# Those crazy "Global Warming" Nuts.



## fuzzybuddy (Sep 6, 2017)

Imagine those "Global Warming" Nuts say they are "predicting" things. Like more and fiercer hurricanes,  hitting our Atlantic Coasts. And that our desert regions would get drier. Water would be scarcer, and rationed. And we'd have more and bigger forest fires. Those crazy"Global Warming" Nuts!


----------



## Wandrin (Sep 6, 2017)

And they have the nerve to use science to back up their claims!  I heard one the other day who actually said that the earth is not the center of the universe and that the earth is round!  Oh the nerve of those nuts!


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 6, 2017)

Every event from now on will be blamed on climate change. They changed from global warming because it started cooling again.

I think it's a scam of some sort.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 6, 2017)

Wandrin said:


> And they have the nerve to use science to back up their claims!  I heard one the other day who actually said that the earth is not the center of the universe and that the earth is round!  Oh the nerve of those nuts!



The NERVE of some people!


----------



## garyt1957 (Sep 7, 2017)

Wandrin said:


> And they have the nerve to use science to back up their claims!  I heard one the other day who actually said that the earth is not the center of the universe and that the earth is round!  Oh the nerve of those nuts!



 And they also have the nerve to change the science when it doesn't fit their agenda! And they've been caught multiple times.


----------



## rkunsaw (Sep 7, 2017)

Nobody ever said the climate wasn't changing. The difference is what we do about it.

For instance if you live in an area that is going to be covered by rising seas:

Conservatives move to higher ground

Liberals send money to Al Gore


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 7, 2017)

rkunsaw said:


> Nobody ever said the climate wasn't changing. The difference is what we do about it.
> 
> For instance if you live in an area that is going to be covered by rising seas:
> 
> ...



I tend to agree.

It seems like each time we have a natural disaster in this country we look to the government for money to rebuild on the same spot in pretty much the same way.  At some point we need to look for a pattern and outlaw building in areas prone to natural disaster or rebuild in a way that allows us to coexist with nature and minimize damage.

_"Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" _


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 7, 2017)

rkunsaw said:


> Nobody ever said the climate wasn't changing. The difference is what we do about it.
> 
> For instance if you live in an area that is going to be covered by rising seas:
> 
> ...



Wrong.....conservatives deny the water is rising, even though it is up to their necks!


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2017)

Jackie22 said:


> Wrong.....conservatives deny the water is rising, even though it is up to their necks!


They don't deny the rising. It has been rising by millimeters per century. And it's not up to their necks. And they learn to ignore the ridiculous hype.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2017)

Jackie22 said:


> Wrong.....conservatives deny the water is rising, even though it is up to their necks!



Give me an example of how 'climate change' or 'global warming' has impacted you.

Where I live.  I have statistics on the temperature for the last 100 years.  There has been no change.  In fact it has gotten cooler and the temperature hasn't changed one degree C in 100 years.  If it's global shouldn't it have impacted me.? 

If it's there. Where the hell is it?


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 7, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Give me an example of how 'climate change' or 'global warming' has impacted you.
> 
> Where I live.  I have statistics on the temperature for the last 100 years.  There has been no change.  In fact it has gotten cooler and the temperature hasn't changed one degree C in 100 years.  If it's global shouldn't it have impacted me.?
> 
> If it's there. Where the hell is it?



Yea, yea, its just a pattern and it snowed at your house last week........I have lost many huge oak trees and have had to replace much of my lawn and yard and have the dead trees removed due to the drought at great expense to me....you might also want to talk to some of the victims of the hurricanes too.


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 7, 2017)

fuzzybuddy & Jackie22 - you are absolutely right.  It is a well know fact that there were no hurricanes prior to the GWB administration.  

These links take you to some fake news sites created by that evil group called conservatives:
http://www.hurricanescience.org/history/storms/1930s/GreatNewEngland/

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/features/sep13/galveston.html

And of course there were no droughts either.  More fake news:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/1934-had-worst-drought-of-last-thousand-years/


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2017)

Jackie22 said:


> Yea, yea, its just a pattern and it snowed at your house last week........I have lost many huge oak trees and have had to replace much of my lawn and yard and have the dead trees removed due to the drought at great expense to me....you might also want to talk to some of the victims of the hurricanes too.



And you are going to attribute that to the AGW theory?  There has never been a drought before in your area?  

And the hurricanes.?  Scientists have already debunked the claim that climate change or global warming have anything to do with the hurricanes. 

So now you are saying that drought in your area and flooding in Houston are somehow related?

The desert is blooming.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2017)

Jackie22 said:


> Yea, yea, its just a pattern and it snowed at your house last week........I have lost many huge oak trees and have had to replace much of my lawn and yard and have the dead trees removed due to the drought at great expense to me....you might also want to talk to some of the victims of the hurricanes too.



And you are going to attribute that to the AGW theory?  There has never been a drought before in your area?  

And the hurricanes.?  Scientists have already debunked the claim that climate change or global warming have anything to do with the hurricanes. 

So now you are saying that drought in your area and flooding in Houston are somehow related?

The desert is blooming.  


And you never ever heard of the Dirty Thirties either?


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 7, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> And you are going to attribute that to the AGW theory?  There has never been a drought before in your area?
> 
> And the hurricanes.?  Scientists have already debunked the claim that climate change or global warming have anything to do with the hurricanes.
> 
> ...



