Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SubTropicRay

La Niña

Recommended Posts

bgl

Bill,

Well, happily I'll never be eligible. Let's just go for the Easter Bunny! How bad can it be? ???

Bo-Göran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(steve 9atx @ Mar. 02 2007,22:47)

QUOTE
Bob

The older fellow in this picture http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/ says that the models which he believes say that an 100ppmv increase of atmospheric CO2 will result in a 0.2C increase in global surface temperature.  So, the claim that an 100ppmv increase with a corresponding 1degree C increase in global surface temperature within an 100 year time period does not correlate, therefore cannnot explain global warming as a cause/effect relationship between atmospheric ppmv of CO2 and surface temperature.  In Dr Gray's model, it would have taken 5x the "increase" in atmospheric ppmv of CO2 "since industrialization" to account for the current warm cycle if that were indeed the cause. If you care to follow up, see the "Weatherbrains" podcast I posted on another thread.  There, you can hear him explain himself.

Steve

Steve,

  one of the main points being made, and Aaln mentioned it as 'outliers', is that its not just co2 being thrown into the atmosphere ... i've had menial jobs working in plastic factories, chemical factories, w/ gas, etc ... all these places produce their own distinct 'aromas' ... and if you can smell it that means  that it is 'particulates' in the atmosphere ... EVERY large or small factory around the planet produces its own kind of atmospheric pollution, so sure, a model using co2 won't cut it ... and also the co2 we are putting into the atmosphere now is not a 'natural' co2, and we are adding it at a time when we are destroying forests worldwide ... adding a grove of trees here and there while we take away a thousand acres of rain forest doesn't add up ... adding 24 billion tons of co2 plus another 24 billion tons of effed up shhhh (just me estimate but probly at least) to the atmosphere does not do much good for most kinds of biology we need to survive ...

   the sad thing is that it would take a small effort by industry to help stop a lot of the pollution ... simply by putting 'scrubbers' and 'filtering' the garbage strewn into our atmosphere would help greatly ... but of course it would cost industries which make a billion dollar profit a couple hundred thousand bucks of their money to take care of it ... and we can't cut into their huge profits now can we ... best just to leave it up in the air ...

  the hype about Gores film is unfortunate ... but i did have to laugh when i caught in passing Bill OReilly talking to Dennis Miller about every time he flies into LA he puts on his oxygen mask b/c of the 'goop' he's flying into ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

Hey...you guys didn't tell me we were having a global warming party !! (I love these)

The world is constantly warming or cooling...it is never static. Adding to Steve in Tx's comments re narcissism, I believe 'self importance' better explains the phenomenon of people believing we are responsible for global warming.

Al Gore flies around in private jets, charging 150k for a speech(oops, he just went to 175k since he won the oscar) Since he invented the internet, why doesn't he video conference his speeches? It would leave a zero "carbon footprint" ....I guess because no one would pay 175k for a video conference. Al Gore also has four homes, all using WAY more energy than a human needs. Guess who's part owner of the company that is acting as broker of "carbon units" (buying and selling for profit)??? Al Gore.  

A wise man once said.."Follow the money".

I hate hypocrisy...at least our own Jack Sayer rides the bus..he walks the walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

Steve,

   so you're a big fan of Als ... thats nice :)

 i think this all started with someones flip  :P  comment

about el nino being a non event and since has gotten into

other things ...

 good for Mr Sayer, altho buses do pollute too ... the way

of this world is set ... its not gonna change ...

 i know i'll drive a hundred miles anytime for a palm tree

i have to have ...

  doesn't mean one can't join the party and speak up ...

     bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elHoagie

(STEVE IN SO CAL @ Mar. 04 2007,05:50)

QUOTE
at least our own Jack Sayer rides the bus..he walks the walk.

Unfortunately I've given up the bus now that we've moved to our new house I would have to make two bus transfers to get to work.  With busses running once every 30 minutes, this makes for a long commute. :(   Since I'm too scared for my safety to ride a bike in LA traffic, I've started driving to work.  At least it's only 5 miles each way, and my vehicle gets 30 mpg....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

Welcome to the world of reality....I forgive you, my son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elHoagie

Although, laHoagie is now 8 miles closer to where she works, so our combined driving has actually decreased...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

Well..there you go then..you can still be the ambassador of global warming  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steve 9atx

Steve

You're wrong.  It's not Jack. This man is the real ambassador of global warming: http://www.canada.com/nationa....14da388  I'm sorry to break this to you, but scientific theories must change and eventually be supplanted by other theories supported by properly obtained contradictory evidence....

....despite the political bent of the particular scientist.

Bob

I do respect your opinon.  I have a disclaimer, however....

