain when the statistical odds finally catch up with them.



Well, you're choosing in the first place to livr in California, where sadly if the fire or floods don't get you, then earthquakes might. And you don't have to live right on top of the San Andreas Fault to have the coastline of the state to fall into the sea. 

And, Big Horn, lots of rich smart assertive people live on coastlines.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 22, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Well, you're choosing in the first place to livr in California, where sadly if the fire or floods don't get you, then earthquakes might. And you don't have to live right on top of the San Andreas Fault to have the coastline of the state to fall into the sea.



Since I live in the heart of the city and well above flood areas, I'm in no danger of fire or flood. As for the coastline falling in the sea. I think that is the stuff of Hollywood. To be sure, there is some periodic and minor beach erosion, but I have never heard of any large chunks of coastline falling into the sea. There is a place in Oregon (I forget where) where the ocean levels rose 700 years ago and reclaimed a few hundred acres of land. Radio-carbon dating of buried trees gave scientists the date.

People who support the notion of man caused global climate change will please note that the above mentioned Oregon event happened 520 years before the 1st steam engine and 560 years before the 1st internal combustion engine and 180 years before Columbus sailed into The Caribbean Sea.  Man caused ? That's a laugh.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 22, 2018)

Olivia said:


> ...And, Big Horn, lots of rich smart assertive people live on coastlines.


The sea isn't yet rising enough to inundate them and there's no reason to think that it will.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 22, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> The sea isn't yet rising enough to inundate them and there's no reason to think that it will.



And you/we won't be around to have to worry about it.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 22, 2018)

The rate of sea level rise isn't a direct problem but warming of the ocean surface is. This is what fuels the big weather systems such as cyclones and hurricanes. These drive the waves against the coastline and erode the cliffs. Then it's goodbye clifftop mansion and goodbye caravan park down below.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 23, 2018)

OK, let's cut to the chase here. What is this really about?

Let's step back and conjecture a bit on how we would feel about climate change if it were somehow determined that it was very bad for Big Business.  The stock market takes a dive with every revelation about global warming, pollution, danger to animal and plant species, etc.  The ice shelf is melting and the seas are rising?  Bad for business!  Your chosen political party is loudly condemning climate change.

So, I put it to all those who are so hotly (sorry) denying that the obvious is taking place:  how would you feel about it then?


----------



## Don M. (Jan 23, 2018)

This morning, there was a Tsunami warning for Alaska and much of the upper West coast....due to a major earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska.  The warning was cancelled a few hours later, as the ocean waves did no reach the coast.  However, there were a lot of people evacuating low lying areas...just in case.  This is just the type of thing that will continue to happen more frequently, as the oceans slowly rise.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 23, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> The rate of sea level rise isn't a direct problem but warming of the ocean surface is. This is what fuels the big weather systems such as cyclones and hurricanes. These drive the waves against the coastline and erode the cliffs. Then it's goodbye clifftop mansion and goodbye caravan park down below.



An Irish beach that disappeared more than 30 years ago has returned to an island off the County Mayo coast.

The sand at Dooagh, Achill Island, was washed away by storms in 1984, leaving only rocks and rock pools.

But after a freak tide around Easter this year, hundreds of tonnes of sand were deposited around the area where the beach once stood, recreating the old 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/08/irish-beach-washed-away-reappears-freak-tide


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 23, 2018)

Don M. said:


> This morning, there was a Tsunami warning for Alaska and much of the upper West coast....due to a major earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska.  The warning was cancelled a few hours later, as the ocean waves did no reach the coast.  However, there were a lot of people evacuating low lying areas...just in case.  This is just the type of thing that will continue to happen more frequently, as the oceans slowly rise.



There is no scientific evidence for that which you have just claimed. There is no correlation between submarine earthquakes and the warming of the oceans which are for all intents and purposes minor.

The tectonic plates of the Earth move and have been moving for eons and will continue to slide and move and there's not a thing you can do about it.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 23, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> The rate of sea level rise isn't a direct problem but warming of the ocean surface is. This is what fuels the big weather systems such as cyclones and hurricanes. These drive the waves against the coastline and erode the cliffs. Then it's goodbye clifftop mansion and goodbye caravan park down below.



There is no scientific evidence for your claim.  

These scare tactics drive me to drink.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 23, 2018)

Sunny said:


> OK, let's cut to the chase here. What is this really about?
> 
> Let's step back and conjecture a bit on how we would feel about climate change if it were somehow determined that it was very bad for Big Business.  The stock market takes a dive with every revelation about global warming, pollution, danger to animal and plant species, etc.  The ice shelf is melting and the seas are rising?  Bad for business!  Your chosen political party is loudly condemning climate change.
> 
> So, I put it to all those who are so hotly (sorry) denying that the obvious is taking place:  how would you feel about it then?



It's good for the insurance business.  Their claim is that the weather is becoming weirder so they will increase your premiums.

Which is sheer nonsense.  The weather now is no weirder than it has every been.   

The obvious is not taking place.  All this garbage is based on computer models forecasting the future.

The warming is well within normal limits according to the IPCC.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 23, 2018)

Sunny said:


> OK, let's cut to the chase here. What is this really about?
> 
> Let's step back and conjecture a bit on how we would feel about climate change if it were somehow determined that it was very bad for Big Business.  The stock market takes a dive with every revelation about global warming, pollution, danger to animal and plant species, etc.  The ice shelf is melting and the seas are rising?  Bad for business!  Your chosen political party is loudly condemning climate change.
> 
> So, I put it to all those who are so hotly (sorry) denying that the obvious is taking place:  how would you feel about it then?



It is not obvious to me that man is causing any change in the climate. In my 71 years I honestly can not say that I have felt any change. It is a good thing that the 1930's American dust bowl happened so long ago. If it was happening today, it would be sited as "proof positive" of global warming. The environmentalists would then be running around in circles, having hysterical fits, and crying "end of the world".

IMO the entire thing is politically motivated and spread by the same kind of people who insist on believing that the moon landings were faked, that Pres George W. Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, and the Roswell "incident" is a gigantic government cover-up. Some people will believe anything. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe in it.

The earth, however, has been steadily warming since the end of the last ice age 15,000 years ago. But that is not the same thing as saying it is caused by man. It is a completely natural phenomenon. It has happened hundreds of times during the history of the planet and will continue to happen whether man inhabits the planet or not. Yes, the earth is very slowly warming but the hoax is that it is being caused by man.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 23, 2018)

Can anyone tell me what the "hoaxters" hope to gain?


----------



## Traveler (Jan 23, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Can anyone tell me what the "hoaxters" hope to gain?



Not being one of that ilk, I can not see into the strange minds of the extremists. But one thing is for certain, the people who spread the myth of man caused global warming are no friends of America. People like "Hanoi Jane", Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton detest America and everything it stands for. If they can hamstring America and give an economic advantage to their foreign pals then they are tickled pink to do so.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 23, 2018)

traveler said:


> not being one of that ilk, i can not see into the strange minds of the extremists. But one thing is for certain, the people who spread the myth of man caused global warming are no friends of america. People like "hanoi jane", michael moore and hillary clinton detest america and everything it stands for. If they can hamstring america and give an economic advantage to their foreign pals then they are tickled pink to do so.



omg


----------



## Don M. (Jan 23, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> There is no scientific evidence for that which you have just claimed. There is no correlation between submarine earthquakes and the warming of the oceans which are for all intents and purposes minor. The tectonic plates of the Earth move and have been moving for eons and will continue to slide and move and there's not a thing you can do about it.



