Jump to content
  • WELCOME GUEST

    It looks as if you are viewing PalmTalk as an unregistered Guest.

    Please consider registering so as to take better advantage of our vast knowledge base and friendly community.  By registering you will gain access to many features - among them are our powerful Search feature, the ability to Private Message other Users, and be able to post and/or answer questions from all over the world. It is completely free, no “catches,” and you will have complete control over how you wish to use this site.

    PalmTalk is sponsored by the International Palm Society. - an organization dedicated to learning everything about and enjoying palm trees (and their companion plants) while conserving endangered palm species and habitat worldwide. Please take the time to know us all better and register.

    guest Renda04.jpg

A massive El Nino is brewing out in the Pacific


Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Recommended Posts

Man affecting climate change is one small piece of the pie when considering all the other components involved. The fluctuation of the sun has much more affect on climate change than what humans will ever compare to. If the sun is burning hotter by just an extremely small portion(by sun standards) its going to alter the climate of the earth in some way. The same goes if it was burning slightly cooler. That will out weigh most of anything man has ever done to alter the climate.

Tyler

Coastal Zone 9a

''Karma is a good girl, she just treats you exactly how you treat her"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man affecting climate change is one small piece of the pie when considering all the other components involved. The fluctuation of the sun has much more affect on climate change than what humans will ever compare to. If the sun is burning hotter by just an extremely small portion(by sun standards) its going to alter the climate of the earth in some way. The same goes if it was burning slightly cooler. That will out weigh most of anything man has ever done to alter the climate.

That's a theory as well, there is only extrapolated (made up) data because we've only begun to measure the sun. Geological data actually has verifiable data about atmospheric particulate/composition because the latter leaves a footprint in the ground and in the ice. Most climate fluctuations correlate with changes in atmospheric compositions. We're actually witnessed a number of eruptions in the last two centuries that have documented significant cooling associated with it.

Another interesting theory is that the sun activity drives crust activity. More earthquakes and more eruptions correlate with more solar activity. This would imply more cooling after a period of intense solar activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man affecting climate change is one small piece of the pie when considering all the other components involved. The fluctuation of the sun has much more affect on climate change than what humans will ever compare to. If the sun is burning hotter by just an extremely small portion(by sun standards) its going to alter the climate of the earth in some way. The same goes if it was burning slightly cooler. That will out weigh most of anything man has ever done to alter the climate.

That's a theory as well, there is only extrapolated (made up) data because we've only begun to measure the sun. Geological data actually has verifiable data about atmospheric particulate/composition because the latter leaves a footprint in the ground and in the ice. Most climate fluctuations correlate with changes in atmospheric compositions. We're actually witnessed a number of eruptions in the last two centuries that have documented significant cooling associated with it.

Another interesting theory is that the sun activity drives crust activity. More earthquakes and more eruptions correlate with more solar activity. This would imply more cooling after a period of intense solar activity.

It definitely would be naive not to address man's impact on the environment. Because the negative effects are clear when looking at it at the micro level. Air quality for example. But to think that man is the first and foremost cause of climate change, I think is bit like someone choosing to eat a fast food burger at the drive through instead of sitting down at a nice restaurant and waiting for the five course meal.

Tyler

Coastal Zone 9a

''Karma is a good girl, she just treats you exactly how you treat her"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man affecting climate change is one small piece of the pie when considering all the other components involved. The fluctuation of the sun has much more affect on climate change than what humans will ever compare to. If the sun is burning hotter by just an extremely small portion(by sun standards) its going to alter the climate of the earth in some way. The same goes if it was burning slightly cooler. That will out weigh most of anything man has ever done to alter the climate.

That's a theory as well, there is only extrapolated (made up) data because we've only begun to measure the sun. Geological data actually has verifiable data about atmospheric particulate/composition because the latter leaves a footprint in the ground and in the ice. Most climate fluctuations correlate with changes in atmospheric compositions. We're actually witnessed a number of eruptions in the last two centuries that have documented significant cooling associated with it.

Another interesting theory is that the sun activity drives crust activity. More earthquakes and more eruptions correlate with more solar activity. This would imply more cooling after a period of intense solar activity.