By way of background, I live in Houston, Texas.  From what I understand over 75% of all the oil and petrochemical products produced in the USA are refined within a maximum of 250 miles of my house (picture an arc from Baton Rouge to Corpus with Houston as the focus), a lot of it much closer.  For this reason, during the Cold War, which was a real war by the way, my hometown was the no. 3 Soviet strategic nuclear target in the US (I'm sure DC and NYC beat us out).  Houston's port is no.1 in the US in foreign tonnage.  A lot of that is represented by oil I'm sure.

When we get an east wind, all of us around here are keenly aware of our ship channel industries.  I hate the smell of them.  I hate the smell of diesel or other automobile fumes.  In fact, I agree with your general assessment of aerosol pollutants.  If you read back on another post a few weeks ago, you'll find that I posted the EPA statistics on fluorocarbon aerosols (these, by the way are stockpiled in India and China just waiting for a Kyoto signatory to "pay" for them to be incinerated, sorta like "come wipe my ass and pay me for the priviledge").  I take fish out of every bay system along our TX/LA coast and all over North and Central America for that matter, both coasts.  It pisses me off (for my friends in Commonwealth countries, this doesn't mean "drunk", it means "angry" in SAE) to no end that, for example, the upper reaches of LaVaca Bay to my south is polluted with bauxite because of the Alcoa plant so I can't fish there.  I give to environmental causes and belong to CCA. I design environmentally-sensitive projects incorporating energy efficiency and aggressive promotion of tree planting in the 20 states in which we're licensed.  My carbon footprint is a one-legged sparrow's relative to Mr Gore or HRH the tampon-prince.  In fact, you might call me an environmentalist.

But that doesn't mean that I believe in anthropogenic global warming.  "Believe".  There, I said it.

How does one form a belief?  Here is one wrong way:  "It just stands to reason that what we're doing is not good for this planet.  The planet is getting warmer.  Therefore we must be responsible for warming the planet".  I am sure you recognize this formula as a logical syllogism; deductive logic, that is.  Trouble is, science is a process of inductive logic.  The difference in the above example is that it takes the probable inference of the latter and making it the necessary inference of the former.  Another problem is the rationalization contained in the first premise of the syllogism.  In logic this is called a "complex question"; that is, it assumes a state of affairs that is by no means proven.  It is also called the "fallacy of an illicit major" and probably others pertaining to a catagorical syllogisms.  I only made a "B" in logic, undergrad, and I confess I am drinking, so I'm at my limit here....

The "complex question" is primarily what makes the abovementioned argument fallacious.  Firstly, you haven't proven the inference that whether or not it exists, global warming is bad.  A Danish PhD economist named Bjorn Lomborg says that for myriad reasons global warming is good. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110009552  Or you can read his book.  Or you can read the weeping and gnashing of teeth in this winter's climate posts on this site.....

Secondly, you haven't proven the inference that mankind is steering the planet's climate. Whether the earth warms or cools, who could possibly assume a steady-state climate with what we (think we) know about the geological history of the planet?  What hubris to think that the piddly little anecdotal evidence of a small portion of one lifetime, as seems to be often quoted on this board as "evidence" could prove up global climate change! http://www.co2science.org/scripts....ing.jsp

For those of you in the UK, try to catch this programme: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages....id=1965

Finally, I hope you will never, ever hear me on this board say, "this and such must be true" without quoting first hand knowledge or another first-hand source.  Either I've seen it with my own eyes (and I don't believe 1/2 of what I do see), or I'll give you a citation.  Hopefully, you'll never hear the rationalization that "xyz tons of CO2 'must' be bad for the planet".  Unless someone who's an expert, someone who actually studies this all day, everyday, not someone who masturbates all day while fantasizing about being a climate scientist like Al Gore, has said it, I promise I won't repeat it.

Bob, with all due respect, if you're expecting a "scientific" answer, this is what you are asking me: How many litres are in the ocean?  Do you have a CRC Manual, a TI calculator, along with a few Oceanography professors, Chemists, and at least one Physicist or Astronomer to keep them honest handy where you can figure out the amount of CO2 at a given temperature and salinity that the ocean can absorb?  Is it good for phytoplankton that the ocean absorb this amount of CO2 or.... do they crave even more?

Is 24 billions accurate?  Is 24 billion tons something?  Or is 24 billion nothing?  You tell me.  Or can you tell me?  Main stream media for abstracts, not facts, please.

Apologetically, and at the risk of being boring, this debate does really mean something beyond our verbal sparing.  It means life or death to some.  It means advancement, or no, to millions.  The one thing that has been true over 7000+ years of recorded human history (sorry Geico cavemen) is that energy used = quality of life.  As with palms, so with us.