You miss the point...this Tsunami warning was issued as a "Precautionary" action, by the authorities...since they did not know if or when a huge wave might reach shore as a result of this earthquake.  The Pacific Rim is constantly experiencing earthquakes, and any low lying areas are Always at risk from such an event.  Do you remember that little event from a few years ago that wiped out the Fukushima Nuclear power plant that the Japanese had built right on the shoreline, and took a massive toll in lives and infrastructure?  There are several Alaskan native villages that have been largely abandoned, in recent years, due to the erosion of rising oceans, and large earthquake induced waves.  Yes, the earth is constantly changing, earthquakes will continue to occur, and the melting landlocked ice will continue to cause the oceans to rise slightly, decade after decade.  People need to acknowledge that these changes and events are occurring, and will continue to do so...and adjust accordingly.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 23, 2018)

I don't know why the topic of submarine earthquakes and the resulting tsunamis is even being discussed. Neither has the slightest thing to do with the climate.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 23, 2018)

olivia said:


> can anyone tell me what the "hoaxters" hope to gain?



money.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 23, 2018)

Don M. said:


> You miss the point...this Tsunami warning was issued as a "Precautionary" action, by the authorities...since they did not know if or when a huge wave might reach shore as a result of this earthquake.  The Pacific Rim is constantly experiencing earthquakes, and any low lying areas are Always at risk from such an event.  Do you remember that little event from a few years ago that wiped out the Fukushima Nuclear power plant that the Japanese had built right on the shoreline, and took a massive toll in lives and infrastructure?  There are several Alaskan native villages that have been largely abandoned, in recent years, due to the erosion of rising oceans, and large earthquake induced waves.  Yes, the earth is constantly changing, earthquakes will continue to occur, and the melting landlocked ice will continue to cause the oceans to rise slightly, decade after decade.  People need to acknowledge that these changes and events are occurring, and will continue to do so...and adjust accordingly.



They are a natural occurrence that has been happening for eons.

Just how much have the oceans risen in the last century or so? Enough to cause abandonment?. Nonsense.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 23, 2018)

Traveler said:


> I don't know why the topic of submarine earthquakes and the resulting tsunamis is even being discussed. Neither has the slightest thing to do with the climate.



The climate alarmists clutch at any straw they can grab.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 23, 2018)

I will attempt to explain, once again, why the climate of the earth changes.  The precise positions of the planets, including the earth, change.

Climate changes when one or more of 3 things change, thus causing more or less sunlight to reach the earth.

1.) The earth's axis changes constantly. In other words the earth tilts. Look at it this way. We all know that in the winter, the sun does NOT ever get high in the sky. The sun is MUCH lower on the southern horizon. The lower the sun is on the horizon, the less heat is generated in the atmosphere. That is why it is colder in the winter than the summer. The tilt of the earth is NOT a constant. It changes. The greater the tilt toward the sun, the greater the amount of sunlight. Sunlight equals warmth.

2.) The earth does NOT rotate about the sun in a perfect circle. The rotation is more like an oval. This is called an elliptical orbit. When the earth is further from the sun, the atmosphere is much colder. Slight changes in the rotation of the earth around the sun have a tremendous impact on climate.

3.) The earth wobbles. It acts much like a child's top. This too impacts earths climate.

Why do those 3 events change ? I am not an astrophysicist. Those scientists may know the answer. I do not, but I accept it as fact, in the same way I accept the fact the earth is not the center of the solar system.

At the beginning of the end of the last great ice age, 20,000 years ago, the earth began to warm. It has been warming ever since. It will continue to warm until the next significant event, at which point another ice age will begin. Those changes have nothing to do with man. They are completely natural.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 23, 2018)

Traveler said:


> I don't know why the topic of submarine earthquakes and the resulting tsunamis is even being discussed. Neither has the slightest thing to do with the climate.



General ignorance. Plate tectonics was not part of any school curriculum for people our age and reading about it is not something most people care to do. People know about earthquakes and volcanoes but most don't really know the causes. People also use the concepts of weather and climate interchangeably without realising the differences.

This is perfectly understandable. Media articles on these subjects are usually either overly simplistic and pushing an agenda or they are scholarly and rather dry.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 23, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> The climate alarmists clutch at any straw they can grab.



Why? And if you're going to say money, then I would ask how?


----------



## Stormy (Jan 23, 2018)

RadishRose said:


> Just one question- how many decades have cyclones and hurricanes been with us?


This list isn't inclusive so it doesn't go back too far  https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 23, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Why? And if you're going to say money, then I would ask how?



Carbon taxes collected by the government. In Canada as we speak.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 23, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Carbon taxes collected by the government. In Canada as we speak.




Thanks, Camper.  I was not aware of that. That would, indeed, explain a great deal. The "Tax and Spend" group up to their tricks, again.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 23, 2018)

And are these "carbon taxes" put to use stimulating renewable methods of energy production and associated industries?


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 23, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> And are these "carbon taxes" put to use stimulating renewable methods of energy production and associated industries?



Probably wasted like the rest of our tax dollars.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 23, 2018)

Don M. said:


> This morning, there was a Tsunami warning for Alaska and much of the upper West coast....due to a major earthquake in the Gulf of Alaska.  The warning was cancelled a few hours later, as the ocean waves did no reach the coast.  However, there were a lot of people evacuating low lying areas...just in case.  This is just the type of thing that will continue to happen more frequently, as the oceans slowly rise.



There is an attempt here to link underwater earthquakes to global warming.?


----------



## Don M. (Jan 23, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> There is an attempt here to link underwater earthquakes to global warming.?



No...my post was trying to point out the "relationship" between natural disasters, such as an underwater earthquake...and the increased consequences such events may have if/when the oceans rise substantially.  I guess I failed to explain this better so some could "grasp" the increasing dangers caused by these natural interactions.  In this particular case, the Tsunami Did Not reach land...but the next one may.  Parts of the Alaskan shoreline are receding at an accelerated pace due to encroachment of the ocean, and many shoreline settlements are moving inland.  Here is a report of just one such instance.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...g-seas-an-alaskan-village-decides-to-relocate


----------



## Traveler (Jan 23, 2018)

Congratulations, Don.  You have proven that big storms can erode the beach. And that houses built as close to the shore as possible occasionally have the sand washed away from underneath them.  Nothing new there. That has been happening through all of man's recorded history.  

I still see no evidence, what-so-ever, that man is causing any climate change. But please, let me know if you think it is time to build an ark


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 24, 2018)

Don M. said:


> No...my post was trying to point out the "relationship" between natural disasters, such as an underwater earthquake...and the increased consequences such events may have if/when the oceans rise substantially.  I guess I failed to explain this better so some could "grasp" the increasing dangers caused by these natural interactions.  In this particular case, the Tsunami Did Not reach land...but the next one may.  Parts of the Alaskan shoreline are receding at an accelerated pace due to encroachment of the ocean, and many shoreline settlements are moving inland.  Here is a report of just one such instance.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...g-seas-an-alaskan-village-decides-to-relocate



But Don. This is your post.

This is just the type of thing that will continue to happen more frequently, as the oceans slowly rise.

Well no.  If the oceans slowly rise, it has nothing to do with underwater earthquakes which are the result of tectonic plate movement.

There may be more earthquakes coming.   There may be less earthquakes coming.   Totally unrelated to rising oceans or warming oceans or climate change.  There is no scientific proof that AGW has anything to do with more hurricanes or tornadoes or severe weather.



The mantle of the earth is unstable.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 24, 2018)

Don M. said:


> No...my post was trying to point out the "relationship" between natural disasters, such as an underwater earthquake...and the increased consequences such events may have if/when the oceans rise substantially.  I guess I failed to explain this better so some could "grasp" the increasing dangers caused by these natural interactions.  In this particular case, the Tsunami Did Not reach land...but the next one may.  Parts of the Alaskan shoreline are receding at an accelerated pace due to encroachment of the ocean, and many shoreline settlements are moving inland.  Here is a report of just one such instance.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...g-seas-an-alaskan-village-decides-to-relocate



But Don. This is your post.



> This is just the type of thing that will continue to happen more frequently, as the oceans slowly rise.


Well no.  If the oceans slowly rise, it has nothing to do with underwater earthquakes which are the result of tectonic plate movement.

There may be more earthquakes coming.   There may be less earthquakes coming.   Totally unrelated to rising oceans or warming oceans or climate change.  There is no scientific proof that AGW has anything to do with more hurricanes or tornadoes or severe weather.



The mantle of the earth is unstable.  



2014 set a record for low tornado activity.   

The polar vortex, for all the suffering it caused this winter, has brought about a major societal benefit:  record-setting low tornado activity.