It definitely would be naive not to address man's impact on the environment. Because the negative effects are clear when looking at it at the micro level. Air quality for example. But to think that man is the first and foremost cause of climate change, I think is bit like someone choosing to eat a fast food burger at the drive through instead of sitting down at a nice restaurant and waiting for the five course meal.

No one is saying that man is the first and foremost cause of global warming, scientists are saying that man's burning of fossil fuels and maintaining a massive population of livestock and urban development are creating this particular warming phase.

Do you see any other cause for warming for the current warming trend? It sure isn't the sun, which is going through a cool phase right now. In fact, there was an article recently that suggested that this solar phase is so cool that the author made a case that it would send us into an ice age. Last Winter's cold was associated with a weak jet stream, which is associated with warming, not cooling, so don't take that as a suggestion we are indeed going into an ice age. I posted a thread about this last Fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i keep hearing all this about livestock farts. wernt there 30-60 million bison farting around america in the 1500's and now theres something like 16 million cows. seems we have a long way to go before that should make an impact.

"it's not dead it's sleeping"

Santee ca, zone10a/9b

18 miles from the ocean

avg. winter 68/40.avg summer 88/64.records 113/25

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man affecting climate change is one small piece of the pie when considering all the other components involved. The fluctuation of the sun has much more affect on climate change than what humans will ever compare to. If the sun is burning hotter by just an extremely small portion(by sun standards) its going to alter the climate of the earth in some way. The same goes if it was burning slightly cooler. That will out weigh most of anything man has ever done to alter the climate.

That's a theory as well, there is only extrapolated (made up) data because we've only begun to measure the sun. Geological data actually has verifiable data about atmospheric particulate/composition because the latter leaves a footprint in the ground and in the ice. Most climate fluctuations correlate with changes in atmospheric compositions. We're actually witnessed a number of eruptions in the last two centuries that have documented significant cooling associated with it.

Another interesting theory is that the sun activity drives crust activity. More earthquakes and more eruptions correlate with more solar activity. This would imply more cooling after a period of intense solar activity.

It definitely would be naive not to address man's impact on the environment. Because the negative effects are clear when looking at it at the micro level. Air quality for example. But to think that man is the first and foremost cause of climate change, I think is bit like someone choosing to eat a fast food burger at the drive through instead of sitting down at a nice restaurant and waiting for the five course meal.

No one is saying that man is the first and foremost cause of global warming, scientists are saying that man's burning of fossil fuels and maintaining a massive population of livestock and urban development are creating this particular warming phase.

Do you see any other cause for warming for the current warming trend? It sure isn't the sun, which is going through a cool phase right now. In fact, there was an article recently that suggested that this solar phase is so cool that the author made a case that it would send us into an ice age. Last Winter's cold was associated with a weak jet stream, which is associated with warming, not cooling, so don't take that as a suggestion we are indeed going into an ice age. I posted a thread about this last Fall.

I believe the sun is the number one cause of climate change. I'm sure there is a scientist out there that has data or can obtain data that shows that cooling of the sun can temporarily heat up the earth. There are many angles to approach the topic. Responding to your first comment, you just specified what I originally said. Scientist believe MAN's burning of fossil fuels is what is causing the planet to heat.

Tyler

Coastal Zone 9a

''Karma is a good girl, she just treats you exactly how you treat her"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My final words:

Man Made Global warming is a theory that can't be proved with the Scientific Method. The theory may have truth to it that massive amounts of CO2 can cause warming, but how much warming above natural warming (If Any) just cannot be ascertained. Plugging a bunch of numbers into a computer by people getting grants from organizations with an agenda is ridculous and not real science. I say do nothing, because there is nothing you can do. And if you live on the coastline and your freaked out that 3 foot ocean rise is going to flood you in decades or centuries from now, then your free to move. I live on a hill at 971 feet elevation, maybe my great great great grand kids can be the first Le Vine's to plant Coconuts in So Cal. Now thats a cause worth supporting, I better burn some more oil.

Thanks Alex for being a reasonable global warming advocate to debate this, your points are all reasonably laid out. Virtually every global warming advocate are propagandists with an agenda that won't even debate the issue, thats not how science is suppose to work.