Very humbly,

Steve

p.s.    it felt warm today.  Must be global warming.

p.p.s. it was 16F below normal last night.  Must be global

         warming.

p.p.p.s.cat has the runs.  Must be global warming.

p......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Steve,

As to cold war nuke targets I am not sure exactly on the list my hometown was.  But, I am pretty sure it was in the top five for a first strike from the Russians.  Great Falls, Montana, home of the Minuteman missles.  I don't know how many are there today, but in the late 60's there were 300 ICBMS with 10 warheads each.  If the US had launched first that may not have been the case, but it would not have made much difference as to the outcome.  And, global warming would not be getting much attention today if that had happen.    

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

Steve 9atx,

  your points are all impressive, accurate and well taken and i can appreciate them all ... you are obviously a well read highly intelligent individual ... and it is obvious i am not a rocket scientist, nor do i have any data to back my philosopy ... and i do agree with you about someone saying the breeze felt warmer today so it must be gw is just plain silly ... and i havn't had time to read your articles listed but will shortly ...

   that being said ...

  we have what, a 12 mile atmosphere that extends around a 26000 mile globe, the exact amount of tonnage is easily calculable, an immense area ... BUT only the lower 5-6 of miles of that has enough oxygen to sustain humans, and well below that limit we labor to even breathe ...

  what i see is that with all the calculations we have, all it takes is a mid size volcano throwing some ash into the atmosphere and the world temps drop dramatically ... it doesn't take a scientist to see that it takes VERY LITTLE   to cool (or warm) this tiny blue dot ...

  (and also calculations/scientific reports come from people working for exxon/mobil, working for dupont, working for industry basically, etc ... all media reports should all be started with a complete dossier on who the person/s responsible for the article actually is/are ... we'd all be surprised on the slant of where these articles really come from ... but thats another story ...)

   believe it or not, we live on a very fragile planet ... the ground seems solid underneath but we all know its not ...

        bob

 STEVE IN SOCAL,

      ha ha ha , thats a good one ... a republican saying 'follow the money'  ... LOLROTF ....

       seriously i see why you like Al ... he fits perfectly in to your 'having things' republicanism ... with 4 houses he must be an honorary member of your 'most toys wins' club ...  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
happ

Speaking of the "human imprint"

http://www.latimes.com/news....adlines

And speaking of 'La Nina'  :;):

[excerpts of today's article]

L.A. Facing Its Driest Year Ever

Downtown has received only 2.4 inches of rain since July 1, meteorologists say.

Los Angeles Times - March 6, 2007

The National Weather Service on Monday declared that Los Angeles is experiencing its driest year on record.

Only about 2.40 inches of rain has fallen on downtown Los Angeles since July 1, and there's no sign of rain through at least the middle of this month.

Forecasters expected February — historically Los Angeles' wettest month — to provide some relief, but it didn't. Now, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's weather models suggest that a La Niña climate pattern is emerging in the Pacific, continuing the drought-like conditions.

The prolonged dry spell contributed to an unusually long fire season, rife with Santa Ana winds that have extended into March.

The last time it was remotely this dry was 1924, when 2.50 inches of rain had fallen.

"We've never had a drier year on record so far," said Eric Boldt, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Oxnard. "If nothing significant happens in March, then we've pretty much run out of time."

Only two years ago, Southern California's rainfall was posed to set an all-time record. In the end, 2005 turned out to be only the second-wettest, but the precipitation helped the area avoid more severe drought conditions this year.

Local aquifers were filled to the rim in 2005, so water supplies generally are solid.

Heavy snow in the Sierra Nevada — another key source of local water — has also helped. California's reservoirs are actually running above normal this year. Pyramid Lake and Diamond Valley Lake — two major local reservoirs — are at more than 90% of capacity.

Still, the dry weather is taking its toll — from dry hands, lips and throats to parched plants and migrating insects.

"If we don't have a green spring, we're not going to see many insects over the next couple of months," said Doug Yanega, senior museum scientist at UC Riverside's Entomology Research Museum.

The arid weather is already having unusual implications for butterfly aficionados.

There will be no great painted lady butterfly migration like the one that swept across Southern California in spring 2005 after record-breaking rains, said Ring T. Cardé, a professor of entomology at UC Riverside.

The lack of rain means fewer wildflowers for caterpillars to eat, he said.

Even native California plants are suffering under the dry conditions. Gardeners at South Coast Botanic Garden on the Palos Verdes Peninsula have seen more dry and brown leaves in their drought-resistant Mediterranean and California plants.