The National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC) reports the number of tornadoes classified at intensity EF-1 or higher (on the 0-5 EF scale) this calendar year ranks lowest in 62 years of records and perhaps 100.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-tornado-season-on-record-and-fatality-free/


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 24, 2018)

I've reached a point where I've decided that discussing Climate change with hard core climate change deniers is an exercise in futility. Most have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or even stepping backward in terms of any legislation to protect the environment.
I'm personally a fence sitter on this issue. I don't know if those trying to protect the environment are correct - or to what degree they are correct, but I'm a somewhat cautious person and my attitude is "What if they are correct?" Why not take some precautions now. If they are correct and the destruction of our earth reaches an irreversible point, it's a bit late to be saying, "Oops! Sorry! Guess I was wrong." If they're wrong, no real harm has been done except maybe to a few disgustingly fat wallets.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 24, 2018)

Having made it clear that I am not a believer in global warming or whatever PC term, I'd like to also say that I am a proponent of many efforts to clean the air and our environment.   Though I am doubtful about climate change in relation to mankind, I do appreciate having clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 24, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> I've reached a point where I've decided that discussing Climate change with hard core climate change deniers is an exercise in futility. Most have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo or even stepping backward in terms of any legislation to protect the environment.
> I'm personally a fence sitter on this issue. I don't know if those trying to protect the environment are correct - or to what degree they are correct, but I'm a somewhat cautious person and my attitude is "What if they are correct?" Why not take some precautions now. If they are correct and the destruction of our earth reaches an irreversible point, it's a bit late to be saying, "Oops! Sorry! Guess I was wrong." If they're wrong, no real harm has been done except maybe to a few disgustingly fat wallets.



Remember now. The core issue.AGW meaning humans are responsible.

What if they are correct? Well what if they are not? Then why are we spending time and money on a problem that either does not exist or is unsolvable.

Let me ask you a question?  Are tornadoes caused by humans.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 24, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Remember now. The core issue.AGW meaning humans are responsible.
> 
> What if they are correct? Well what if they are not? Then why are we spending time and money on a problem that either does not exist or is unsolvable.
> 
> Let me ask you a question?  Are tornadoes caused by humans.



I wouldn't concern myself too much about people who try to avoid coming up with proof of man caused global warming. They have no proof.

 The entire hoax is merely an attempt to hamstring democracies and give economic advantage to their pals in socialist nations. 

Any discussion of tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, or profit is only a "red herring" and is meant to keep us from uncovering their true agenda.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 24, 2018)

Traveler said:


> I wouldn't concern myself too much about people who try to avoid coming up with proof of man caused global warming. They have no proof.
> 
> The entire hoax is merely an attempt to hamstring democracies and give economic advantage to their pals in socialist nations.
> 
> Any discussion of tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, or profit is only a "red herring" and is meant to keep us from uncovering their true agenda.



Case in point



> Camper says:
> Remember now. The core issue.AGW meaning humans are responsible.
> 
> What if they are correct? Well what if they are not? Then why are we  spending time and money on a problem that either does not exist or is  unsolvable.
> ...



This also


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 24, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> The mantle of the earth is unstable.


Does that mean the end of life on Earth?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 24, 2018)

Quite the reverse, Big Horn. The mantle plays a part in sustaining life on the surface.

The mantle of the earth is the rather plastic layer between the crust and the core. It is hotter than the surface layers and is heated from below by the core. This sets up very slow convection currents that draw heat upwards and result in the upwelling of magma that drives continental drift. Where the tectonic plates collide, the edge of one plate is forced upwards while the other is forced down and melts into the mantle again. The result is volcanoes, new mountains and earthquakes. If these events had not happened over the time the earth's high places would long ago would have been flattened and the oceans would cover the whole earth to great depth. The renewal process of mountain building allows life as we know it to be sustained.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 24, 2018)

Warrigal's post is exactly correct. I would add one other type of continental drift, called the "slip-strike".  This type does not build mountains, but rather it happens when two adjoining plates move passed each other (rather like when two cars side-swipe each other). 

This is most commonly seen in the many California fault lines. The most famous of those being the San Andreas Fault, which was responsible for the devastating 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. Geologists say that given enough time, Los Angeles will become a western suburb of San Francisco. 

As 2 tectonic plates move passed each other, greater and greater stress builds up until, finally, the plates "break" and tremendous energy is released causing an earthquake. Occasionally, one plate can move as much as 20 feet in a single massive quake. When this happens we can see a highway, or street, cut in two and one section moves many feet from were it was originally built.

Slip-strike earthquakes, however, have nothing to do with any possible climate change. 

The type Warrigal spoke of can, indeed, cause a change in LOCAL weather. All of India was once adrift in the Indian Ocean. It eventually pushed North and collided with Southern Asia (rather like a head-on auto collision). That collision is responsible for the building of the Himalayan Mountain Range. In that type of movement, one tectonic plate slides UNDER another tectonic plate causing "up-thrusting". Up-thrusting causes a great change in the LOCAL climate, but in no way effects the entire earth.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 24, 2018)

Thanks Traveller for the additional information.

Australia is relatively free of seismic events because we sit in the centre of the Australasian plate. New Zealand is on the edge, as is New Guinea and most of SE Asia. However, the last two days have seen a number of little quakes in northern NSW, some of which have been felt or heard by residents. Remembering the last earthquake that caused a lot (by our standards) of damage in Newcastle, some of my Aussie forum friends are holding their breath.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> Does that mean the end of life on Earth?



In time the sun will lose its energy. It will expand and consume the Earth. Yes the end of the Earth will take place. For now we have a molten core and tectonic plates and faults will rub and slide against each other and earthquakes will take place.

We are not even at the point of being able to predict them with certainty.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> Thanks Traveller for the additional information.
> 
> Australia is relatively free of seismic events because we sit in the centre of the Australasian plate. New Zealand is on the edge, as is New Guinea and most of SE Asia. However, the last two days have seen a number of little quakes in northern NSW, some of which have been felt or heard by residents. Remembering the last earthquake that caused a lot (by our standards) of damage in Newcastle, some of my Aussie forum friends are holding their breath.



Jeopardy. No glaciers in Australia? There you go. You survived without them.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 25, 2018)

There was an ancient glaciation the covered most of Australian continent. It was during the carboniferous when the northern hemisphere was tropical and laying down vegetation that formed the coal deposits that fueled the Industrial Revolution. Our coal deposits were formed later during the Permian period.

Although parts of Australia do experience some snow, the continent is too flat to produce glacial deposits.

On the other hand, New Zealand being much younger geologically and with higher mountains and a more southerly aspect does produce glaciers but like many they are all retreating.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> There was an ancient glaciation the covered most of Australian continent. It was during the carboniferous when the northern hemisphere was tropical and laying down vegetation that formed the coal deposits that fueled the Industrial Revolution. Our coal deposits were formed later during the Permian period.
> 
> Although parts of Australia do experience some snow, the continent is too flat to produce glacial deposits.
> 
> On the other hand, New Zealand being much younger geologically and with higher mountains and a more southerly aspect does produce glaciers but like many they are all retreating.




And when they do retreat gradually, there will be no difference in New Zealand.  They will survive without them.

In fact if glaciers disappear there will be more land for cultivation.

Why do we worry so much?  Nature will take care of everything.  Always has.  Always will.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 25, 2018)

Of course nature will take care of everything. Not necessarily good for humans, though. But so what? Why should we survive? That's that real question, isn't it?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Of course nature will take care of everything. Not necessarily good for humans, though. But so what? Why should we survive? That's that real question, isn't it?



Humans are amazingly adaptable to the conditions in which they live.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Humans are amazingly adaptable to the conditions in which they live.



But how many? We only know how humans adapted in the past. There weren't that many of us back then. Now there's what? Around 7-1/2 billion?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Olivia said:


> But how many? We only know how humans adapted in the past. There weren't that many of us back then. Now there's what? Around 7-1/2 billion?



Take a look at India.  They do okay.  Take a look at the Netherlands.  They do o.k.

Take a look at the Unuit.  They do okay.  They all adapt to the conditions and make the best of it.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 25, 2018)

Except that the conditions in question are not here yet.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 25, 2018)

Skip.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Except that the conditions in question are not here yet.



We know that. If it's hot humans will move to a colder climate. If it's cold they will move to a warmer climate. That's history.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> We know that. If it's hot humans will move to a colder climate. If it's cold they will move to a warmer climate. That's history.