The desert I live in sure isn't  blooming!  The godawful heat this summer and the lack of rainfall has turned this desert uniformly brown.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 8, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> The desert I live in sure isn't  blooming!  The godawful heat this summer and the lack of rainfall has turned this desert uniformly brown.




http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520496783/california-deserts-in-super-bloom-thanks-to-a-wet-winter


----------



## hangover (Sep 8, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> They don't deny the rising. It has been rising by millimeters per century. And it's not up to their necks. And they learn to ignore the ridiculous hype.



That's just like the folks at Sodom and Gomorrah that made fun of Noah. The water that Irma is in, is over 90 degrees....it's killing the sea life already. The ocean currents send that water to the polls....that's melting the polls at an unprecedented rate, which will make the oceans levels rise. 80% of coastal cities will be under water in 50 years. It's just sickening that so many Americans think that it doesn't matter to them because they'll be dead in 50 years. Kinda like running up a $20 trillion national debt, and leaving it for future generations to pay off.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 8, 2017)

hangover said:


> That's just like the folks at Sodom and Gomorrah that made fun of Noah. The water that Irma is in, is over 90 degrees....it's killing the sea life already. The ocean currents send that water to the polls....that's melting the polls at an unprecedented rate, which will make the oceans levels rise. 80% of coastal cities will be under water in 50 years. It's just sickening that so many Americans think that it doesn't matter to them because they'll be dead in 50 years. Kinda like running up a $20 trillion national debt, and leaving it for future generations to pay off.



Yup, the vast majority of people have little concern for the future generations...if it doesn't directly affect them, it's nothing to get excited about.  Even worse, are those who accept nonsense from people like this as being the truth.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rush-limbaugh-says-hurricane-irma-141627581.html


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 8, 2017)

hangover said:


> That's just like the folks at Sodom and Gomorrah that made fun of Noah. The water that Irma is in, is over 90 degrees....it's killing the sea life already. The ocean currents send that water to the polls....that's melting the polls at an unprecedented rate, which will make the oceans levels rise. 80% of coastal cities will be under water in 50 years. It's just sickening that so many Americans think that it doesn't matter to them because they'll be dead in 50 years. Kinda like running up a $20 trillion national debt, and leaving it for future generations to pay off.



Wrong.  It's not killing the sea life by a long shot.  This is the kind of hype I don't get. 

When you make statements like that in order to convince me you have to provide proof.

For instance. The East Coast of the United States is experiencing record lobster harvests.  

The city I live in has a University that studies the Polar Bear population (the poster boys for the Warming Warriors).  They claim not only are the Polar Bears surviving, they are thriving.

I hate to tell you this because you won't believe it anyway but a bit of global warming would produce more food.

Sodom and Gomorrah?  You really believe they were turned into pillars of salt because they turned back to look?  

I'm afraid that's not very scientific reasoning.


----------



## garyt1957 (Sep 8, 2017)

Don M. said:


> Yup, the vast majority of people have little concern for the future generations...if it doesn't directly affect them, it's nothing to get excited about.  Even worse, are those who accept nonsense from people like this as being the truth.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/rush-limbaugh-says-hurricane-irma-141627581.html



 Or even listen to climatologists who've been caught fudging the numbers many times over.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 8, 2017)

hangover said:


> That's just like the folks at Sodom and Gomorrah that made fun of Noah. The water that Irma is in, is over 90 degrees....it's killing the sea life already. The ocean currents send that water to the polls....that's melting the polls at an unprecedented rate, which will make the oceans levels rise. 80% of coastal cities will be under water in 50 years. It's just sickening that so many Americans think that it doesn't matter to them because they'll be dead in 50 years. Kinda like running up a $20 trillion national debt, and leaving it for future generations to pay off.



Wrong.  It's not killing the sea life by a long shot.  This is the kind of hype I don't get. 

When you make statements like that in order to convince me you have to provide proof.

For instance. The East Coast of the United States is experiencing record lobster harvests.  

The city I live in has a University that studies the Polar Bear population (the poster boys for the Warming Warriors).  They claim not only are the Polar Bears surviving, they are thriving.

I hate to tell you this because you won't believe it anyway but a bit of global warming would produce more food.

Sodom and Gomorrah?  You really believe they were turned into pillars of salt because they turned back to look?  

I'm afraid that's not very scientific reasoning.  

See I will give you proof.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/18/maines-lobster-business-is-booming-despite-record-catches.html


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 8, 2017)

Don M. said:


> Yup, the vast majority of people have little concern for the future generations...if it doesn't directly affect them, it's nothing to get excited about.  Even worse, are those who accept nonsense from people like this as being the truth.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/rush-limbaugh-says-hurricane-irma-141627581.html



Not true Don.  Perhaps we don't want to saddle future generations with debt from carbon credits and crap like that.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 9, 2017)

*Yes, maybe so (though I doubt it's as significant as you think)*



garyt1957 said:


> Don M wrote:
> "Yup, the vast majority of people have little concern for the future generations...if it doesn't directly affect them, it's nothing to get excited about.  Even worse, are those who accept nonsense from people like this as being the truth."
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/rush-limb...141627581.html
> ...




Yes, but as I keep saying what have you or anyone else lost if the climate scientist have it all wrong?