Those plants usually rely exclusively on California's winter rains, said Tanya Finney, who leads the gardening staff on the 87-acre property.

What a difference two years makes.

More than 37 inches of rain fell in downtown Los Angeles during the 2004-05 rainfall season, which missed the all-time record by less than an inch.

In February alone, 11 inches of rain fell that year. But this year, February brought only 0.92 of an inch of rain. Considering that it is usually the year's wettest month, it does not bode well for a last-minute comeback.

"Either we're going to get major rains now, or that's it," Boldt said.

Right now, Los Angeles' rainfall is more than 9 inches below normal. It's unlikely that the region will record anything close to a normal rainfall total no matter what happens the rest of the season.

"We're not going to get close to normal unless something biblical happens," said William Patzert, a climatologist for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada.

Southern California and much of the West is in a drought pattern, Patzert said, and has been for several years.

He said that unless something dramatic happens, Los Angeles could very well break the record for driest winter, which occurred in 2001-02.

"Nobody wants to come in second or third, but there are consequences to coming in first," Patzert said. "And none of those consequences are good."

Assistant Fire Chief John Todd of the Los Angeles County Fire Department's forestry division said the gusty Santa Anas that pose the largest fire danger normally begin to die out by February.

But so far, they have persisted into March, he said.

"We've had more windstorms than rainstorms," Todd said. "This has been a really unusual winter."

The situation could get worse before it gets better if La Niña conditions continue to develop in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

"The bottom line is we're in a drought, and six out of 10 years, L.A. is dry," Patzert said. "When El Niño and La Niña are in doubt, go with drought."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

(palmblues @ Mar. 06 2007,10:21)

QUOTE
Steve 9atx,

  your points are all impressive, accurate and well taken and i can appreciate them all ... you are obviously a well read highly intelligent individual ... and it is obvious i am not a rocket scientist, nor do i have any data to back my philosopy ... and i do agree with you about someone saying the breeze felt warmer today so it must be gw is just plain silly ... and i havn't had time to read your articles listed but will shortly ...

   that being said ...

  we have what, a 12 mile atmosphere that extends around a 26000 mile globe, the exact amount of tonnage is easily calculable, an immense area ... BUT only the lower 5-6 of miles of that has enough oxygen to sustain humans, and well below that limit we labor to even breathe ...

  what i see is that with all the calculations we have, all it takes is a mid size volcano throwing some ash into the atmosphere and the world temps drop dramatically ... it doesn't take a scientist to see that it takes VERY LITTLE   to cool (or warm) this tiny blue dot ...

  (and also calculations/scientific reports come from people working for exxon/mobil, working for dupont, working for industry basically, etc ... all media reports should all be started with a complete dossier on who the person/s responsible for the article actually is/are ... we'd all be surprised on the slant of where these articles really come from ... but thats another story ...)

   believe it or not, we live on a very fragile planet ... the ground seems solid underneath but we all know its not ...

        bob

 STEVE IN SOCAL,

      ha ha ha , thats a good one ... a republican saying 'follow the money'  ... LOLROTF ....

       seriously i see why you like Al ... he fits perfectly in to your 'having things' republicanism ... with 4 houses he must be an honorary member of your 'most toys wins' club ...  :)

Bob...Libertarianism is my game, not Republicanism. "Follow the foodstamps" just didn't have the same ring as "Follow the money"...sorry.

As for 'having things'...typically(there are exceptions, of course), the haves work harder/smarter than the have-nots. It would be incorrect thinking on your part to deny the fairness of this, but it appears you have a problem with it...so, there you are...you 'have' a problem with the 'haves'...is that all you have ? ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(STEVE IN SO CAL @ Mar. 07 2007,11:50)

QUOTE
[quote=

Bob...Libertarianism is my game, not Republicanism. "Follow the foodstamps" just didn't have the same ring as "Follow the money"...sorry.

As for 'having things'...typically(there are exceptions, of course), the haves work harder/smarter than the have-nots. It would be incorrect thinking on your part to deny the fairness of this, but it appears you have a problem with it...so, there you are...you 'have' a problem with the 'haves'...is that all you have ? ???

Steve,

   not sure how you're a  libertarian by voting republican, but if you say so ... (two diametrically opposed parties btw) ... which my reply to your Gore post had to do with your 'why i vote republican' post a while back ...

  iirc, in your 'vote republican' post you equated your drug/alcohol days with being a democrat and then deciding to work for 'having things' made you a republican ... (????) working harder etc ...

  now you say Gore having 4 houses (things) and charging 175k per speech (working for things) is hypocritical b/c he has a film about gw ... doesn't make any sense to me, he does all the 'good proper' republican things you noted but you hate him for it ... why? b/c he uses the system we've all been born into ... i guess you're right, he should be riding his bicycle to all these places around the globe ...

  seems to me in one post you say one thing, in this post you say another ...

  we could go on but you'll just come back with the usual rw blah blah and half truths like Gore claims he invented the internet, or the foodstamps doubletalk bs or maybe a greenpeacer is gonna cut your head off with a rusty knife ... oh brother ... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

Bob, I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal(mostly)...the GOP will let me keep more of what I make to enjoy my social liberalism.