Here, now on the planet, as predicted if conditions continue the same.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 25, 2018)

Delete


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Sigh, I get a deja vu feeling about all this, but I'll say it yet again:
> 
> Global warming, climate change, etc. are not measured by how cold this particular winter happens to be. Temperatures go up and down all the time. Global warming is measured in geological time. The effect
> on biodiversity, the melting of ice shelves, etc. takes place over centuries, maybe decades if we're extremely unlucky about it. But having a cold winter or hot summer - these prove nothing.
> ...



Its not endangering anything. The Earth has warmed up something like 1 deg C in the last century. Big deal.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Here, now on the planet, as predicted if conditions continue the same.



They wont continue the same.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> They wont continue the same.



Not even "the natural cycle of the earth"?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Ask yourself this question? Have you or anyone you know been impacted by the AGW theory?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Olivia said:


> Not even "the natural cycle of the earth"?



Not even the cycle of the Earth. There is nothing natural about it.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Not even the cycle of the Earth. There is nothing natural about it.



"Stopping fossil fuels won't do a thing to stop the *natural* cycle of the Earth."

Those were your words. Very confusing. You either think climate change is partly man made or only the natural cycle of the earth's climate.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 25, 2018)

Olivia said:


> "Stopping fossil fuels won't do a thing to stop the *natural* cycle of the Earth."
> 
> Those were your words. Very confusing. You either think climate change is partly man made or only the natural cycle of the earth's climate.


This is a question I ask and for which I don't get an answer. What percentage is attributed to humans?


----------



## Olivia (Jan 25, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> This is a question I ask and for which I don't get an answer. What percentage is attributed to humans?



You didn't get the answer to that is because that's what the argument of this thread is really all about. And no one has the answer. The only agreement for those who agree to humans being involved is that they are, but not how much. At least not any percentage I've heard about.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 25, 2018)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=What+perc...attributed+to+humans?&t=ffnt&atb=v90-7&ia=web


----------



## Leonie (Jan 25, 2018)

It's a pity this question has become a political football because a lot of people take their stance from the side of politics they happen to favour, and it has been kicked around and dragged out for so long that the point (what do we do about it?) might actually be moot soon.  

Stephen Hawking recently said that he fears we are almost at the tipping point, where nothing we do can turn it around or slow it down and that's a pretty scary thought.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 25, 2018)

Leonie said:


> Stephen Hawking recently said that he fears we are almost at the tipping point, where nothing we do can turn it around or slow it down and that's a pretty scary thought.



Hawking is probably correct.  While the debate over "IF" human activity is causing rising temperatures continues to rage on, the temperatures continue to slowly climb.  IF there were some drastic measures that we could take, such as banning all fossil fuel use, life, as we know it would probably cease.  Can you imagine a life with no cars, airplanes, or any other necessary vehicles, and very limited electrical power, etc.?  Even under the best of circumstances, a transition to renewable energy, and electric vehicles, etc., would take decades, and be Extremely expensive and disruptive.  That is time we probably don't have, and an expense that few would accept.  All the "Paris Climate Accords" that the politicians come up with are just going to prove to be "feel good" rhetoric.  

Most scientists agree that such drastic measures would need to be taken within the next couple of decades, if they were to have any real effect....Fat Chance!  None of us will live long enough to feel any major effects, but those who are here 100+ years from now will be living in a different world.  Most coastal cities will be inundated...a massive population shift will occur as people are forced inland...trillions of dollars of infrastructure will be lost...the list goes on.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 25, 2018)

As far as I'm concerned, the earth is rapidly becoming unlivable. Whether the earth is warming because of man, matters little. Does anyone remember Dr. Paul Erlich's book, "The Population Bomb" ? What he said was true then, and recent history has borne him out. 

Is it going to be possible to SURVIVE ? Sure. But who wants to merely survive. Not me. I want to live and enjoy life. IMO, I can't enjoy life when I'm forced to live in a crowd. My idea of hell on earth is being on a subway that is packed with steaming humanity. If my health permitted, I'd be living where I could breathe. My idea of heaven is being in the high mountains and being 20 miles from the nearest human.

Besides, IMO the earth is packed with crazy dangerous people who want to kill everyone who does not agree with their religious/political philosophy. 

Hell, I'm not convinced that we, as a species, have earned the right to live.  We are making so many species extinct and killing each other over truly stupid ideas.  Every time I turn on the evening news, I hear about people killing and torturing innocent people. When I hear about people like Mr and Mrs Turpin, those sick twisted, bas***ds, and what they did to their own 13 children, I just can't stand it. When did we 1st hear about those 2 evil people ? 7-10 days ago ?  Damn it, I'm still teary-eyed over that. 

What ever species evolves after we are gone, can't possibly be any worse than us. So, do I care about global warming ? Not one bit. I care about the innocent victims of man's inhumanity to man.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 26, 2018)

It's only because of the media that we get the bad news and we think things are worse.

Take World War 1 and 2 and the U.S. Civil War and how many dead do you have?
 Over  100 million.

How many from global warming?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 26, 2018)

RadishRose said:


> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=What+perc...attributed+to+humans?&t=ffnt&atb=v90-7&ia=web



Quoting websites is not an answer.

What do you believe?


----------



## Chucktin (Jan 26, 2018)

What's happening is climate change and _that_ is a cause behind the weather patterns we are having. That part is all around us.
The phrase "Global Warming" is a product of some Media outlets attempts to profit from real news. Anyone that swallows idiotcy that is reported as real news needs their diapers changed.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 26, 2018)

So far have you heard of anyone severely impacted by climate change global warming or whatever?

I certainly haven't been.  I would like more warmth and I'm not getting it.


----------



## Chucktin (Jan 26, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> So far have you heard of anyone severely impacted by climate change global warming or whatever?
> 
> I certainly haven't been.  I would like more warmth and I'm not getting it.


How do you define severely. Things like Sandyhook are certainly severe. But other events, those on the shoulder of being unique, are debatable if you choose to take sides. Other than that I'd have to say "Nothing's quite as sure as change."
The nub of all this is that unless you work _with_ change, change tends to bite you right where you're sitting and that can hurt.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Don M. (Jan 26, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> So far have you heard of anyone severely impacted by climate change global warming or whatever?I certainly haven't been.  I would like more warmth and I'm not getting it.



Do a little searching on what has been happening in Bangladesh in recent years...due to flooding of low lying coastal areas, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of those people.  There are probably dozens of other examples of changing weather patterns and its impact on people...if you do a little research.  Search for information on how the worlds glaciers are melting at an increasing pace, and the effect that is starting to have on people who rely on this melt for their freshwater supplies...Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, and the Himalayas in Asia....etc.  

A person's individual back yard is Not a valid perspective for determining how the global weather patterns are changing.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 26, 2018)

Chucktin said:


> How do you define severely. Things like Sandyhook are certainly severe. But other events, those on the shoulder of being unique, are debatable if you choose to take sides. Other than that I'd have to say "Nothing's quite as sure as change."
> The nub of all this is that unless you work _with_ change, change tends to bite you right where you're sitting and that can hurt.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk



What on earth does Sandy Hook have to do with climate change??


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 26, 2018)

Don M. said:


> Do a little searching on what has been happening in Bangladesh in recent years...due to flooding of low lying coastal areas, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of those people.  There are probably dozens of other examples of changing weather patterns and its impact on people...if you do a little research.  Search for information on how the worlds glaciers are melting at an increasing pace, and the effect that is starting to have on people who rely on this melt for their freshwater supplies...Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, and the Himalayas in Asia....etc.
> 
> A person's individual back yard is Not a valid perspective for determining how the global weather patterns are changing.



Bangladesh has been flooding for centuries. It's monsoon season that causes it and has nothing to do with climate change.

Do some research yourself and find out the actual ocean rise in the last century.

Excerpt:

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'
The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. 

 But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world". 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 26, 2018)

[h=3]Monsoon season in Bangladesh | Make a difference - Plan ...[/h]https://plancanada.ca/monsoon-season-in-bangladesh


For months at a time, _monsoon season_ brings heavy rainfall to the country. In fact, approximately 80% of _Bangladesh's_ yearly rainfall will occur from June to October, and by the end of _monsoon season_, almost one third of the country is underwater.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 26, 2018)

Leonie said:


> It's a pity this question has become a political football because a lot of people take their stance from the side of politics they happen to favour, and it has been kicked around and dragged out for so long that the point (what do we do about it?) might actually be moot soon.
> 
> Stephen Hawking recently said that he fears we are almost at the tipping point, where nothing we do can turn it around or slow it down and that's a pretty scary thought.