If you can just put aside your worries or prejudice against climate scientists (why would they be any worse than any other scientist, and their work if published is subjected to "peer review" essentially other scientists criticising their work). There is nothing truer that untrammeled use of resources which are limited, such as fossil has to end somewhere, one day it will come when there isn't a piece of coal or a barrel of oil to be had, so why not take a "precautionary response" and limit their use as much as is feasible "just in case"   ?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2017)

grahamg said:


> Yes, but as I keep saying what have you or anyone else lost if the climate scientist have it all wrong?
> 
> If you can just put aside your worries or prejudice against climate scientists (why would they be any worse than any other scientist, and their work if published is subjected to "peer review" essentially other scientists criticising their work). There is nothing truer that untrammeled use of resources which are limited, such as fossil has to end somewhere, one day it will come when there isn't a piece of coal or a barrel of oil to be had, so why not take a "precautionary response" and limit their use as much as is feasible "just in case"   ?



Just where do you draw the line without ruining the economy and people's lives.?

Right now there is no substitute for fossil fuels to deliver food by the truckload.  None that I have heard of anyway.


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 9, 2017)

This is interesting ......


[h=1]China to Ban Sale of Fossil Fuel Cars in Electric Vehicle Push[/h]China will set a deadline for automakers to end sales of fossil-fuel powered vehicles, a move aimed at pushing companies to speed efforts in developing electric vehicles for the world’s biggest auto market. 

Xin Guobin, the vice minister of industry and information technology, said the government is working with other regulators on a timetable to end production and sales. The move will have a profound impact on the environment and growth of China’s auto industry, Xin said at an auto forum in Tianjin on Saturday. 

A ban on combustion-engine vehicles will help push both local and global automakers to shift toward electric vehicles, a carrot-and-stick approach that could boost sales of energy-efficient cars and trucks and reduce air pollution while serving the strategic goal of cutting oil imports. The government offers generous subsidies to makers of new-energy vehicles. It also plans to require automakers to earn enough credits or buy them from competitors with a surplus under a new cap-and-trade program for fuel economy and emissions. 



https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/...-of-fossil-fuel-cars-in-electric-vehicle-push


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2017)

Where does the energy come from to produce the electricity to power electric cars?

 Perhaps electric cars will reduce the smog but the same amount of energy will be produced somewhere else and the pollution as well.

Its just a trade off.


----------



## garyt1957 (Sep 9, 2017)

grahamg said:


> Yes, but as I keep saying what have you or anyone else lost if the climate scientist have it all wrong?
> 
> If you can just put aside your worries or prejudice against climate scientists (why would they be any worse than any other scientist, and their work if published is subjected to "peer review" essentially other scientists criticising their work). There is nothing truer that untrammeled use of resources which are limited, such as fossil has to end somewhere, one day it will come when there isn't a piece of coal or a barrel of oil to be had, so why not take a "precautionary response" and limit their use as much as is feasible "just in case"   ?



Because the economy would tank.  Let's all go back to the horse and carriage.


----------



## SpicyTweed (Sep 9, 2017)

Solar, Wind, and Tidal energy are the ways of the future.  Nuclear energy too, although I have strong safety reservations about that.  Fossil fuels need to be completely phased out before the middle of this century, or this planet and its inhabitants will be in deep trouble.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2017)

SpicyTweed said:


> Solar, Wind, and Tidal energy are the ways of the future.  Nuclear energy too, although I have strong safety reservations about that.  Fossil fuels need to be completely phased out before the middle of this century, or this planet and its inhabitants will be in deep trouble.



Fossil fuels will not be completely phased out without nuclear energy taking a dominant role. Those alternatives you quoted will not fill the need for the energy required to maintain a healthy economy.

Those alternatives you quote need manufacturing capabilities to sustain them.  Where is the energy going to come from and what does that energy cost.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 9, 2017)

*All gone in 100 years?*



garyt1957 said:


> Don M wrote:
> "Yup, the vast majority of people have little concern for the future generations...if it doesn't directly affect them, it's nothing to get excited about.  Even worse, are those who accept nonsense from people like this as being the truth."
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/rush-limb...141627581.html
> ...




Even the most blinkered "Kentucky miner" who would lose his job as a result of the restrictions placed upon fossil fuel use is not going to wish to see the planet ruined for their children's generation, or grandchildren's generation, or however long it takes. We've all heard that mankind will destroy itself, and maybe we will, but lets not force those who wish to prevent one way of doing so arrive sooner than absolutely unavoidable, if there are viable alternatives being put forward?

You don't want that I'm sure, and my dear late father used to say how much he enjoyed farming with his carthorse as a young man  , and man made climate change made sense to him because of changes in nature he'd seen over his long lifetime, and the arguments being put forward by both his fellow farmers and "experts".


----------



## garyt1957 (Sep 10, 2017)

grahamg said:


> Even the most blinkered "Kentucky miner" who would lose his job as a result of the restrictions placed upon fossil fuel use is not going to wish to see the planet ruined for their children's generation, or grandchildren's generation, or however long it takes. We've all heard that mankind will destroy itself, and maybe we will, but lets not force those who wish to prevent one way of doing so arrive sooner than absolutely unavoidable, if there are viable alternatives being put forward?
> 
> ".