You seem sad...here's a cyber hug for you..SQUEEEEEZE..there you go, hope you feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmazon

you boys shouldn't play so rough - someone's gonna get hurt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

I attack the poster boy of GW, and expose his hypocrisy's, and Bob attacks Republicans...whatever...can't win the GW debate, fall back on Republican bashing.

I soothed the beast with love...(a cyber-hug)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
happ

Seems republicans prefer to be called "libertarians" for the past 6 yrs.  Suppose they are embarrassed to admit voting for Bush  :laugh:  [and they should be]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

Happ...every time a Rep gets elected by conservatives, he runs to the left. I don't get it...A one time political junkie, I'm completely disillusioned. I still have my libertarian/conservative ideals, and no one to champion them for me. I'll be 51 in May, and I don'r care who gets elected anymore...they're all cut from the same cloth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

I don't know about that....Al Sharpton seems to stand out! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(STEVE IN SO CAL @ Mar. 09 2007,18:55)

QUOTE
I attack the poster boy of GW, and expose his hypocrisy's, and Bob attacks Republicans...whatever...can't win the GW debate, fall back on Republican bashing.

I soothed the beast with love...(a cyber-hug)

:)  ... it just never stops with you does it ... but thanks for the hug, heres a kiss for you ... X

  as to your post, i am always amazed at right wingers that throw out straight forward lies (&why are they always so hateful?)  and when someone questions those lies, its simply summed up and called 'republican bashing', 'attacking republicans', etc, etc ... as if thats an answer ... it is always the same ... 'patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels'  ... to put it bluntly ...

  as for the gw debate, no one can WIN it ... ????? ... but if you're wrong about it Steve, the whole planet sure is gonna LOSE ...

  its a chance you obviously have no qualms about taking ...

     with love

      or as Dr Evil would say 'hhhhuggg'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(palmazon @ Mar. 09 2007,17:43)

QUOTE
you boys shouldn't play so rough - someone's gonna get hurt

one simply can't not reply, can one?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(palmazon @ Mar. 09 2007,17:43)

QUOTE
you boys shouldn't play so rough - someone's gonna get hurt

but you're right palmazon ... i know i take things too seriously and too personaly ...

  i'm on the list b/c of all the amazing knowledge, great photos, and banter too, among the members here ... i am truly grateful for that every day i can get online and see whats going on ... being relatively knew to the whole genera of palms i have very little to offer in that area ...

  but one of the things i can't handle anymore are the folks who have basically run these 50 states the last 40+ years ... the ones who claim all these moral ethics,  family values, honesty, god is on their side, etc, etc ... its the lies, half truths, and double talk they spew on the public as gospel truth that gets my dander up! ... someone has to speak up every once in a while ...

  the old saying 'a lie spreads around the world before truth has a chance to get its boots on' is unfortunately too true ...

  sorry but every once in awhile i have to speak up and question certain things ... its just me ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

(STEVE IN SO CAL @ Mar. 04 2007,08:50)

QUOTE
Hey...you guys didn't tell me we were having a global warming party !! (I love these)

The world is constantly warming or cooling...it is never static. Adding to Steve in Tx's comments re narcissism, I believe 'self importance' better explains the phenomenon of people believing we are responsible for global warming.

Al Gore flies around in private jets, charging 150k for a speech(oops, he just went to 175k since he won the oscar) Since he invented the internet, why doesn't he video conference his speeches? It would leave a zero "carbon footprint" ....I guess because no one would pay 175k for a video conference. Al Gore also has four homes, all using WAY more energy than a human needs. Guess who's part owner of the company that is acting as broker of "carbon units" (buying and selling for profit)??? Al Gore.  

A wise man once said.."Follow the money".

I hate hypocrisy...at least our own Jack Sayer rides the bus..he walks the walk.

Bob...lets work on your debating skills today...first, re-read my post about Gore and GW. No "leftwing-libs-commies-girlie men-cowards or disparaging comments re your ideals.

Just facts about Gore (as you say, one must speak up,musn't one?)

Now, reread your note to me at the bottom of post #53.

You didn't continue the debate, you attacked the debater. Now lets reread your remaining posts. Nothing about the validity of my comments, only attacks on Republicans(which is not the topic here).