Stephen Hawking has been wrong so many times it's not worth worrying about.  No one can predict the future with certainty.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 26, 2018)

Leonie said:


> It's a pity this question has become a political football because a lot of people take their stance from the side of politics they happen to favour, and it has been kicked around and dragged out for so long that the point (what do we do about it?) might actually be moot soon.
> 
> Stephen Hawking recently said that he fears we are almost at the tipping point, where nothing we do can turn it around or slow it down and that's a pretty scary thought.



Stephen Hawking has been wrong so many times it's not worth worrying about.  No one can predict the future with certainty.



Michael Guillen
By Michael Guillen Ph.D.
Published May 08, 2017
Fox News

Stephen Hawking warns humanity has only 1,000 years of sustainable existence. Urges mankind to explore space, colonize stars and planets to survive end of the world



Stephen Hawking is at it again, with a Sybil-like prediction that’s going viral. But his latest contention – that humans will be wiped out within 100 years and must escape into space – leaves me wondering if the good professor hasn’t already left the planet.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...ning-is-all-wrong-about-humans-and-earth.html


----------



## Olivia (Jan 26, 2018)

I still don't understand what is so terrible about developing renewable sources of energy instead of continuing with fossil fuels which is limited, is dirty and fouls our planet that we all humans live on. What is the problem with that? And it's all because you think it's money out of your pocket? Maybe think long term? I don't have progeny, but guess what, I still worry about future generations even when I'll be gone. Although I am often tempted to think hell with all of you. But still, something in me just doesn't like thinking that way.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 26, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Stephen Hawking has been wrong so many times it's not worth worrying about.  No one can predict the future with certainty.
> 
> *Stephen Hawking warns humanity has only 1,000 years of sustainable existence. Urges mankind to explore space, colonize stars and planets to survive end of the world.*


I doubt very much that Stephen will be alive in a thousand years.  Bristlecone Pines that are now three thousand years old will make it, but not Stephen.


----------



## Olivia (Jan 26, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> I doubt very much that Stephen will be alive in a thousand years.  Bristlecone Pines that are now three thousand years old will make it, but not Stephen.



But you'll never know about the Bristlecone Pines, will you? And that makes it a safe bet.


----------



## Leonie (Jan 26, 2018)

Olivia said:


> But you'll never know about the Bristlecone Pines, will you? And that makes it a safe bet.



No one alive today will ever know if Stephen is right or wrong on this one either. Another safe bet.



Olivia said:


> I still don't understand what is so terrible about developing renewable sources of energy instead of continuing with fossil fuels which is limited, is dirty and fouls our planet that we all humans live on. What is the problem with that? And it's all because you think it's money out of your pocket? Maybe think long term? I don't have progeny, but guess what, I still worry about future generations even when I'll be gone. Although I am often tempted to think hell with all of you. But still, something in me just doesn't like thinking that way.



I think you've already answered your own question. There's a really simple explanation - money. There are quite a few people around here who have become very, very rich thanks to coal, and our Governments (both sides) bend over backwards to cater to them.  Throw in a public outcry over power costs - and Bob's your uncle.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 26, 2018)

Don M. said:


> A person's individual back yard is Not a valid perspective for determining how the global weather patterns are changing


Quite true but the perspective from satellite technology does reveal what we cannot observe for ourselves. They reveal a picture of rising temperatures on a global scale. There is no hoax.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 26, 2018)

Olivia said:


> I still don't understand what is so terrible about developing renewable sources of energy instead of continuing with fossil fuels which is limited, is dirty and fouls our planet that we all humans live on. What is the problem with that? And it's all because you think it's money out of your pocket? Maybe think long term? I don't have progeny, but guess what, I still worry about future generations even when I'll be gone. Although I am often tempted to think hell with all of you. But still, something in me just doesn't like thinking that way.



There is absolutely nothing wrong with developing renewable sources of energy, provided it is done by private enterprise. HOWEVER, there is no possible way to fuel the millions of jet planes and locomotives without fossil fuels. If someone wants to go from L.A. to Miami, what is he/she to do. Do you honestly expect those people to go "green" and spend 5 arduous days driving a little putt-putt electric car all that way ?  

Most importantly, however, is that people object to "Big Brother Government" forcing citizens to pay heavier and heavier taxes in order to implement "green" technology.  Renewable sources of energy do not come free. It costs vast sums implement. And, who pays ? Yep, the average Mr and Mrs citizen will be paying for it. 

Even *IF *America was 100% green, do you honestly believe that would "cure" the so-called global warming ?  No, of course not. When countries like Brazil are "slashing and burning" the rainforests and China is burning coal in hundreds and hundreds of power plants, nothing America does could possibly have ANY effect.  I, for one, have no intention of carrying the weight of the entire world on my shoulders. When the rest of the world is doing it's bit, then and only then, would I even consider doing more.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 26, 2018)

Millions of birds are killed every year by "clean energy" windmills.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 26, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Stephen Hawking has been wrong so many times it's not worth worrying about.  No one can predict the future with certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite frankly I'd be much more inclined to believe Stephen Hawkins (when it comes to things scientific) than any of the climate change deniers


----------



## Leonie (Jan 26, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Quite frankly I'd be much more inclined to believe Stephen Hawkins (when it comes to things scientific) than any of the climate change deniers



Me too.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 26, 2018)

Leonie said:


> Me too.


You flunked science right?


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 26, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> You flunked science right?



Actually I was an A student in all my classes


----------



## Olivia (Jan 26, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> You flunked science right?



Are you kidding me? Show me yours and I'll show you mine? Really?

Can someone tell me what rabbit hole I've just fallen into?


----------



## Leonie (Jan 26, 2018)

> You flunked science right?



[video]https://i.imgur.com/u1sM24Y.gifv[/video]


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 27, 2018)

Onya Leonie :lofl:


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 27, 2018)

Anyone who believes Hawkins claim that we have to get off the planet either flunked science or slept through classes or the teachers failed to get basic science across.

He is wrong. Even the most uneducated person on the planet can understand that.

He should stick to black holes. Wait he got that wrong as well.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 27, 2018)

Yeah, Camper, we all realize that you are a lot smarter than Stephen Hawking.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 27, 2018)

Sunny said:


> Yeah, Camper, we all realize that you are a lot smarter than Stephen Hawking.



Well back in the good old days when I was 12 years old I knew that smoking was harmful and never smoked in my life.

I even talked all the players on my team out of smoking because I told them they couldn't run as fast if they smoked.  We won the championship that year.

And yet.  There were all kinds of ads touting cigarettes as not being harmful.

See .  You don't have to be an expert or a chef to recognize a good meal.

On this one point. Hawkins is wrong.  

And humans are not 100% to blame for global warming because if it was we could reverse it and we can't.

No humans and the Earth would continue to get warmer as it has from 10,000 years ago when there weren't significant humans impacting it.

You stick with Hawkins.  I'll stick with just observing nature.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 27, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Actually I was an A student in all my classes



Then why do you beileve Hawkings.  When it comes to AGW he's one brick short of a load.

Off the top of your head without looking it up can you tell me the meaning of 'anthropogenic'  as used in the term AGW   Anthropogenic Global Warming.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 27, 2018)

And that would prove what? you are sure anxious to prove what a superior person you are. We are not impressed. Quite the contrary.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 27, 2018)

Someone should tell Michael Gullien, Fox News' so-called Ph.D., that there is a difference between 100 and 1000.  See note #180.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 27, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> And that would prove what? you are sure anxious to prove what a superior person you are. We are not impressed. Quite the contrary.



Look it up and find out. We are talking about AGW without knowing the meaning. Not very scientific. Not superior. Realistic is more like it.


----------



## jujube (Jan 27, 2018)

Last edited by Camper6; Today at 10:50 AM. Reason: To educate the unecucated 

Does anyone else find this as funny....and ironic...as I do?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 27, 2018)

jujube said:


> Last edited by Camper6; Today at 10:50 AM. Reason: To educate the unecucated
> 
> Does anyone else find this as funny....and ironic...as I do?



