| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/l atest_global_warming_lies_from_us_global_change_re search_program.html | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/g lobal_warming_alarmism_meets_a_blizzard_of_reality .html | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wr ong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-eart h-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/ | ||
| Court |
>>>>>The redwoods were clear-cut 30' from the lines path for as far as the eye could see. NERC actually requires more than 30'. I may be headed your way in the next several days. Talks underway. California has a mess, that could spin out of control, in their hands. Quoting Don Corleone . . . ."I wish you'd called me first". | ||
| Aesquire |
Is there a reason power lines in California make sparks in High winds while it's not an issue elsewhere? Are they still using Thomas Edison technical specs? Or is this just because here, we just have blackouts in a wind storm, since it would take an asteroid strike or nuclear warhead to set fire to our forests, even though they, too, are brush choked parodies of the Black forest of Mirkwood? | ||
| Airbozo |
Could be more than 30'. It's a pretty wide path for sure. Saw a couple of PG&E guys breaking out the ATV's to go inspect the lines the other day. Let me know if you are in the Santa Cruz Mountain area (or bay area), I'll buy the beer. It's funny, that of all the times we have had to deal with storm related power issues, all of the workers we've dealt with are from out of state. A couple of years ago some tree's fell in our neighborhood, ripping the meter and breaker box off my house. They guy that fixed it was from Oregon and he completely upgraded our service from 100 amp to 200 amp and replaced _everything_ from the downed pole to my house (extension pole, meter and breakers). I mentioned that the county inspector would complain so he wrote a full emergency replacement report and signed the inside tag of the breaker box. He was back just over a month later when another tree landed in the exact same spot as the last tree (right down the middle of my neighbors carport). He remembered us as I was bringing them hot drinks and snacks at 1:30 in the morning. | ||
| Sifo |
I've seen power lines sparking in our area in high winds. It was also coming down at the time. I think a big difference is that in CA sparks can cause cancer. Or it might be that CA tends to have heavy rains that make stuff grow, then drought that makes stuff dry. It's not long before you have lots of fuel that is easily started by a few sparks. Around here, and I would guess in the NY countryside, things take a lot more energy to get a fire started. Once started, a fire will grow more slowly in our greener habitat too. Nothing new about the cycle of flooding rains, drought, and fire in CA. The vegetation is well adapted to that cycle. That did't happen in a few short years. | ||
| Ebutch |
Cal. gets less than 1/2 rain than land of taxes ny.  (Message edited by ebutch on November 27, 2018) | ||
| Hootowl |
Political boundary maps are a poor method of grouping for rainfall totals. For example, the westernmost part Washington gets over 200 inches, areas just west of the Cascades get 35, and east of there gets 10 or less. Texas, similarly, has huge differences in rainfall depending on where you measure. Northern CA, up toward to Oregon border, is much different from the deserts in the east, or southern CA. Deceptive map. | ||
| Ebutch |
This is more accuratehttps://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average- annual-precipitation-by-city.php.  | ||
| Aesquire |
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed -climate-predictions/ https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/27/nolt e-only-anti-science-suckers-believe-climate-change -hysteria/ How many | ||
| Ratbuell |
Until they say you're allowed. Just ask a Dem. They'll tell you. | ||
| Falloutnl |
Disclaimer: as always, the following is in no way meant to be hostile or to piss someone off. I have nothing but love for y'all in here. You're good people. ----------- https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/27/nolt e-only-anti-science-suckers-believe-climate-change -hysteria/ To his second point, that was a very real problem that strict regulation managed to lessen and gradually reverse the impact of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion As to his tenth point, that's also becoming a bit of a problem for a number of big coastal cities. Miami being one: https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/1-million-flori da-homes-to-see-chronic-flooding-by-2100-union-of- concerned-scientists-warn-10491839 Also, the author citing his age is fairly meaningless anecdotal sort of evidence. Just because the world hasn't ended in the 50 years he's been around, doesn't mean there's no problem. Also, it's an odd point to refute, "the world isn't ending". That is not literally what