 And that's just it, there are no VIABLE alternatives available and won't be in my lifetime. We will replace fossil fuels somewhere down the road and there's certainly good reason to search for replacements but it's not happening anytime soon.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

So what do we have so far.?

Over the last century the temperature hasn't increased less than one degree C.  

The Earth has been warming for over 10,000 years and that's well within the limit.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 10, 2017)

*Precautionary principle*



garyt1957 said:


> Grahamg wrote:
> "Even the most blinkered "Kentucky miner" who would lose his job as a result of the restrictions placed upon fossil fuel use is not going to wish to see the planet ruined for their children's generation, or grandchildren's generation, or however long it takes. We've all heard that mankind will destroy itself, and maybe we will, but lets not force those who wish to prevent one way of doing so arrive sooner than absolutely unavoidable, if there are viable alternatives being put forward?"
> 
> Gary1957 wrote:
> ...




No one has all the answers on this one I'm sure, so it is a matter of who or what you put your faith in  . It could be simply my personality where I'd maybe choose to be more cautious than others, such as yourself, who might be more of a risk taker perhaps (?).

On one of our UK tv news channels this morning a discussion on the impact of recent storms in the USA took place, and one reputable journalist Steve Richards said those who deny climate change have little room for manoeuvre because after they've provided immediate aid to those in stricken areas, or help to rebuild, they have no possible "solutions" to offer anyone, and that he believed would become an issue as the days go by.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

grahamg said:


> No one has all the answers on this one I'm sure, so it is a matter of who or what you put your faith in  . It could be simply my personality where I'd maybe choose to be more cautious than others, such as yourself, who might be more of a risk taker perhaps (?).
> 
> On one of our UK tv news channels this morning a discussion on the impact of recent storms in the USA took place, and one reputable journalist Steve Richards said those who deny climate change have little room for manoeuvre because after they've provided immediate aid to those in stricken areas, or help to rebuild, they have no possible "solutions" to offer anyone, and that he believed would become an issue as the days go by.



I wish for once people would get it right.  It's not a question of deny.  It's a question of how much are humans contributing compared to what would happen if they weren't here.

There's no denying that the Earth is warming naturally.  It has been going on for centuries.  Right where I am sitting was a glacier that was about a mile high and melted and formed part of the Great Lakes.  I am on the shore of Lake Superior.

I am a skeptic at all times because I want scientific explanations that are proven. 

Some people believe it because the government says it is so.

The one thing I hate about the proponents of the global warming theory is the hype.  If we don't do something right away we are doomed and we are already past the tipping point.  Pure unadulterated b.s.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 10, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> I am a skeptic at all times because I want scientific explanations that are proven. QUOTE]
> 
> Here's a pretty good summary of how/why things are warming up.  This is from CNN, but if you are willing to spend a little time reviewing the data at NASA, NOAA, and any number of other reliable sources, you will see that most of them are saying the same thing.  But first, you have to acknowledge that global events may Not all be viewable from your front yard.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/world/2016-hottest-year/index.html


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

Don M. said:


> Camper6 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a skeptic at all times because I want scientific explanations that are proven. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Trade (Sep 10, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Don M. said:
> 
> 
> > O.K. Don here's another thing that bugs me.  Who is the official source.  The links you gave me are sometimes in conflict with one another.
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

Trade said:


> Camper6 said:
> 
> 
> > We have science on our side Camper.
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

Ways to Give
Donate
Give Monthly
Planned Gifts

How to Help
Become a Member
Take Action
Subscribe


----------



## Trade (Sep 10, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Do me a favor.  Check the historical temperature where you live.



I lived in Central Florida from the time I was born (1947) until 2014. 

When I was a kid we used to get about a half a dozen freezes every year. I can remember sitting in class at Largo High School in the early 60's and watching snow flurries coming down outside the widow. But anymore freezes hardly ever happen. Right now I have three very productive mature citrus trees in my backyard and that's here in Mobile Alabama. That would have been unheard of just a couple of decades ago. All kinds of vegetation and wildlife have been extending their ranges farther and farther north during the past few decades. And those plants and animals are not doing that because they are listening to Al Gore.


----------



## Trade (Sep 10, 2017)

Trade said:


> I lived in Central Florida from the time I was born (1947) until 2014.
> 
> When I was a kid we used to get about a half a dozen freezes every year. I can remember sitting in class at Largo High School in the early 60's and watching snow flurries coming down outside the widow. But anymore freezes hardly ever happen. Right now I have three very productive mature citrus trees in my backyard and that's here in Mobile Alabama. That would have been unheard of just a couple of decades ago. All kinds of vegetation and wildlife have been extending their ranges farther and farther north during the past few decades. And those plants and animals are not doing that because they are listening to Al Gore.




So I tell you what Camper. I'm gonna go with the smart people on this one. You are free to stick with the dummies.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 10, 2017)

grahamg said:


> No one has all the answers on this one I'm sure, so it is a matter of who or what you put your faith in  . It could be simply my personality where I'd maybe choose to be more cautious than others, such as yourself, who might be more of a risk taker perhaps (?).
> 
> On one of our UK tv news channels this morning a discussion on the impact of recent storms in the USA took place, and one reputable journalist Steve Richards said those who deny climate change have little room for manoeuvre because after they've provided immediate aid to those in stricken areas, or help to rebuild, they have no possible "solutions" to offer anyone, and that he believed would become an issue as the days go by.