Yes I find it funny and ironic but grateful we have the spelling police on board.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 27, 2018)

from your posts, it appears your major problem with the whole issue is that it might prove inconvenient - and you don't give a rat's posterior what happens to the earth after you're gone. I do - I have children, grandchildren and great grandchildren I care what kind of earth they inherit and if there's even the slightest chance we may be F*cking it up, I want to do what I can to reverse it


> [h=1]Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong[/h]At some point in the history of  all scientific theories, only a minority of scientists—or even just  one—supported them, before evidence accumulated to the point of general  acceptance. The Copernican model, germ theory, the vaccination  principle, evolutionary theory, plate tectonics and the big bang theory  were all once heretical ideas that became consensus science. How did  this happen? An answer may be found in what 19th-century philosopher of science  William Whewell called a “consilience of inductions.” For a theory to be  accepted, Whewell argued, it must be based on more than one  induction—or a single generalization drawn from specific facts. It must  have multiple inductions that converge on one another, independently but  in conjunction. “Accordingly the cases in which inductions from classes  of facts altogether different have thus _jumped together_,” he wrote in his 1840 book _The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences_, “belong only to the best established theories which the history of science contains.” Call it a “convergence of evidence.”
> 
> Consensus science is a phrase often heard in conjunction with  anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Is there a consensus on AGW? There  is. The tens of thousands of scientists who belong to the American  Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical  Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Medical  Association, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical  Society, the Geological Society of America, the U.S. National Academy of  Sciences and, most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate  Change all concur that AGW is in fact real. Why?
> It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all,  science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to  a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled _100 Authors against Einstein_,  “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” The answer is  that there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of  inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap  melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the  unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a  singular conclusion. AGW doubters point to the occasional anomaly in a  particular data set, as if one incongruity gainsays all the other lines  of evidence. But that is not how consilience science works. For AGW  skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with  all the lines of supportive evidence _and_ show a consistent  convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the  data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary  theory.) This they have not done.
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 27, 2018)

Have you taken the time to look up anthropenogic? And what are you doing about it personally if you are so concerned?

I ride a bike, walk, public transit and rarely drive.

Where's the spelling police. I have a tough time with anthro whatever.

What I am skeptic all about is that it is 100 percent caused by humans. I just think that 100 percent nonsense.

I could trade websites with you all day and your unfounded accusations are 100 percent nonsense.


----------



## Traveler (Jan 27, 2018)

At first this may seem to be "off topic' but bear with me. It will be apparent.

*LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES*
Here in California, there are numerous daily Tv "public awareness" commercials on the dangers of smoking. Yes, everyone knows smoking is bad for your health BUT anti-smoking activist fanatics are now lying to the public.

In an attempt to instill hysteria in the minds of the public, California Dept of Pubic Health is running the following Tv ads.

Scene: A summers day. A young woman is out on her balcony smoking a cigarette. The smoke rises up, enters the upstairs neighbors apartment and goes through the living room, down the hallway, turns right and enters the baby's room. We see the heavy smoke cloud descend into the baby's crib. The baby coughs and grabs it's nose.   The forgoing ad is ridiculous. 

Scene #2: A man is smoking in his apartment living room. The smoke drifts around and enters an air duct. The smoke moves around through many feet of air ducts and enters the neighbors apartment. A child, in that apartment, coughs, and waves away the smoke.  

I don't expect everyone to know much about how air ducts are built but surely there must be some men who have built HVAC's units in apartment buildings. For those who do not know, the HVAC in your apartment is NOT connected to anyone else's apartment. It is physically impossible for cigarette smoke to enter your neighbors apartment through the HVAC system.

I wrote an email to the CA Dept of Public health and told then that I do not appreciate their lies. Surprisingly, they emailed back saying that "environmental scientists" have proven the cigarette smoke can enter anther persons apartment even through electric outlets. What total rubbish. Lies, lies, and more lies. 

I write this post to demonstrate that there are fanatics out there who object to a wide variety of human behavior, AND that those fanatics are more than willing to lie to the public to stir up hysteria. Whether it is anti-smoking fanatics or AGW fanatics, they are quite willing to go to ANY lengths , including lying, to get their own way.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 27, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> Actually I was an A student in all my classes


What was your grade in your last year?


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 27, 2018)

More global warming.  This was surely manmade.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08...overed-in-palm-trees-scientists-discover.html


----------



## KingsX (Jan 27, 2018)

.

My brother retired from his science career at  NASA a few years ago... 
but still participates in what once was an all NASA climate study group.

When I emailed asking about global warming... this was part of his overview:

"  The truth lies between those who say there is no global warming caused by humans and those who say the Earth and mankind face rapid and certain catastrophe. My view is that we cannot ignore future warming, but response should be measured, phased, and carefully thought out. "

" The “doom predictors” use computer models of future warming. These model predictions are all over the map, but in past have predicted more warming than occurred. Models range from about 2 to about 8 deg-C total warming for each CO2 doubling. The truth is likely between 2 and 3. But politicians and Greens adopt numbers of 5 to 8, which are unlikely. "


----------



## jujube (Jan 27, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Yes I find it funny and ironic but grateful we have the spelling police on board.



You're quite welcome.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 27, 2018)

93 gpa


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 28, 2018)

jujube said:


> You're quite welcome.



Stay close. We need your insightful input. It makes a huge difference to the topic.

2 posts in the entire thread. Let's eat grandma.L.O.L.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 28, 2018)

Olivia said:


> You didn't get the answer to that is because that's what the argument of this thread is really all about. And no one has the answer. The only agreement for those who agree to humans being involved is that they are, but not how much. At least not any percentage I've heard about.


AGW means humans are 100 percent responsible.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 28, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> 93 gpa



Terrific. Why haven't you kept up? AGW wasn't in the curriculum was it?

My science teachers taught healthy skepticsm not wholesale grasping.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 28, 2018)

My favorite commentator Rex Murphy.  Keep the grants flowing. That's what it's all about.

We are fortunate to have such guardians, to direct us away from our senses, and beckon us back on the road to faith. Climate Change can cause cold temperatures, too, they intone. And wet weather. And dry. Hurricanes and cyclones. Droughts and floods. In fact, any variety of weather whatsoever can be traced, if you but model hard and often enough, keep the grants flowing and the contradictions unexamined, to the One Holy Underlying Theory of All Weather. Climate Change, everything proves it. It’s the scientific method at its best.
So ignore the frigid moment. All is unfolding as it should. As soon as our Climate Superheroes, Mr. Trudeau and Ms. McKenna, bring in the new, higher carbon dioxide tax — reminder: it is NOT a carbon tax, no tax on soot — temperatures will rise, summer will return, and with another 20 or 30 dollars a ton, by next year Newfoundland will be indistinguishable from Tahiti in the golden days under a Polynesian sun.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 28, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> AGW means humans are 100 percent responsible.



Or it means that part of global warming for which humans are responsible as distinct fro natural cyclic (or otherwise) warming of the planet?


----------



## dpwspringer (Jan 28, 2018)

A thermos bottle can keep hot drinks warm all day long or it can keep cold drinks cool all day long... how does it know whether to keep things warm or to keep them cool?

Do you know why the variation in daily high temperatures to daily low temperatures vary more under clear skies than cloudy skies (all other things being equal) in regions where they get some hours of sunlight?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 28, 2018)

dpwspringer said:


> A thermos bottle can keep hot drinks warm all day long or it can keep cold drinks cool all day long... how does it know whether to keep things warm or to keep them cool?



The vacuum between the two layers of glass inhibits heat exchange by convection and the mirror coating of the glass prevents heat transfer by radiation. There is some heat transfer by conduction but glass is a rather poor conductor of heat.



> Do you know why the variation in daily high temperatures to daily low temperatures vary more under clear skies than cloudy skies (all other things being equal) in regions where they get some hours of sunlight?



The cloud contains water vapour which is a weak green house gas. It certainly results in warmer ground temperatures than when the air is clear. I can tell when it is about to rain during the night because I wake up sweating.

 The lack of moisture in deserts causes baking temperatures during the day as the sun's heat is absorbed by the ground's  surface but at after sundown heat is radiated back to the atmosphere and you need a fire or a good sleeping bag because it gets very cold just before sunup.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 28, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> Or it means that part of global warming for which humans are responsible as distinct fro natural cyclic (or otherwise) warming of the planet?