I suggest that you start a "Why I hate conservatives" topic...get it off your chest, and we can all move on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
happ

This is a discussion about LA NINA, bros  :laugh:

Politics have split the nation like never in my life!  It is truly horrible.  Interjecting nit wit arguments against global warming is tiresome.

We live in uncharted territory.  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steve 9atx

All

Forgive me, I simply cannot resist posting this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1  Pay attention to the last few lines.  Let me get this straight -100F in the arctic was "unexpected"; but, don't worry your pretty little heads, the unexpected too is "proof" of global warming!

Just can't win for warmin'.....

Steve

p.s. ET TU NYT?: http://www.nytimes.com/2007....emc=rss  Maybe, just maybe, like a supertanker, even the Old Gray Lady can eventually be turned into the wind of truth.  You'll recognize them hedging their bets, however....

p.p.s. off for a week of Astros spring training in lovely central "Flowerida" as our Mentor of fond memory called her.  Can't wait to watch us wail on the Bravos, Fish, and Yanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(STEVE IN SO CAL @ Mar. 11 2007,12:14)

QUOTE

(STEVE IN SO CAL @ Mar. 04 2007,08:50)

QUOTE
Hey...you guys didn't tell me we were having a global warming party !! (I love these)

The world is constantly warming or cooling...it is never static. Adding to Steve in Tx's comments re narcissism, I believe 'self importance' better explains the phenomenon of people believing we are responsible for global warming.

Al Gore flies around in private jets, charging 150k for a speech(oops, he just went to 175k since he won the oscar) Since he invented the internet, why doesn't he video conference his speeches? It would leave a zero "carbon footprint" ....I guess because no one would pay 175k for a video conference. Al Gore also has four homes, all using WAY more energy than a human needs. Guess who's part owner of the company that is acting as broker of "carbon units" (buying and selling for profit)??? Al Gore.  

A wise man once said.."Follow the money".

I hate hypocrisy...at least our own Jack Sayer rides the bus..he walks the walk.

Bob...lets work on your debating skills today...first, re-read my post about Gore and GW. No "leftwing-libs-commies-girlie men-cowards or disparaging comments re your ideals.

Just facts about Gore (as you say, one must speak up,musn't one?)

Now, reread your note to me at the bottom of post #53.

You didn't continue the debate, you attacked the debater. Now lets reread your remaining posts. Nothing about the validity of my comments, only attacks on Republicans(which is not the topic here).

I suggest that you start a "Why I hate conservatives" topic...get it off your chest, and we can all move on...

sorry to contune this 'debate' folks ...

 STEVE,

   this thread was about 'la nina' and went into other global warming ideas ... YOUR POST was the first to mention any kind of politics, iirc ... you 'bashed' (again, your word frame) Gore with innuendoes and lies: ie 'invented the internet', "follow the money which you amended to foodstamps' ... all vague anti democratic rhetoric ... (i'm sure you'll now spin this some other way) ...

  and your quote unquote 'facts' about Gore are dubious at best to just plain outright lies (sorry if you can't handle that) ... lets look at specifics ...

  1) whether Gore is a hypocrite by using the system to get a noteworthy message out to the public is debatable ...

  2) you stated Gore claims he invented the internet ... this is an outright LIE (not a fact) that you continue to spout ... he never said he invented the internet ... this was doubletalk made up by the right wing to belittle him and make him look like a pompous fool during an election campaign ... simply a tool to trick hard working Americans who have no inclination or desire to delve into the facts of politics and make them think Dubya is one of us regular folk ... once again GORE HAS NEVER SAID HE INVENTED THE INTERNET ... i believe Gore talked about being a small  part of starting the internet, being asked to work on it ... the usual flipflop doubletalk by the right wing ... your fact is an outright lie ...

  3) 'follow the money' which you then changed to 'follow the foodstamps' ... of course a put down of some vague democratic ideal you despise ... FYI, welfare/foodstamps are such a miniscule part of the budget, so small an amount it does not affect anyone  at all ... a LIE you profess ... if you want to talk about corporate welfare and the oilstamps they are given (and which is a million fold larger than the amount of money spent on foodstamps) and which of course greatly affects the American economy, well then speak right up ... o/w stop the bs ...

  4) i am sure you have been in Gores 'four' houses and YOU KNOW what he is doing/not doing conservation wise

where he lives ... you're talking thru your hat ...

  5) when a movie is made no one knows if it will be commercially viable or not ... if its a failure it goes straight to video ... thats the way the system works ... and of course it is going to video ... i guess you don't want certain individuals to have the benefits others have ... which also pertains to your 'carbon units' quip ... i guess no one should be involved in 'carbon units' at all?