Gary

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man affecting climate change is one small piece of the pie when considering all the other components involved. The fluctuation of the sun has much more affect on climate change than what humans will ever compare to. If the sun is burning hotter by just an extremely small portion(by sun standards) its going to alter the climate of the earth in some way. The same goes if it was burning slightly cooler. That will out weigh most of anything man has ever done to alter the climate.

That's a theory as well, there is only extrapolated (made up) data because we've only begun to measure the sun. Geological data actually has verifiable data about atmospheric particulate/composition because the latter leaves a footprint in the ground and in the ice. Most climate fluctuations correlate with changes in atmospheric compositions. We're actually witnessed a number of eruptions in the last two centuries that have documented significant cooling associated with it.

Another interesting theory is that the sun activity drives crust activity. More earthquakes and more eruptions correlate with more solar activity. This would imply more cooling after a period of intense solar activity.

It definitely would be naive not to address man's impact on the environment. Because the negative effects are clear when looking at it at the micro level. Air quality for example. But to think that man is the first and foremost cause of climate change, I think is bit like someone choosing to eat a fast food burger at the drive through instead of sitting down at a nice restaurant and waiting for the five course meal.

No one is saying that man is the first and foremost cause of global warming, scientists are saying that man's burning of fossil fuels and maintaining a massive population of livestock and urban development are creating this particular warming phase.

Do you see any other cause for warming for the current warming trend? It sure isn't the sun, which is going through a cool phase right now. In fact, there was an article recently that suggested that this solar phase is so cool that the author made a case that it would send us into an ice age. Last Winter's cold was associated with a weak jet stream, which is associated with warming, not cooling, so don't take that as a suggestion we are indeed going into an ice age. I posted a thread about this last Fall.

I believe the sun is the number one cause of climate change. I'm sure there is a scientist out there that has data or can obtain data that shows that cooling of the sun can temporarily heat up the earth. There are many angles to approach the topic. Responding to your first comment, you just specified what I originally said. Scientist believe MAN's burning of fossil fuels is what is causing the planet to heat.

What you say is addressed in this NASA article: http://climate.nasa.gov/causes - which says this:

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

  • Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
  • If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
  • Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex, I do have to add something. Warming has not occurred in the last 17 years, even according to the alarmists. But they do say warming has been in the order of I think a degree or so in the last 100 years. To me that number is not significant in itself. Also, temperature data has not even been accurate or consistent over that time period. One thing that came to light a couple years ago was that the British were actually picking and choosing temperature monitoring stations. Stations recording temperatures in a city will show consistent warmer temperatures due to the microclimate created from concrete, steel, industry, etc..... same as our gardens. The rocks in my garden create a small rise in the temperatures. If you are trying show actual proof of man made global warming, you need to first show what the over all global temperature rise is over a long period of time, then try to filter out what man's contribution to that is. I'm not sure we can even get a proper warming trend past a few decades at this point. Since the climate is changing on it's own, we have to be real accurate on what those changes are before we even begin to try an understand the human effect. I know you reference climate models a lot. This whole debate is based on the models. I on the other hand think we must base this on empiracle date, not models. Because even the best models and predictions on daily weather, monthly, yearly like the El Nino this post started as, are very rarely accurate past general trends. To base such catastrophic climate changes on any model without actual measured data is crazy as far as I see. Dean was really on to it by stating the earth is amazing and can counter and recover from virtually anything. What the model says in no way should be trusted to the extent the alarmists have been.

Edited by Gtlevine

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My final words:

Man Made Global warming is a Scientific theory that Has be proven with the Scientific Method. The theory has truth to it that massive amounts of CO2 can causes warming, but how much warming above natural warming (If Any) just cannot Can be ascertained. Plugging a bunch of numbers into a computer Cherry-picking data and half-baked theories by people getting grants from organizations with an agenda is ridculous and not undermines real science. I say do nothing anything, because there is nothing are many things you can do to both lower your carbon footprint and motivate you elected representatives. And if you live on the coastline and your you're freaked out that 3 10 foot ocean rise is going to flood you in decades or centuries from now, then your you're free to move. I live on a hill at 971 feet elevation, maybe my great great great grand kids can be the first Le Vine's to plant Coconuts in So Cal.(unlikely) Now that's a cause worth supporting, I better burn some more oil Give future generations the finger.