And while the warning signs are writ large over US and Central America, our PM is trying to bully a local electricity provider into extending the working life of an old coal fired generator for a further 5 years with the added inducement of heavy taxpayer input. What does the planet have to do to convince some people that a reduction in green house gases is prudent policy.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 10, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Don M. said:
> 
> 
> > By the way. Please don't give me CNN as a source.  They are not a scientific source and they are hopelessly biased.  Completely hopeless.
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

Trade said:


> I lived in Central Florida from the time I was born (1947) until 2014.
> 
> When I was a kid we used to get about a half a dozen freezes every year. I can remember sitting in class at Largo High School in the early 60's and watching snow flurries coming down outside the widow. But anymore freezes hardly ever happen. Right now I have three very productive mature citrus trees in my backyard and that's here in Mobile Alabama. That would have been unheard of just a couple of decades ago. All kinds of vegetation and wildlife have been extending their ranges farther and farther north during the past few decades. And those plants and animals are not doing that because they are listening to Al Gore.



I'm sorry but your memory of childhood days isn't scientific enough for me. That's just hearsay evidence.

There isn't an adult around that can't relate a story about how tough things were when they were in school.

I want actual statistics.  How much has the temperature increased from a reliable weather data source?

You know those citrus trees you are citing?  Well it's a well known fact that you can plant species of trees that will adapt to a different zone.  

Try planting the seeds and see if they survive.  I was taught that in high school.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

Trade said:


> I lived in Central Florida from the time I was born (1947) until 2014.
> 
> When I was a kid we used to get about a half a dozen freezes every year. I can remember sitting in class at Largo High School in the early 60's and watching snow flurries coming down outside the widow. But anymore freezes hardly ever happen. Right now I have three very productive mature citrus trees in my backyard and that's here in Mobile Alabama. That would have been unheard of just a couple of decades ago. All kinds of vegetation and wildlife have been extending their ranges farther and farther north during the past few decades. And those plants and animals are not doing that because they are listening to Al Gore.



I'm sorry but your memory of childhood days isn't scientific enough for me. That's just hearsay evidence.

There isn't an adult around that can't relate a story about how tough things were when they were in school.

I want actual statistics.  How much has the temperature increased from a reliable weather data source?

You know those citrus trees you are citing?  Well it's a well known fact that you can plant species of trees that will adapt to a different zone.  

Try planting the seeds and see if they survive.  I was taught that in high school.

Indonesia had their first ever recorded snowfall in 2013.  It doesn't mean a thing.  It's not proof of anything.

Here I will do it for you.

[h=2]Past weather Mobile - january 2015[/h]
Average high temperature:59.8°F (normal: 61°F)Average low temperature:37.3°F (normal: 40°F)Average temperature:48.55°F (normal: 50°F)Total Precipitation:3.89 inch (normal: 5.67 inch)Total snowfall:0 inch  Highest max temperature:78.1°FLowest max temperature:37.9°F  Highest min temperature:62.1°FLowest min temperature:17.2°F


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

Trade said:


> So I tell you what Camper. I'm gonna go with the smart people on this one. You are free to stick with the dummies.



The dummies are the ones that refuse to provide scientific evidence and subscribe to scurrilous websites asking for money.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

Don M. said:


> Camper6 said:
> 
> 
> > "You can Only lead a horse to water....You can't Make him drink"
> ...


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 10, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> I tend to agree.
> 
> It seems like each time we have a natural disaster in this country we look to the government for money to rebuild on the same spot in pretty much the same way.  At some point we need to look for a pattern and outlaw building in areas prone to natural disaster or rebuild in a way that allows us to coexist with nature and minimize damage.
> 
> _"Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" _



I agree with you completely.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> I agree with you completely.



Hurricanes have been taking place in the same places for centuries.  People just rebuild and carry on.  What are you going to do? Move the state?  

Deadliest US hurricane. The *Hurricane of 1900*  made landfall on September 8, 1900, in Galveston, Texas, in the United  States. It had estimated winds of 145 miles per hour (233 km/h) at  landfall, making it a Category 4 storm on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane  Scale.


----------



## Trade (Sep 10, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> I'm sorry but your memory of childhood days isn't scientific enough for me. That's just hearsay evidence.
> 
> There isn't an adult around that can't relate a story about how tough things were when they were in school.
> 
> ...



That's it Dude. We're done.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 11, 2017)

Trade said:


> So I tell you what Camper. I'm gonna go with the smart people on this one. You are free to stick with the dummies.



"Bookkeeping of the energy flow". Such an elegant summation of the thermodynamics of climate and climate change.
Thanks, Trade.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

You are done?

You promise now?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> "Bookkeeping of the energy flow". Such an elegant summation of the thermodynamics of climate and climate change.
> Thanks, Trade.


It's nonsense. Another millionaire getting in on the scare scam.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 11, 2017)

No. It is thermodynamics. The second law.

http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJGW.2013.051467?journalCode=ijgw


----------



## Lolly (Sep 11, 2017)




----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> No. It is thermodynamics. The second law.
> 
> http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJGW.2013.051467?journalCode=ijgw



Really?  Explain this to me.  It's supposed to be simple.