  6) post 53 was a response to YOUR post 'WHY I VOTE REPUBLICAN' which was explained in post 56 (another fact you simply ignore or change) ... you 'bashed' Gore and opened the political debate, i commented on your hypocrisy ... you then started crying about 'republican bashing' and on and on in further posts ... keep the facts straight ...

  7) quote unquote 'leftwing-libs-commies-girlie men-cowards or disparaging comments re your ideals'  ROTFLOL ... oh brother  :)  living in the past and the politics of fear ... you' are their ambassador ... foxnews should hire you ...

  8) b/c you're jealous of Al for making money on his speeches and getting what the market is willing to pay does not make it criminal to do so ...

   would love to hear any reply on specifics, not some vague doubletalk, if possible ...

 9) i can see you're a legend in your own mind ...

  heres another cyber kiss for ya ... you can use it in any 'socially liberal' way you see fit  ...

  btw, love your agave posts and pics ...

  bbtw as if you havn't noticed, i have no debating skills, any earlier comments were directed at finding the truth in all the mistruths proposed  ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmblues

(steve 9atx @ Mar. 13 2007,01:29)

QUOTE
All

Forgive me, I simply cannot resist posting this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1  Pay attention to the last few lines.  Let me get this straight -100F in the arctic was "unexpected"; but, don't worry your pretty little heads, the unexpected too is "proof" of global warming!

Just can't win for warmin'.....

Steve

p.s. ET TU NYT?: http://www.nytimes.com/2007....emc=rss  Maybe, just maybe, like a supertanker, even the Old Gray Lady can eventually be turned into the wind of truth.  You'll recognize them hedging their bets, however....

p.p.s. off for a week of Astros spring training in lovely central "Flowerida" as our Mentor of fond memory called her.  Can't wait to watch us wail on the Bravos, Fish, and Yanks.

Steve 9atx,

  i love the quote

  'some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician'

  you know my thoughts on gw, but this is one film i have no intention of ever seeing simply b/c of those 'inaccuracies' and the reasonable politicians embellishments ...

  politicians ... you gotta love 'em ... not!

enjoy the Astros, saw the Dodgers get walloped by the Cards  last week in Vero... spring training games are kewl ...

      bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoLando

(steve 9atx @ Mar. 13 2007,01:29)

QUOTE
p.p.s. off for a week of Astros spring training in lovely central "Flowerida" as our Mentor of fond memory called her.  Can't wait to watch us wail on the Bravos, Fish, and Yanks.

Astros ain't got nothin' on the MARLINS. :) Though, they probably got a lot on the D-Rays - who usually suck. But, I dunno, we got some new Japanese guys that are supposed to be really good. I'll call for a Tampa Bay World Series win!  :P  Oh and PLEASE wail on the Yankees for me, thanks. ;)

It should be gorgeous here for ya! Supposed to be 80 for the next 10 days with one high of 72 in between. Watch out for fire weather though! Been lots of brush fires lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
happ

It appears that this simple discussion of ENSO - La Nina phase has been co-opted by politics.   :(

Bob cites several incidents of Steve's political beliefs, most of which I have never read before.  If this were any open forum on political issues, [which it is not] then politics would be appropriate, IMO.

Essentially the scientific community has fully embraced the theory of global warming.  It is unfortunate that some [ie Bush administration] prefer to raise doubts in order to merely provide a cover for industry to continue polluting our environment.  This is just one more example of a government more interested in the interest of a very few at the expense of the world community.

That's my 2 cents on a topic totally unrelated to the intent of this palm tree web site.  I hope that if we ventilate our politics ONCE then we can go back to discussing climatic factors such as La Nina, please  :;):

BTW, the current thinking is that La Nina is emerging.  If this is so then there are serious consequences [an active Atlantic hurricane season & a long drought/fire season for California  :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

Bob...I must have exposed a raw nerve in my "Why I vote Republican" thread many moons ago, as you keep bringing it up in a La Nina - morphed into global warming thread. Why don't you start a "Why I vote Democrat" thread? Al Gore just won an Oscar for his documentary on global warming...I was totally on topic.

95% of my jabber in the palapa is intended to be humorous, somewhat tongue in cheek. I suggest you learn to laugh at yourself a bit...your obvious hatred of those with differing views is inbecoming.

As I said, I was on topic, you weren't...you started the mudslinging, I'm stopping it..now. Go enjoy your palms.