the global body of (climate) scientists are saying. Bit of a straw man. What they're saying is that current rate of emissions (and the build up of past emissions) will eventually cause a gradual rise in temperature that will have a severely destabilising effect on modern society and the standard of living we are currently enjoying very much. But it's a fragile system, a house of cards. The 2008 financial crisis reportedly had financial CEO's calling their wives in a panic to take the biggest SUV they had, take it to a supermarket and cram it as full as they could with every can of soup they could get their hands on. Consider, for a moment, what will happen if prolonged periods of drought will /actually/ start to threaten the global food supply. If Johnny Q can no longer get a loaf of bread at the local store. How long before that becomes a problem the size of the great migration for the Romans? Speaking of which... I know I'm not convincing anyone in here, but eh, climate change is real and if you think you've got border problems now. Well  . Just wait till everything below Texas and above Uruguay becomes uninhabitable due to a severe lack of water and unbearable heat. Like, what I'm saying is uh, if you don't like Mexicans, you best start reconsidering your stance on climate change. One last thing. Cui bono? Who benefits? A bunch of ••••••• scientists clamouring to get heard on something ••••••• nobody wants to hear? Or big business, oil companies and multinational industrial enterprises that will fight tooth and nail to keep strip mining the ever living •••• out of this ball of dirt for a quick buck? | ||
| Hootowl |
The oceans have been rising at the same rate for centuries. The problem with flooding is one of subsidence, not rising sea levels. Ozone is created by ionizing radiation from the sun striking O2 in the upper atmosphere. O3 decomposes rapidly in the absence of such radiation. When its dark out, theres no ozone above you. That big hole in the ozone was over a pole in the winter. Makes sense. | ||
| Hootowl |
Regarding who benefits, AGW research is big business. So much so that non-AGW research suffers. If you want to research the effect of feeding goat turds to spiders, you will not get funding. If you want to research how global warming affects the availability of goat turds to feed to spiders, the money pours in. No AGW, no money. So, follow the money. | ||
| Hootowl |
The problem with flooding is one of subsidence, not rising sea levels. Recall that Florida is reclaimed swamp. The land sinks, and takes your castle with it. Unless its the third one. That one stays up.  | ||
| Falloutnl |
Ha, you guys have an answer for everything :P | ||
| Sifo |
Falloutnl, thanks for the discussion. I agree, there's no need to be hostile. I will be quite frank though. I somewhat agree with you about the ozone hole thing, though I do think it was over-hyped by environmentalists. On the point of rising sea levels? Is there any correlation to CO2?  } Not that I can see. More to his point though, is there any correlation to the claims of doom?  Again, not that I can see. Also, I'm pretty sure that Manhattan is not in FL. About citing his age, you miss the point. It's not about the world not ending in his 52 years on the Earth. It's about the number of times that environmental scientists have made dire predictions (often world as we know it predictions) that have simply fallen completely flat during his short time on the Earth. I would say he's being quite generous in only listing 13, but I think he was trying to give examples that had little overlap. The number of falsified predictions on global warming have been simply astounding. Yet they do not stop. We now have to call it "climate change" because that will be nu-falsifiable. Any weather event now gets blamed on climate change. Of course, a theory has to be falsifiable. What we have in climate change is, like a believe in God, a religion. You believe, or you don't, but there can be no ability to prove or dis-prove anything when everything is positive evidence to you. Also, it's an odd point to refute, "the world isn't ending". That is not literally what the global body of (climate) scientists are saying. Bit of a straw man. It might be if we weren't being told constantly about how the world as we know it is ending... Consider, for a moment, what will happen if prolonged periods of drought will /actually/ start to threaten the global food supply. If Johnny Q can no longer get a loaf of bread at the local store. How long before that becomes a problem the size of the great migration for the Romans? I know I'm not convincing anyone in here, but eh, climate change is real No doubt. It's funny how much of it has been erased from history by those telling us that. Roman warm period, Little Ice Age, heat and drought of the 1930's dust bowl, all eradicated from the temperature records, while at the same time, adjusting the record prior to about 1950 to be colder, and after that time