Thanks Alex for being a reasonable global warming advocate to debate this, your points are all reasonably laid out. Virtually every global warming advocate are is propagandists with an agenda that won't even a concerned individual willing to debate the issue, thats not It's how science is suppose to work. But you can only get so far trying to debate established scientific facts with people who refuse to believe them.

Gary

Alex, I do have to add something. Warming effects has have not occurred Most in the last 17 years, even according to the alarmists Deniers. But they do say warming has been in the order of I think a About 1 degree Centigrade or so in the last 100 years. To me that number is not very significant in itself. Also, temperature data has not even been accurate or has been consistent and accurate over that time period. One thing that came to light a couple years ago was that the British were actually picking and choosing taking measurements at temperature monitoring stations. Stations recording temperatures in a city will show consistent warmer average temperatures over time due to regardless of the microclimate created from concrete, steel, industry, etc..... same as our gardens. These average increases in temperature match the increases seen at recording stations far away from cities. The rocks in my garden create a small rise in the temperatures.(Irrelevant) If you are trying show actual proof of man made global warming, you need to first show what the deniers that the over all global temperature has risen is over a long short period of time. then try to Even when you filter out what man's contribution to that is natural variations in temperature you will see that the world overall has warmed about .85C in the last hundred years from man's impact alone. I'm not sure we can even get a proper Up to date climate models are showing a startling warming trend past a few decades at this point. Since the climate is changing on it's own so rapidly, we have to be really accurate on what concerned about those changes are before while we even begin to try an understand the full magnitude of the human effect.

Gary, Fixed that for you. . .

Edited by Funkthulhu

"Ph'nglui mglw'napalma Funkthulhu R'Lincolnea wgah'palm fhtagn"
"In his house at Lincoln, dread Funkthulhu plants palm trees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha! Thats total crap Funkthulhu, but I like it anyway. That is very creative coming from an alarmist. Most alarmists do not even have enough creative thinking to get past regurgitation of the talking points, so good job.

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex, I do have to add something. Warming has not occurred in the last 17 years, even according to the alarmists. But they do say warming has been in the order of I think a degree or so in the last 100 years. To me that number is not significant in itself. Also, temperature data has not even been accurate or consistent over that time period. One thing that came to light a couple years ago was that the British were actually picking and choosing temperature monitoring stations. Stations recording temperatures in a city will show consistent warmer temperatures due to the microclimate created from concrete, steel, industry, etc..... same as our gardens. The rocks in my garden create a small rise in the temperatures. If you are trying show actual proof of man made global warming, you need to first show what the over all global temperature rise is over a long period of time, then try to filter out what man's contribution to that is. I'm not sure we can even get a proper warming trend past a few decades at this point. Since the climate is changing on it's own, we have to be real accurate on what those changes are before we even begin to try an understand the human effect. I know you reference climate models a lot. This whole debate is based on the models. I on the other hand think we must base this on empiracle date, not models. Because even the best models and predictions on daily weather, monthly, yearly like the El Nino this post started as, are very rarely accurate past general trends. To base such catastrophic climate changes on any model without actual measured data is crazy as far as I see. Dean was really on to it by stating the earth is amazing and can counter and recover from virtually anything. What the model says in no way should be trusted to the extent the alarmists have been.

Well, there has been warming in the last 17 years, but frankly, it's still not above the noise level if you take into consideration normal climate fluctuations. The whole problem with the climate debate as you rightly point out is that it's based on models and predictions. But that's all we have since there is only one planet earth to experiment with. There is a possibility that what the models predict is bunk. But I think the right answer is that it's based on probabilities of being correct. You can't just dismiss them entirely, but they do need to be challenged as much as possible.

Because the data is incomplete, there are multiple interpretations:

The conservationist perspective would be that it's immoral to take a chance by doing nothing that the climate models might be right.

The conservative perspective is that the models are bunk and should all be ignored and that messing with the economy based on incomplete data is immoral.