Sorry Happ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PalmGuyWC

Woops, wrong key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PalmGuyWC

Wowzers!  This is a very intresting thread, from global warming, to politics, to.....Al Gore? Some very interesting, intellectual thoughts on this thread, but since it's kind of wide ranging....why don't we mention religion, and over population, very sensitive subjects for some of us.

First though, let me dispense with politics.  I consider myself somewhere in the middle, but tend toward conservative trends, but like someone else mentioned, I don't trust any of them, Repubs. or Demos.  They are all cut out of the same pattern.  Just look at the name calling and mud being slung right now......and the election is a year and a half away. It gets nastier each election cycle and it's all so petty.

Poor Al Gore, he's a special case. He and most Democrats, think the election was stolen from them, and Mr. Gore is still very pissed about that.  Hell, who wouldn't want to ride in Airforce One? Poor guy, he didn't know what to do with himself after he lost the election, so first he went on an eating binge and gorged himself on rich foods and got fat, then he grew a beard, then a college professor, and then some very firey speaches. Gosh, when he lost his temper I could see fire in his eyes......and I thought to myself, "This guy is coming unhinged."  And then I thought, "what would he do if his finger was on that little red button when he was having one of his temper tantrums"? So now he's on global warming.  Poor Al, always 180 degrees out of sync.  Last year, or maybe the year before, he gave a speach in N.Y. on global warming....during a blizzard and one of the coldest days ever recorded in NY! Poor Al....If he weren't so damn rich, I could feel sorry for him, but probably best he sticks with global warming and watch his diet.

So, we didn't get an Al, we got a George, and I won't even elaborate on that subject.....but look what a hell of a mess we are in now!  The one thing I would say about Mr. Bush, he may be tounge tied, but he sure ain't stupid or he wouldn't be President and won a second term. I don't see any silver lining out there.  God, please send us Tony Blair!!  He's smart and speaks the king's English with some flair, even if he's not to popular in England right now.

Back to the subject, and I'll keep it short. If, in fact, some of global warming can be contributed to human excesses, why don't we face the fact that there are to many of us on this planet?  We are breeding like rats, and using up our natural resourses at an alarming rate. Where does religion enter in?  Most religions encourage procreation (of that faith) and more and more of the same.  Our tax laws encourage more children.  Many western countries depend on population growth for economic growth.

In Asia some countries have reached the saturation point....and they realize for the better for all....the population must be stabalized.  Some do this in a more civilized way than others.  The projections for the human population on earth are astounding for the future.  There is no way our planet can support that many human beings. Something has to give one way or the other.  It can be done politically, or we can wait for horrible wars as resorces become more scarce, or we can all starve to death or die from oxygen depletion.  Of course, some virus released from the mud of the Congo, more horrible than we have ever imagined, could sweap the earth and much of the population could be wiped out. One way or the other, mother nature has a way of balancing things.

Damn, should I hit the Add Reply button, or just jump in my BMW and drive around the corner and get a case of beer?

Dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chris.oz

Dick,

I am surprised to see how few people actually mention world overpopulation as being an issue,  and actually the root casue of most of the worlds problems.   Full points for having the guts to express an opinion on what is a taboo subject for some reason......

BTW,  we hope La Nina is coming, since it brings more rain to us.  We are told theres a 50/50 chnace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STEVE IN SO CAL

My wife and I have 0 (zero) children by choice. Just doing my part for global warming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

I guess we're so off topic anyway, so what the heck....Even though over population obviously is a problem in a number of countries today, and will remain a problem for a long time, it's not necessarily going to be a major problem in the future. In every single country - without exception - where the living standard has gone up, the birth rate has also dropped dramatically. This is the case in EVERY country in Europe, where the birth rates are not enough to sustain current population levels. The only reason the population isn't dropping in these countries is because of immigration, primarily from Muslim countries, and these immigrants, apart from adding numbers to the population in the country they immigrate to, also have higher birth rates. Not a popular thing with the "native" population in the countries they move to, but that's another issue...

Assuming that major countries such as China and India can improve the living standard for a majority of the population, then the population issue will become moot. If there's no major worldwide disaster, then this is likely to happen within the next couple of generations. The major problem will continue to be in very poor countries (in Africa for instance) where the present lack of education and the widespread corruption will prevent the living standard to go up, and people will continue to have too many kids, thus adding to the severe problems in those countries. One of the main concerns of so called industrialized countries should be to improve education in these countries, and hopefully that'll be the first step in a long road towards stabilizing the population at sustainable levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZoneTenNut

OMG! Who started this thread? Rayyyyyyy?  :angry:

I blame Ray for GW! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Boy did La Niña get a long way from ocean temperatures.  Maybe someone should start a thread about the subject of the future of population, climate, food resources, energy resources, and the sustainability of humans on our planet.  

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...