No one tells you that.  It's all hyped up to blame humans.  

an·thro·po·gen·ic
ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/
_adjective_
adjective: *anthropogenic*


(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in *human activity.*

"anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide"


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 28, 2018)

> There is some heat transfer by conduction but glass is a rather poor conductor of heat.



I have trouble with that.  My stove top burners are glass. Heat moves to cool and eventually the thermos contents will even out in termperature regardless of what is in the way.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 28, 2018)

Correct. 
The thermos will not keep its contents above or below ambient temperature indefinitely. 
Eventually very slow heat exchange will even the two out but it will keep the desired temperature long enough to be useful.

Anyway, don't take my word for it. There are plenty of explanations available on line.

Here is one of them http://www.explainthatstuff.com/vacuumflasks.html


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 28, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Have you taken the time to look up anthropenogic? And what are you doing about it personally if you are so concerned?
> 
> I ride a bike, walk, public transit and rarely drive.
> 
> ...



First of all I rode a motorcycle to work year round - gas consumption 43 to 50 mpg - depending on which bike I rode. My car is 4 years old and has less than 10,000 miles on it - gas consumption +/_ 43 mpg. I recently replaced my motorcycles with a battery assisted bicycle. We recycle everything we can, eat very little meat and many other small actions. I find it somewhat contradictory you take the steps you do considering you claim to be a climate change denier. Interesting


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 28, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Terrific. Why haven't you kept up? AGW wasn't in the curriculum was it?
> 
> My science teachers taught healthy skepticsm not wholesale grasping.



LOL.What makes you so sure I haven't? You have no idea what I do or do not know or what i have done or what my science teachers did or did not teach me. For the most part I feel no need to lord it over others to massage my own ego.


----------



## Big Horn (Jan 28, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> 93 gpa


I never heard of a GPA over 4.0.  Did you mean .93?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 28, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> First of all I rode a motorcycle to work year round - gas consumption 43 to 50 mpg - depending on which bike I rode. My car is 4 years old and has less than 10,000 miles on it - gas consumption +/_ 43 mpg. I recently replaced my motorcycles with a battery assisted bicycle. We recycle everything we can, eat very little meat and many other small actions. I find it somewhat contradictory you take the steps you do considering you claim to be a climate change denier. Interesting



Well here's the thing.  I am not a climate change denier. I do believe in climate change and I do believe humans might contribute but they are not 100 % responsible.  Without humans the world will continue to warm.  For how long, who knows. My thrust is that humans are not 100 percent responsible and that if we don't do something about it we are doomed to find another planet to survive.  That's so for want of a better word 'dumb'. And I don't care if the best scientist in the world claims it.

From what I have experienced and I am an old person and have seen it all.

From what I see of pollution we are miles ahead of what I experienced as a young person.  There was no sewage treatment plants.  Raw sewage was dumped in the river.  No fines for dumping chemicals in streams or rivers. No scrubbers on chimneys.  Nothing like that.  We are much more pollution conscience and much more recycle considerate.  

So when we talk about what we are going to leave for future generations.  What did our previous generation leave us?

Now where I live I have yet to experience the joy of global warming.

The climate I live in is cold. Winters are for a better word 'brutal'.  And I have checked the historical temperatures for the last 100 years where I live and the average temperature hasn't changed one degree.  In fact.  It's half a degree colder.   

If you try to understand I need something to sink my teeth into rather than an ice cube.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 28, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> I never heard of a GPA over 4.0.  Did you mean .93?


We did not use the 4.0 grading  system - we used the 100 system. 90 to 100 is an A; 80 to 90 is a B, 70 to 80 is a c and so forth. Actually my grade was a 93.4. I graduated from Sac State with a 3.7 or 8.


----------



## Stormy (Jan 28, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Well here's the thing.  I am not a climate change denier. I do believe in climate change and I do believe humans might contribute but they are not 100 % responsible.
> 
> From what I see of pollution we are miles ahead of what I experienced as a young person.  There was no sewage treatment plants.  Raw sewage was dumped in the river.  No fines for dumping chemicals in streams or rivers. No scrubbers on chimneys.  Nothing like that.  We are much more pollution conscience and much more recycle considerate.


Camper6 I agree with your post, a lot of truth there


----------



## retiredtraveler (Jan 28, 2018)

Big Horn said:


> Millions of birds are killed every year by "clean energy" windmills.



Please cite a source for that nonsense. The science magazines show numbers of 200,000 to 400,000. 

Meanwhile:   "....
Wind turbines *kill* between 214,000 and 368,000 *birds*  annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million  fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4  billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed  study by two federal scientists and the environmental ..". 

  DW and I just went to the Field Museum n Chicago that had a display showing the hundreds of birds killed in a single night flying into the tall buildings with all the lights. These huge numbers happen during migrations and there is a program to try to get buildings to turn off off those roof lights during migration periods.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 2, 2018)

The "Polar Vortex" is back with a vengeance.


----------



## KingsX (Feb 2, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> The "Polar Vortex" is back with a vengeance.





Something else to blame on Putin...  he's dumping all that Siberian cold into North America ;-)


----------



## Traveler (Feb 2, 2018)

For those who don't understand how the earth changes, dramatically, and completely naturally, try to think of the BIG PICTURE.

Think about TIME.  Look at the earth, beginning with the first appearance of the dinosaurs and up until today. Now, if we compress all that time into a single 24 hour period, it would look like the following. At 12:01 am the first dinosaurs walked the earth (230 million years ago).
At 5pm, the dinosaurs went extinct (65 million years ago). At 11:57 pm the 1st fully human man was born into the world. 

All of the history of man, from the first attempts at writing, and up until today, took place during the LAST 3 SECONDS of our hypothetical 24 hour clock.  We, mankind, have been here just 3 short ticks of that clock. No matter how we may FEEL, we are a new species here on earth.

Between the end of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, and today, the earth has undergone a dozen or more vast ice ages which were followed by periods of global warming. All of that took place without ANY impact from man. At the end of the most recent ice age, 16,000 B.C. the earth began warming. During that time thousands of species became extinct because they could not adapt quickly enough. 

Will man survive ? Who knows? Personally I don't really care. One thing I am certain of, however, is that the earth will continue to undergo dozens of more ice ages followed by warmer periods. Species will evolve and, after a time, become extinct. The universe, including our own solar system, does not care one tiny bit about our petty lives.  Cheer up, the next intelligent, sentient, creature may be much better, kinder and more loving than us.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 2, 2018)

Today where I live.  -5 degrees below zero.  F not C.

I walked 1.4 kilometers.  Glad to get home.

Global warming?  Where the hell is it?


----------



## Big Horn (Feb 2, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Today where I live.  -5 degrees below zero.  F not C.
> 
> I walked 1.4 kilometers.  Glad to get home.
> 
> Global warming?  Where the hell is it?


We're not having global warming here either, but it's 36 now with a predicted high of 45.  This is just a tiny bit above normal.  Sunday, however, it is supposed to stay in the twenties with a good chance of significant snow.  It is currently raining.


----------



## KingsX (Feb 2, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Today where I live.  -5 degrees below zero.  F not C.
> 
> I walked 1.4 kilometers.  Glad to get home.
> 
> Global warming?  Where the hell is it?




Texas

Highs have been in the 60s here for the past two weeks.  On Wednesday the high was 77. 
 Plenty of warm sunshine here in North Texas.  I love it !


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 2, 2018)

I love the way people assess the overall average temperature of the planet from their own back yard on any particular day.
Makes me wonder why meteorologists bother collecting all those readings every day from so many different weather stations.


----------



## Leonie (Feb 2, 2018)

I've noticed lately the radio reports the temperature from various suburbs during the day.  So I guess now, they are getting them from someone's backyard.   And there is a website too, with images - weathercam.  It's quite interesting.

Link ... http://weathercamnetwork.com.au/


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 2, 2018)

That is fine for local weather reports but useless for tracking global climate changes over time.
Consistency is an essential element of reliable scientific studies.


----------



## KingsX (Feb 2, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> That is fine for local weather reports but useless for tracking global climate changes overtimr.
> Consistency is an essential element of reliable scientific studies.