So both sides hold opinions from a morality point of view.

My own approach is one of listening to both sides and evaluating the data for what it is. And I have a rather selfish perspective that I prefer warmer weather and therefore wouldn't mind the warming. I actually think we might very well be averting an ice age with all that gas. That's based on how weak the sun is right now, and without CO2, that should correlate with a mini-ice age.

Frankly, the biggest threat we face is the rise in sea level, which is projected to be about 3 feet by 2100, and that is based on empirical evidence, not models.

The biggest issue with the global warming debate is that there is no guarantee that cutting CO2 emissions will mitigate the problem. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, and I see nothing trying to address the 1.5 billion cows and other farm animals out there. And no, Steve, you can't make the bison comparison, the bison herds are a drop in the bucket compared to the cows. And bison fed on grass, not on the crap that cows get fed with these days. I bet you that those bisons farted a lot less than cows on soybeans do today.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't say that Alex. I would rather have apocolyptic floods than giving up my weekly grass fed hamburger. Sorry, a man has to have priorities.

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't say that Alex. I would rather have apocolyptic floods than giving up my weekly grass fed hamburger. Sorry, a man has to have priorities.

I was wondering how long it would take before you noticed your burger is under threat of attack. :)

You only eat one a week and grass fed on top of that? Good for you! I've been eating mostly turkey burgers as of late because I prefer the taste of them, but perhaps turkeys fart a lot too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha! Thats total crap Funkthulhu, but I like it anyway. That is very creative coming from an alarmist. Most alarmists do not even have enough creative thinking to get past regurgitation of the talking points, so good job.

I'm not an alarmist, I'm a geologist. My thesis dealt directly with paleo-climate change. One of our founding principles in geology is that the present is the key to the past. So, as you can imagine I have studied the current process of climate change to quite an extent in order to make sure my thesis was as accurate as it could be.

Furthermore, as a scientist I deal with the facts of the matter. It really doesn't matter what you believe in this situation. The scientific consensus has moved on from this argument years and years ago, it is the American public that is trying to catch up. Nothing discussed in here is going to change the fact that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a real, factual, scientifically provable thing. Quite frankly, this is just a bunch of flapping heads eager to hear themselves pontificate. But I'll be damned if I let people with little to no understanding of my work or my branch of study come into a place and loudly declare that I'm delusional or crazy, or worst yet, lying to some ulterior motive.

Keep flapping, it does me no harm. Just don't call me what I'm not, or put words in my mouth to make you feel better.

So. . . How 'bout that El Nino?

"Ph'nglui mglw'napalma Funkthulhu R'Lincolnea wgah'palm fhtagn"
"In his house at Lincoln, dread Funkthulhu plants palm trees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha! Thats total crap Funkthulhu, but I like it anyway. That is very creative coming from an alarmist. Most alarmists do not even have enough creative thinking to get past regurgitation of the talking points, so good job.

I'm not an alarmist, I'm a geologist. My thesis dealt directly with paleo-climate change. One of our founding principles in geology is that the present is the key to the past. So, as you can imagine I have studied the current process of climate change to quite an extent in order to make sure my thesis was as accurate as it could be.

Furthermore, as a scientist I deal with the facts of the matter. It really doesn't matter what you believe in this situation. The scientific consensus has moved on from this argument years and years ago, it is the American public that is trying to catch up. Nothing discussed in here is going to change the fact that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a real, factual, scientifically provable thing. Quite frankly, this is just a bunch of flapping heads eager to hear themselves pontificate. But I'll be damned if I let people with little to no understanding of my work or my branch of study come into a place and loudly declare that I'm delusional or crazy, or worst yet, lying to some ulterior motive.

Keep flapping, it does me no harm. Just don't call me what I'm not, or put words in my mouth to make you feel better.

So. . . How 'bout that El Nino?

I have studied in physics, have a Bachelors in Civil Engineering which required an extensive study in Geology and Geotechnical Engineering, and I am licensed in the State of California. My license required the state board exam which tested by knowledge extensively in Geotechnical Engineering, Structural Engineering, Surveying, and Hydrology and Hydraulics. So I think that makes me even more qualified than you? For that matter, I have a few of you guys working for me. Be careful about throwing around credentials. The Geology guys in my college were the ones whom dropped out of Engineering.