warmer, in a nice smooth pattern that gives a warming trend in the adjusted record. I honestly don't even know what to believe about the current official records, other than there is ample proof of these adjustments being done. It's kind of a bitch when people archive that data. Like, what I'm saying is uh, if you don't like Mexicans, you best start reconsidering your stance on climate change. Well, I guess if you can't win the argument on scientific evidence, play the race card. That has no place in this discussion. Really sad. Who benefits? A bunch of scientists clamouring to get heard on something nobody wants to hear? Actually, those "scientists" benefit greatly. So much so that when one of them breaks rank, they do their best to destroy them. Sadly, the politics of scientific funding has been so corrupted that you can't get funding for anything without toeing the climate change line. Or big business, oil companies and multinational industrial enterprises that will fight tooth and nail to keep strip mining the ever living out of this ball of dirt for a quick buck? Energy companies will benefit by producing energy. I don't fault them for that. If they are acting within the laws, I don't see them as evil. They are simply companies providing a product at competitive prices. If you really find them evil, I would suggest boycotting their products. That will end your motorcycling and internet usage. Let me know how that works out for you. | ||
| Gregtonn |
How are Global sea levels measured? How were they measured in 1870? What and where is the baseline? G | ||
| Ratbuell |
Climate "change" is real. It's also NATURAL. Cyclical. Small-amplitude (temperature), long-wavelength (time) changes. See the other posts regarding sunspot activity, elliptical orbits, et cetera. These things are proven facts - "the sky is falling/oceans rising/icebergs vanishing" arguments...are not. They are moneymaking / subversion tactics by those who want absolute power over every aspect of our lives. Not just laws like "don't kill folks, have to have a drivers license", stuff like that...but every single minutiae of our daily lives. Me? I prefer independent thought and drawing my OWN conclusions from what I see with my own two eyes. And right now my yard in Maryland is 23 degrees. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/11 /strange-earthquake-waves-rippled-around-world-ear th-geology/ Aliens! Or volcanic magma flow. If Amy Adams disappears with Jeremy Renner & Forest Whitaker........... | ||
| Aesquire |
https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/28/mysterious-alien-ar tefacts-could-be-lurking-in-our-solar-system-astro nomer-claims-8185768/ Having read Rendezvous With Rama when it first came out, I was amused that scientists were scrambling for explanations and answers for ignorant, excitable, reporters. Not so happy there isn't any space program even proposed that could have matched course to investigate. The tumbling pigeon method of artificial gravity is well known. Any object that changes vector? You'd better know why. Seriously know why. Not because it might be a space ship, although somewhere down the list of possibilities that one comes up, but so you understand gravity, inertia, and the curvature of space time. Which we..... Don't. We have models we like for elegance, but it's a science stuck without a handle. We can't make gravity. We can wiggle heavy objects and watch what happens, but we can't manipulate it. When the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly first was noticed, some pretty wild ideas came up. The current hypothesis is Infrared photons pushing the probes. It took serious twiddling with numbers and computer models, to get a close enough answer, accounting for photons bouncing off the antennas to get enough thrust. It's a nice hypothesis. There is some political pressure to make it Orthodoxy, the Final Word, but some of the new science notions might be a better answer. ( non uniform time, for example ) But most of those annoy folk that learned everything and don't have room for change..... In some cases, radical change. The best way to test the ideas, is to design a probe specifically to do so. We'd also want sensors and a second Purpose, like looking for Oort cloud objects, to justify funding for a Titan Heavy launch to get solar system escape velocity. Maybe a mini solar sail test? Better yet, an insulating design to make uniform the thrust from thermal photons. "Yes, Senator, we want umpteen million dollars to test a theory involving weird slowing of space probes. Yes, we figured out a way to tie in Global Warming!" | ||
| Aesquire |
The political nature of man extends into science. Even into bragging. Sitting around a camp fire with an avionics mechanic & physicist ( nano tech ) I complained I'd built a wind tunnel in High school, designed, built, tested, and flown an aircraft in college, but felt awed by the kid who built a fusion reactor in his dorm room. How do you compete with that? A glider First Aid guy.... As close as I get to Rocket Surgery. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.atr.org/details-horrible-carbon-tax-bi ll?amp | ||