Climate modelling is discussed from a thermodynamic point of view, using  a control volume approach in which the environment and a superficial  layer of the earth form the volume, concentric spherical shell of  predominantly gaseous content with a thin layer of the earth. An energy  equation that includes anthropogenic heat is suggested based on the mass  balance of fossil fuel introduced into the control volume. It is argued  that the use of temperature as a climate change indicator should be  deemphasized since other thermodynamic coordinates including pressure,  wind speed, humidity, etc. are just as important. The concept of  Equivalent Rate of Evaporation (ERE) is introduced to better estimate  the impact of enthalpy of vaporization on climate change. This approach  offers a more lucid understanding of the climate model, with indubitably  more accurate results.

One more time.  Give me the historical temperature record of where you live for the last 100 years and tell me how much of an increase in temperature took place over that time.

I mean.  Bring the theory home to where you live and find out for yourself.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 11, 2017)

I will not comply. I have wasted too many words explaining the physics and chemistry of global warming and I'm not about to jump through any hoops for your gratification, especially because you are only asking because you want an argument. 

 If you really are interested in factual information, try here for Sydney 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data-services/station-data.shtml

 However, if you are serious it I recommend that you look up global mean temperatures which I am sure you can find if you try.


----------



## Trade (Sep 11, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> I will not comply. I have wasted too many words explaining the physics and chemistry of global warming and I'm not about to jump through any hoops for your gratification, especially because you are only asking because you want an argument.




:yeah:


----------



## NancyNGA (Sep 11, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> .... I'm not about to jump through any hoops for your gratification, especially because you are only asking because you want an argument. ...


Yep.  Obvious *long* ago, on any subject.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> I will not comply. I have wasted too many words explaining the physics and chemistry of global warming and I'm not about to jump through any hoops for your gratification, especially because you are only asking because you want an argument.
> 
> If you really are interested in factual information, try here for Sydney
> 
> ...



I am serious.  You are wise to back off when you produce a website and then don't understand what it says.

Global mean temperature.  Which source should I use?  The IPCC.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

NancyNGA said:


> Yep.  Obvious *long* ago, on any subject.



Nope you guys have it wrong and you support each other even though you are wrong.

I'm asking for* scientific* input.  Not hearsay evidence or what you 'remember' as a kid.  When you can't give the answer you come up with the "All you want is an argument theory".


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

> Warrigal said:
> 
> 
> > I will not comply. I have wasted too many words explaining the physics and chemistry of global warming and I'm not about to jump through any hoops for your gratification, especially because you are only asking because you want an argument.
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

Trade said:


> :yeah:


 
He's BAAAACCKKKKK!  When all else fails, and someone doesn't agree with you, use the "All you want it an argument, card".

That's not science.:lame:


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 11, 2017)

You're not ready for science, Camper. When you are, we'll talk.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 11, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> > Now why would Sydney be any different?  It's global temperature we are talking about.  We are talking about increase in temperatures.
> 
> 
> For Pete's sake Camper! You asked about historical temperature records of where I live for the last 100 years. That is why I provided a link to our Board of Meteorology. If you really want the information you will find it there if you take the time to dig deep enough.
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

> Warrigal said:
> 
> 
> > Camper6 said:
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> You're not ready for science, Camper. When you are, we'll talk.



What you call science is propaganda. Science is proof.


----------



## Manatee (Sep 11, 2017)

If Al Gore unplugged his mansion, they could shut down 2 coal fired powerhouses.


----------



## Trade (Sep 11, 2017)

Manatee said:


> If Al Gore unplugged his mansion, they could shut down 2 coal fired powerhouses.



I want scientific evidence of that. Show me Al Gore's utility bills for the last 100 years.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 11, 2017)

:lofl: @ Trade.
I tips me lid to you, Sir. I think you just won this argument.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> :lofl: @ Trade.
> I tips me lid to you, Sir. I think you just won this argument.



As usual.  You missed the point.

Johnson said Gore pays about $22,000 in annual electric bills for his Nashville home, not including $432 a month he pays for carbon credits, consisting of money that goes to the Tennessee Valley Authority to fund alternative energy initiatives.

"You've got to ring the bell of hypocrisy here," says Johnson. "It's like a religious leader cheating on his wife."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...-get-criticism-an-inconvenient-sequel-1026228


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 11, 2017)

The point did not escape me. 
However, the humour of Trade's response seems to have gone over your head.
You must be a great mood killer at dinner parties.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> The point did not escape me.
> However, the humour of Trade's response seems to have gone over your head.
> You must be a great mood killer at dinner parties.



How would you know?  This isn't a dinner party.

Yep. The point did escape you.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 11, 2017)

Ok. I confess that the point passed me by completely.

To help me understand better, please explain it to me in great detail, with links to prove everything that you refer to. In particular, I would like to see Al Gore's power bills for the past 20 years to see whether he has done anything to lower his emissions. Please provide proof that he has not purchased solar panels or carbon offsets. As a point of comparison, could you dig up similar facts and figures relating to Disneyland, the NY stock exchange and a popular casino in Las Vegas?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Ok. I confess that the point passed me by completely.
> 
> To help me understand better, please explain it to me in great detail, with links to prove everything that you refer to. In particular, I would like to see Al Gore's power bills for the past 20 years to see whether he has done anything to lower his emissions. Please provide proof that he has not purchased solar panels or carbon offsets. As a point of comparison, could you dig up similar facts and figures relating to Disneyland, the NY stock exchange and a popular casino in Las Vegas?[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 11, 2017)

Against my better judgement I will supply you with a small segment from the BoM website.
You can use the link to tease out anything else you might care to examine.