Edited by Gtlevine

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, can't we agree that there might be an el Nino soon? And that it would bring some needed rain?

Can't we agree that here in So Cal, rain has been in very VERY short supply lately?

(I'm going to put on my druid outfit and do a rain dance, to be sure.)

Let's keep our forum fun and friendly.

Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or lost profits or revenue, claims by third parties or for other similar costs, or any special, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of my opinion or the use of this data. The accuracy or reliability of the data is not guaranteed or warranted in any way and I disclaim liability of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, liability for quality, performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising out of the use, or inability to use my data. Other terms may apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha! Thats total crap Funkthulhu, but I like it anyway. That is very creative coming from an alarmist. Most alarmists do not even have enough creative thinking to get past regurgitation of the talking points, so good job.

I'm not an alarmist, I'm a geologist. My thesis dealt directly with paleo-climate change. One of our founding principles in geology is that the present is the key to the past. So, as you can imagine I have studied the current process of climate change to quite an extent in order to make sure my thesis was as accurate as it could be.

Furthermore, as a scientist I deal with the facts of the matter. It really doesn't matter what you believe in this situation. The scientific consensus has moved on from this argument years and years ago, it is the American public that is trying to catch up. Nothing discussed in here is going to change the fact that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a real, factual, scientifically provable thing. Quite frankly, this is just a bunch of flapping heads eager to hear themselves pontificate. But I'll be damned if I let people with little to no understanding of my work or my branch of study come into a place and loudly declare that I'm delusional or crazy, or worst yet, lying to some ulterior motive.

Keep flapping, it does me no harm. Just don't call me what I'm not, or put words in my mouth to make you feel better.

So. . . How 'bout that El Nino?

I have studied in physics, have a Bachelors in Civil Engineering which required an extensive study in Geology and Geotechnical Engineering, and I am licensed in the State of California. My license required the state board exam which tested by knowledge extensively in Geotechnical Engineering, Structural Engineering, Surveying, and Hydrology and Hydraulics. So I think that makes me even more qualified than you? For that matter, I have a few of you guys working for me. Be careful about throwing around credentials. The Geology guys in my college were the ones whom dropped out of Engineering.

So, yeah, you've got degrees, but did you actually study climate change? Like I said, it doesn't matter what you believe, the scientific community has moved on to trying to mitigate the thing rather than argue about its existence.

You have shown a remarkable disregard for facts or reality in this thread, I am quite frankly surprised you are a geologist. . .

"Ph'nglui mglw'napalma Funkthulhu R'Lincolnea wgah'palm fhtagn"
"In his house at Lincoln, dread Funkthulhu plants palm trees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha! Thats total crap Funkthulhu, but I like it anyway. That is very creative coming from an alarmist. Most alarmists do not even have enough creative thinking to get past regurgitation of the talking points, so good job.

I'm not an alarmist, I'm a geologist. My thesis dealt directly with paleo-climate change. One of our founding principles in geology is that the present is the key to the past. So, as you can imagine I have studied the current process of climate change to quite an extent in order to make sure my thesis was as accurate as it could be.

Furthermore, as a scientist I deal with the facts of the matter. It really doesn't matter what you believe in this situation. The scientific consensus has moved on from this argument years and years ago, it is the American public that is trying to catch up. Nothing discussed in here is going to change the fact that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is a real, factual, scientifically provable thing. Quite frankly, this is just a bunch of flapping heads eager to hear themselves pontificate. But I'll be damned if I let people with little to no understanding of my work or my branch of study come into a place and loudly declare that I'm delusional or crazy, or worst yet, lying to some ulterior motive.

Keep flapping, it does me no harm. Just don't call me what I'm not, or put words in my mouth to make you feel better.

So. . . How 'bout that El Nino?

I have studied in physics, have a Bachelors in Civil Engineering which required an extensive study in Geology and Geotechnical Engineering, and I am licensed in the State of California. My license required the state board exam which tested by knowledge extensively in Geotechnical Engineering, Structural Engineering, Surveying, and Hydrology and Hydraulics. So I think that makes me even more qualified than you? For that matter, I have a few of you guys working for me. Be careful about throwing around credentials. The Geology guys in my college were the ones whom dropped out of Engineering.