I previously posted a scientist's educated position.  

https://www.seniorforums.com/showthread.php/34028-One-giant-hoax/page14?p=763319#post763319

.


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 2, 2018)

Yes, I read it. I consider it an example of sitting on the fence and a reason to do nothing. With the Great barrier Reef at risk I am emotionally not able to sit on the fence and continue to support fossil fuel technology. Not that I consider it feasible to eliminate all burning of fossil fuels but I do believe we can transition to much more emission free sources of energy. The global economy already moves in that direction and I am confident that the trend will continue in my lifetime and beyond.

With that in mind, I consider the argument about climate change largely passé just as the "debate" about the ill effects of tobacco smoking is now finished except in a few pockets of stubborn resistance.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 2, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> I love the way people assess the overall average temperature of the planet from their own back yard on any particular day.
> Makes me wonder why meteorologists bother collecting all those readings every day from so many different weather stations.



Its impossible to take the global temperature of the Earth. 
my backyard is all that counts.


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 2, 2018)

Ever heard of satellites?


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 3, 2018)

Warrigal said:


> Ever heard of satellites?



Of course.  So when you are making comparisons from the past did they use satellites?

Does a satellite measure the upper atmosphere or the actual temperature of the Land?


To really measure the temperature of the Earth you have to stick a thermometer into it.  Are we measuring air or land or sea?


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 3, 2018)

Dragonlady said:


> And that would prove what? you are sure anxious to prove what a superior person you are. We are not impressed. Quite the contrary.



Hey Dragonlady don't go breathing fire on me now.  Just melt the snow all around me.


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 3, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> Of course.  So when you are making comparisons from the past did they use satellites?
> 
> Does a satellite measure the upper atmosphere or the actual temperature of the Land?
> 
> ...



It is my understanding that they can now measure surface temperatures of both land and sea. No idea how though.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 3, 2018)

How do they measure temperature where you live?

Its a box. Sis feet high. With a thermometer in it.

A guy goes out and reads it.  They are measuring the temperature of the air around you. It's no rocket science. 

There are self reading monitoring stations as well.

Do you notice it always mentioned on newscasts. Temperature at the airport.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 3, 2018)

A Stevenson screen is a box, made of a double layer screens and it is used to shield meteorological instruments when there is precipitation or the instruments are exposed to direct heat radiation from outside sources. This shelter allows free passage of air around the temperature and humidity sensors. Most of the time the Stevenson screens is painted white to reflect the sun’s radiation.
The Stevenson Screen is one of a very few designs that is recommended by the World Meteorological Organization in their aim to provide standardized environment in which to measure weather variables.
Stevenson screens are also known as an instrument shelter, cotton region shelter, a thermometer shelter, a thermoscreen or a thermometer screen.
The screen was invented in 1864 by Thomas Stevenson.


----------



## Leonie (Feb 3, 2018)

I would imagine it wouldn't really matter where or how the temperatures were taken if they are always taken from the same places and then calculated somehow as a global average. If that historical average shows a consistent increase (or even decrease), no matter how small - that is climate change. We can argue on the 'causes' til the cows come home but surely the figures speak for themselves. 

And yes I know that's what you've been saying Camper6, that you aren't actually a climate denier, more a 'we are the cause' denier. And I agree with you, up to a point. 

I also have trouble believing we are the cause but have no trouble believing we might be contributing to it. You can throw scientific studies (no matter who they come from) at me till my head spins, but in the end, it just seems like common sense to me. Surely anything we can do to lessen that contribution should at least be considered, not just dismissed out of hand.


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 3, 2018)

Common sense indeed, Leonie.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 3, 2018)

Leonie said:


> I would imagine it wouldn't really matter where or how the temperatures were taken if they are always taken from the same places and then calculated somehow as a global average. If that historical average shows a consistent increase (or even decrease), no matter how small - that is climate change. We can argue on the 'causes' til the cows come home but surely the figures speak for themselves.
> 
> And yes I know that's what you've been saying Camper6, that you aren't actually a climate denier, more a 'we are the cause' denier. And I agree with you, up to a point.
> 
> I also have trouble believing we are the cause but have no trouble believing we might be contributing to it. You can throw scientific studies (no matter who they come from) at me till my head spins, but in the end, it just seems like common sense to me. Surely anything we can do to lessen that contribution should at least be considered, not just dismissed out of hand.




The figures they throw at us? We don't know where they come from do we?

When they tell us that a record temperature was set by .01 degrees that's just hype and nonsense.

Of course we are contributing. If we don't burn fossil fuels for energy the entire economy would collapse.


----------



## Leonie (Feb 3, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> If we don't burn fossil fuels for energy the entire economy would collapse.



Like I said, I agree with you - up to a point.   That's the point where we differ.  

And strangely enough, I don't even disagree totally with you here either.  Yes, our economy is too tied up with coal, and we should have been doing something earlier, but it's never too late to start. 

In some ways, we already have, - more efficient cars, 'cleaner' power stations (if such a thing exists), and less power-hungry appliances.   It's only our Governments that are loath to do anything - too heavily reliant on coal - and some of them far too personally involved.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 4, 2018)

It's not coal. It's oil. Billions of cars and trucks all over the world are essential. That's something that's not going to go away any time soon. All the climate change supporters drive them as well. That's hypocrisy. If you are a firm believer in climate change and believe humans are the prime cause. You should not be driving a car. Electric cars are not the solution either because energy is required to make batteries and cars.

Walk, ride a bike, public transport. How many will give up their cars?


Sorry your suggestion that governments should do something? They can't.


----------



## dpwspringer (Feb 4, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> The figures they throw at us? We don't know where they come from do we?
> 
> When they tell us that a record temperature was set by .01 degrees that's just hype and nonsense.
> 
> Of course we are contributing. If we don't burn fossil fuels for energy the entire economy would collapse.



Regarding those figures they throw at us... how many of you are familiar with the term "climategate"?


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 4, 2018)

If people had to experirience an entire winter of about 6 months with temperatures like today of -18 F. They might realize why it's so difficult to convince people about climate change. 

The science is in conflict with the experience.

With the wind chill factored in its -35 F.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 4, 2018)

> I would imagine it wouldn't really matter where or how the temperatures  were taken if they are always taken from the same places and then  calculated somehow as a global average. If that historical average shows  a consistent increase (or even decrease), no matter how small -  that is climate change. We can argue on the 'causes' til the cows come  home but surely the figures speak for themselves.



And therein we have the problem.  You can't compare with former years accurately because the monitoring stations are not the ones they use now.  Weather satellites are a recent invention comparatively speaking. Of course there is going to be an increase or decrease.  The weather changes every day.  The other problem is they are only forecasting one way.  Hotter not colder.  When it's colder the excuses come up.  Polar Vortex, etc.


----------



## Leonie (Feb 4, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> It's not coal. It's oil.



Sorry, I was being parochial, I sometimes forget I'm not talking to another Aussie.  



Camper6 said:


> Sorry your suggestion that governments should do something? They can't.



Just to be parochial again, here I believe they can, they just won't.  There is a lot of money in coal mines.  I live in a city that probably wouldn't exist without them.  But this lovely old heritage city has also seen it's fair share of tragedy because of them.  Maybe that colours my views.

Anyway, it's been fun talking with you Camper6.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 5, 2018)

Thanks.   I keep forgetting that Australia doesn't have glaciers.


----------



## HiDesertHal (Feb 5, 2018)

If Global Warming or Climate Change is measured over the centuries in Geological periods, then why is it being discussed at all?

We don't live "over the centuries", we live in the present time.

That's just something for Geologists to discuss as they're smoking their pipes and sipping their brandy.

Hal


----------



## Wandrin (Feb 5, 2018)

The way I look at it, if the 97% of the scientists are correct and we have a problem and we do something to help it, the worst case scenario is that my stock investments make a few pennies less as companies clean up their pollution.  The upside is that we have cleaner air and water, among other things.  I'm willing to lose the little to save a lot.


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 5, 2018)

Wandrin said:


> The way I look at it, if the 97% of the scientists are correct and we have a problem and we do something to help it, the worst case scenario is that my stock investments make a few pennies less as companies clean up their pollution.  The upside is that we have cleaner air and water, among other things.  I'm willing to lose the little to save a lot.



97% of the scientists? That's often quoted. That is not accurate.


----------