Note that the temperatures are means across the whole continent.


> *http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/*
> 
> *Climate Trends*
> 
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

One degree since 1910? Enough said.

We now have science on our side.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 12, 2017)

Did you notice that it is accelerating?


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 12, 2017)

I've seen several of these graphs and they all seem to show that it really was colder than average at the turn of the 20th century.  That means both of my grandfathers were correct when they remembered "freezing my a$$ off in France" during WW1.

(and yes, I am aware that the graph above is for Australia...)


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Did you notice that it is accelerating?



That's the advertising alright that it's accellerating but not enough to worry about. It's well within the norm for the century and the measurements are much more accurate.

But is it worth dumping our way of life for a forecast of what is going to happen 50 years from now. ?

No one is going to get rid of their cars and trucks.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> I've seen several of these graphs and they all seem to show that it really was colder than average at the turn of the 20th century.  That means both of my grandfathers were correct when they remembered "freezing my a$$ off in France" during WW1.
> 
> (and yes, I am aware that the graph above is for Australia...)



Yes it was colder by about 1 degree.  But you can't go by memory alone.  You have to have the actual temperatures.  

We do know the Earth has warmed gradually for at least the 10,000 years when glaciers covered the North American landscape.  And it's continuing to warm gradually and will do so.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 12, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> That's the advertising alright that it's accellerating but not enough to worry about. It's well within the norm for the century and the measurements are much more accurate.
> 
> But is it worth dumping our way of life for a forecast of what is going to happen 50 years from now. ?
> 
> No one is going to get rid of their cars and trucks.



I don't think it is worth _dumping _our way of life but I do think that it is logical to modify our way of life to give folks a better chance at a similar quality of life, or better, 50 or 100 years in the future.


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 12, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Yes it was colder by about 1 degree.  But you can't go by memory alone.  You have to have the actual temperatures.
> 
> We do know the Earth has warmed gradually for at least the 10,000 years when glaciers covered the North American landscape.  And it's continuing to warm gradually and will do so.



Well, I'm more inclined to trust the men who were actually there, getting shot at, in the cold, etc, than your opinion.  If you weren't there, you don't know how cold it was.  No disrespect, of course.


----------



## Roadwarrior (Sep 12, 2017)

My mistake I will stay out of the discussion.  Read the conversion chart wrong.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 12, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Yes it was colder by about 1 degree.  But you can't go by memory alone.  You have to have the actual temperatures.
> 
> We do know the Earth has warmed gradually for at least the 10,000 years when glaciers covered the North American landscape.  And it's continuing to warm gradually and will do so.


Scientists understand that a measurable effect must have a cause. 
If the earth's air, oceans and land masses are warming, what do you suppose is causing this effect?


----------



## Don M. (Sep 12, 2017)

What some people fail to take into consideration is the accelerating of climate change conditions.  Another criteria is the relationship between the effects of warming, and the rapid growth of the global populations.  The warming has taken a noticeable increase in the past 20 or 30 years....as shown by the more rapid melting of the glaciers, and the thinning of the Arctic Ice cap, etc.  Coincidently, the global population has doubled in just the past 40 or 50 years.  At the same time, deforestation, especially in the Amazon, is increasing, so as to help support this ballooning population.  Human activity has done more, in the past 50 years, to change our environment, than people have done in thousands of years, previously....and this rate of change is expected to grow exponentially.  While populations in the developed nations are slowing, the growth in the undeveloped nations is skyrocketing...and those nations are ill equipped to handle the growth.  

More people means more need and use of resources, which means more pollution, and even more warming.  

Another way to look at it is...a driver is headed for a brick wall, and instead of using the brakes, he is pressing on the gas pedal.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 12, 2017)

Roadwarrior said:


> 1 degree Celsius equals 18 degrees Fahrenheit, I would notice an 18 degree swing in temperature anytime.  I don’t need charts to tell me it’s getting warmer.


Actually, one Celsius degree is the same as 1.8 Fahrenheit degrees.
This is calculated by equating the number of degrees on each scale between the melting point of ice (0oC, 32oF) and the boiling point of water (100oC, 212oF) In other words 100 Celsius degrees is the same as 180 Fahrenheit degrees.

If the world had warmed by 18oF we would all be cooked by now.


----------



## Roadwarrior (Sep 12, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Actually, one Celsius degree is the same as 1.8 Fahrenheit degrees.
> This is calculated by equating the number of degrees on each scale between the melting point of ice (0oC, 32oF) and the boiling point of water (100oC, 212oF) In other words 100 Celsius degrees is the same as 180 Fahrenheit degrees.
> 
> If the world had warmed by 18oF we would all be cooked by now.


My mistake thanks for the correction, I do feel cooler already.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 12, 2017)

Roadwarrior said:


> My mistake thanks for the correction, I do feel cooler already.



No worries. 