So, yeah, you've got degrees, but did you actually study climate change? Like I said, it doesn't matter what you believe, the scientific community has moved on to trying to mitigate the thing rather than argue about its existence.

You have shown a remarkable disregard for facts or reality in this thread, I am quite frankly surprised you are a geologist. . .

Please lets not kill this thread. Don't take this stuff personally. Back to El Nino. First South swells are showing up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont deny all the facts, you just may not have read everything i talked about. But it is my interpretation of what the facts are and how they were obtained, and more importantly, how they will manifest themselves in the real world. I think it is highly exaggerated, completely unknown, and not something im concerned about, thats all. That does not mean i dont care about putting all this co2 in the air, i am for moving away from it just for reasons already mentioned. I just dont worry about the climate change component.

Yes Dave, im with you on the El Nino, please be a wet one.

Edited by Gtlevine

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grrrr, Argh! Erik Hangry! Need Snickers!

"Ph'nglui mglw'napalma Funkthulhu R'Lincolnea wgah'palm fhtagn"
"In his house at Lincoln, dread Funkthulhu plants palm trees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA has an opinion on global warming I would like to share! I am sure some of you believe NASA faked the moon landing...

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

OK, first I am making no argument about climate change, its cause, etc in one direction or the other. I do wonder about historical as compared to current measurements in their relative accuracy to each other. We get historical data as I appreciate it from ice cores laid down over thousands of years. We get current data from highly accurate atmospheric monitoring. How do we know that what is being observed today is what will be recorded in the ice in a few thousand years. If our 50 or even 200 year old blip occurred in the past would it even be recognizable statistically on that chart. Maybe every one of those peaks started with a short blast skyward, but then moderated, or lasted a few hundred years then got statistically buried in the ice as a whole that period chart ranging over 400,000 years. Our ability to produce carbon at those levels may very well end before even being statistically relevant that chart representing nearly half a million years. Remember, the line upwards on that chart represents 60 years and those other peaks represent thousands of years. I don't have a clue one way or the other, but it is natural to wonder.

In my post I sometimes express "my" opinion. Warning, it may differ from "your" opinion. If so, please do not feel insulted, just state your own if you wish. Any data in this post is provided 'as is' and in no event shall I be liable for any damages, including, without limitation, damages resulting from accuracy or lack thereof, insult, or any other damages

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA has an opinion on global warming I would like to share! I am sure some of you believe NASA faked the moon landing...

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

That list of talking points was right out of the government handbook. At least they qualified there talking points with. "Very Likely" instead of stating facts. They left themselves with some much needed wiggle room when the apocalypse never materializes. Its a shame what happened to poor NASA. They use to do great things like go to the moon and build space shuttles. Now their left with just enough money to pay a bunch of pinheads to fiddle around around on their computers worrying about the end of the world from global warming. How sad.

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA has an opinion on global warming I would like to share! I am sure some of you believe NASA faked the moon landing...

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

OK, first I am making no argument about climate change, its cause, etc in one direction or the other. I do wonder about historical as compared to current measurements in their relative accuracy to each other. We get historical data as I appreciate it from ice cores laid down over thousands of years. We get current data from highly accurate atmospheric monitoring. How do we know that what is being observed today is what will be recorded in the ice in a few thousand years. If our 50 or even 200 year old blip occurred in the past would it even be recognizable statistically on that chart. Maybe every one of those peaks started with a short blast skyward, but then moderated, or lasted a few hundred years then got statistically buried in the ice as a whole that period chart ranging over 400,000 years. Our ability to produce carbon at those levels may very well end before even being statistically relevant that chart representing nearly half a million years. Remember, the line upwards on that chart represents 60 years and those other peaks represent thousands of years. I don't have a clue one way or the other, but it is natural to wonder.