Now, if we only knew for sure what the temperature increase is beyond which there is no going back we might be able to stop worrying about irreversible climate change. I think the general consensus is that 4 degrees C will be very ugly. This may not sound like very much but when we multiply this temperature increase by the sum of the mass of the atmosphere, oceans and crust of the earth it amounts to a lot of extra heat in the system. 

This extra energy will manifest in predictable ways such as more intense weather systems e.g. storms, blizzards, hurricanes  and dust storms and shifting climate zones. The leading edge of these changes are becoming rather obvious in this century.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> Well, I'm more inclined to trust the men who were actually there, getting shot at, in the cold, etc, than your opinion.  If you weren't there, you don't know how cold it was.  No disrespect, of course.



I was there close to 100 years ago.  I'm 84 years old.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> No worries.
> 
> Now, if we only knew for sure what the temperature increase is beyond which there is no going back we might be able to stop worrying about irreversible climate change. I think the general consensus is that 4 degrees C will be very ugly. This may not sound like very much but when we multiply this temperature increase by the sum of the mass of the atmosphere, oceans and crust of the earth it amounts to a lot of extra heat in the system.
> 
> This extra energy will manifest in predictable ways such as more intense weather systems e.g. storms, blizzards, hurricanes  and dust storms and shifting climate zones. The leading edge of these changes are becoming rather obvious in this century.



If you look at the chart again (I hate charts because you cannot read off the actual temperatures).

If you look at the 10 year mean (in grey) there's a difference of .35 to .51 or a difference of .16C.  a

The way I look at it.  The Earth has been warming for centuries, no doubt about that or the glaciers that covered North America wouldn't have melted.  That's well within the norm.   

Now what they are predicting is in the future.  That's where all the concern is.  50 years from now.  

So far Hansens predictions for the sea rise isn't anywhere close to what he predicted.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> Well, I'm more inclined to trust the men who were actually there, getting shot at, in the cold, etc, than your opinion.  If you weren't there, you don't know how cold it was.  No disrespect, of course.



Hoot n Annie.  Unless they had a thermometer in their hand it doesn't mean a thing.

No disrespect either but if want to have a scientific discussion you cannot use hearsay evidence.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> I don't think it is worth _dumping _our way of life but I do think that it is logical to modify our way of life to give folks a better chance at a similar quality of life, or better, 50 or 100 years in the future.



On the other hand we could go overboard with this and make it worse for them by making everything more expensive.

Remember now.  All the forecasts are based on models.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Actually, one Celsius degree is the same as 1.8 Fahrenheit degrees.
> This is calculated by equating the number of degrees on each scale between the melting point of ice (0oC, 32oF) and the boiling point of water (100oC, 212oF) In other words 100 Celsius degrees is the same as 180 Fahrenheit degrees.
> 
> If the world had warmed by 18oF we would all be cooked by now.



In these discussions we should stick with C instead of F because the world bodies are working in C.

All the charts I look at are in C.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Scientists understand that a measurable effect must have a cause.
> If the earth's air, oceans and land masses are warming, what do you suppose is causing this effect?



Well there are many causes that are causing this effect including humans.  But my point is that it is not *ALL* caused by humans.

There is the natural effect taking place which took place and is continuing to take place well before humans became involved from about 10,000 years ago.  That's not going to stop.  
Then there are hundreds of volcanoes spewing into the atmosphere.  The Earth has a molten core.
Then there are the measurements that are taking place, which now are supposed to be more accurate so we don't have a comparison to satellite data from the past.
Then there is civilization and masses of concrete and pavement retaining heat from the sun.

And then there are humans using fossil fuels as well.

Now the theory is that if we eliminate fossil fuels everything will be just fine.  That's going to be one tough call.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Sep 12, 2017)

There isn't an area on earth, which does not have detectable evidence of fossil fuel use. It's detectable in the sky, sea, land, and air, everywhere. We don't have a good grasp of what the consequences are. If we claim to be an intelligent specie, we cannot rob future generations of the heritage and quality of life, we were given by our forbears. It may be future generations, who will find out, if our efforts produced fruit. But at least, they'll know we tried to leave them a better planet. We did the best  we could, with our present knowledge. We didn't sit on our asses.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

deleted. Duplicate


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2017)

fuzzybuddy said:


> There isn't an area on earth, which does not have detectable evidence of fossil fuel use. It's detectable in the sky, sea, land, and air, everywhere. We don't have a good grasp of what the consequences are. If we claim to be an intelligent specie, we cannot rob future generations of the heritage and quality of life, we were given by our forbears. It may be future generations, who will find out, if our efforts produced fruit. But at least, they'll know we tried to leave them a better planet. We did the best  we could, with our present knowledge. We didn't sit on our asses.



Of course we should try to reduce pollution as much as possible and we are doing that.   The world I live in now is a heck of a lot cleaner than what I remember.  Raw sewage going into rivers.  Garbage was incinerated, now we have landfills.  There are regulations against pollution that didn't exist 50 years ago.  And as a nation?  If other nations don't care, what are you going to do about it?

Their attitude?  Well you got rich with industrial might, now give us the chance.  We have a huge population to feed. (India, China) are prime examples.  



It may be that no matter what we do, nothing is going to change.  Every time you open a can of soda pop you release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Will you do your bit and stop?  Will you stop driving your car?

Will trucks have to stop delivering food?  How far will you go before the economy tanks? There's no free lunch here.  It's a trade off.


----------