Keith, that's a great question. My understanding of how ice cores are sampled has shown there is a little bit of blending in the ice that makes fine-point measurements statistically difficult to verify. However, by doing multiple cores and multiple samples the numbers that are produced really are at the yearly scale. If there were, in the past, a "blip" as you say of 400ppm CO2 that jumped up and subsided over say 50 years we would definitely see that in the ice core. Additionally, they have sampled ice old enough to encapsulate more recent atmospheric CO2 levels and have found them to be pretty spot on. Although, I do recall reading an article (I am sorry I cannot find it now) that was worried that the amount of Soot also encapsulated in the ice the last 100 years would artificially drive up the carbon in those cores for those years.

"Ph'nglui mglw'napalma Funkthulhu R'Lincolnea wgah'palm fhtagn"
"In his house at Lincoln, dread Funkthulhu plants palm trees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary NASA has plenty of great things going on right now! A few NASA toys are at Mars both circling the planet a driving on it too. Let me tell you more Gary! We have an awesome space station circling our planet right now! NASA is going to send astronauts to an asteroid and land on it in the 20's! We have Hubble telescope taking pictures of far away places, the next telescope for orbit is being built right now and it is 100 times more powerful than the Hubble! The Orian space craft is being built, it will be able to take man into deep space, Mars and beyond. Cassini space craft is taking great images of Saturn right now! I could go on but I think I made my point!!!

I believe there is a moon Hammer, lol

test

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets go back to El Nino, we have beat this dead horse already. El Nino is important and real.

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary NASA has plenty of great things going on right now! A few NASA toys are at Mars both circling the planet a driving on it too. Let me tell you more Gary! We have an awesome space station circling our planet right now! NASA is going to send astronauts to an asteroid and land on it in the 20's! We have Hubble telescope taking pictures of far away places, the next telescope for orbit is being built right now and it is 100 times more powerful than the Hubble! The Orian space craft is being built, it will be able to take man into deep space, Mars and beyond. Cassini space craft is taking great images of Saturn right now! I could go on but I think I made my point!!!

I believe there is a moon Hammer, lol

I follow this stuff closely Randy. We need to hitch a ride with the Russians to go to our space station. But NASA does not think big anymore, mostly due to funding cuts of course, but there is nothing that exciting, really? Best thing ive seen since the shuttle days are the telescope developments. The rest of the projects keep getting cut, shelved, or toned down. Edited by Gtlevine

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Launching people to the space station is childs play compared to what NASA is doing right now! It's cheaper to have the Russians do it. NASA will never do simple things like that ever again! Soon our private companies will be the taxis to the space station! You need to "study" more Gary!

test

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Launching people to the space station is childs play compared to what NASA is doing right now! It's cheaper to have the Russians do it. NASA will never do simple things like that ever again! Soon our private companies will be the taxis to the space station! You need to "study" more Gary!

I know what your saying Randy. Im hoping the private industry gets more involved, the profit motive will always be an incentive for quicker technological advances. Edited by Gtlevine
  • Upvote 1

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article on the politics of GW. This article really should open your eyes, its not long so give it a look.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/20/un-climate-change-expert-reveals-bias-in-global-warming-report/

Edited by Gtlevine

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out this about the author Tol that wrote the article I so painfully read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol

The guy is a piece of work!

Does that mean you dismiss him just because he is not a follower of the religion ? Never mind, i know the answer. Thats why the debate gets stuck in the mud. If anything is said questioning the opposing view, its not credible if it is by someone that does not follow their beliefs. Happens on both sides, thats the problem. I think its time to move on i guess, we all have out opinions and they will not change on either side.

Now back to El Nino.

Edited by Gtlevine

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tol is for the $5 p/t tax on carbon emissions! Something you and I don't like!

test

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tol is for the $5 p/t tax on carbon emissions! Something you and I don't like!

The point of the article was strictly to show the politics of global warming in these organizations, not to support the author on anything. For instance, the various governments have a line item veto in the report ? How insane is that ? I have not fact checked this but ive heard it from other scientists. It shows this whole science has been hijacked and corrupted. We as the potential victims of government policy should really be wary and skeptical of everything thar is put out.

Rock Ridge Ranch

South Escondido

5 miles ENE Rancho Bernardo

33.06N 117W, Elevation 971 Feet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...