| Falloutnl |
That graph you posted Sifo charts an increase, does it not? Seems to correspond with the start of the industrial age. Well, I guess if you can't win the argument on scientific evidence, play the race card. That has no place in this discussion. Really sad. Apologies, a joke. Though one in poor taste. I admit. Was thinking of Trump's border and wall policies when I made it. Policies I personally disagree with. Even though they don't affect me at all personally. I'm on the other side of the pond. If you really find them evil, I would suggest boycotting their products. That will end your motorcycling and internet usage. Let me know how that works out for you. Just because I'm a hypocrite, doesn't mean the point I'm making is wrong  . Also, I would actually give up motorcycling if the rest of the world was forced to do so along with me. But I refuse to give it up if it will amount to nothing more than a purely symbolic act. I try to do better though. I rarely eat meat (even though I love it) and I don't fly. Since flying is one of the most harmful things you can do, environmentally, I feel that makes up for the occasional sinful Buell trips somewhat. Actually, those "scientists" benefit greatly. So much so that when one of them breaks rank, they do their best to destroy them. Sadly, the politics of scientific funding has been so corrupted that you can't get funding for anything without toeing the climate change line. The same can be said very much for the political parties and the way they are funded. This goes for both Dems and Reps. I doubt very much that, Hillary, other than some lip service, would have done that much more to limit emissions and bring much needed change to the economic system that causes it. Such action would directly hit the wallets of the groups that put them in power. I would also argue that there is a much less rigorous system of controlling those political dynamics than the system of peer reviews (though far from perfect) that check whether papers published on (in this case) climate change are scientifically sound. And right now my yard in Maryland is 23 degrees. That's weather. Not climate. Fundamentally different things. It's also why they 'rebranded' to climate change because 'global warming' caused confusion whenever there was a cold winter. Of course there's still going to be cold winters. The trends point to another kind of development however and it's those trends you should be looking at. Not at how cold it is outside right this minute. It doesn't prove anything. I prefer independent thought and drawing my OWN conclusions from what I see with my own two eyes. I get that, I do and it's a healthy attitude, but I think it's also worth considering at least, that these experts are not lying. These people know more about the subject matter than you or I. I started out as a skeptic as well. I thought Al Gore was full of shit when I first saw that film over a decade ago. I've come around though. Even Shell knew about it in 1991 and then suppressed the documentary they made on the subject. It was discovered and published by Dutch Journalists last year I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTlYYlRN0LY (Message edited by falloutnl on November 30, 2018) | ||
| Ratbuell |
these experts are not lying While possibly not "lying", they are absolutely skewing the facts to point to the conclusions that put money in their pockets, and control in their hands. You mention Gore - saw on the news last night, the "prince of climate" has TWENTY-ONE TIMES the carbon footprint of the average family. Monster house, private jets, you name it. Oh, and he and his buddy Leo DiCraprio are private-jetting to their 24 hour "climate summit" soon, along with countless other "greenies". How's it green to fly solo in your own jet, which even you admit it to be "one of the most harmful things you can do, environmentally"? And, therein lies the rub with the greenie movement - possibly not lying - not completely - but absolutely hypocritical in their quest for power and money. They don't give two shits about the planet - they want to run your life, and take your money. Period. The climate IS changing. It ALWAYS changes. And, it's not our fault. Temps will go up. Temps will go down. They will self-correct. They always do, and always have, for the last few billion years. There is actual DATA to prove that: not just temp readings since man created records and thermometers, but also in soil, rock, and ice samples from across the globe. The earth - hell, the whole SOLAR SYSTEM - has been doing this since many billions of years before man came along, and will continue doing it long after we're gone. Call me when the temps skew out of the normal range of variance. And I'm fully aware of the difference between "weather" and "climate" - are you aware that "weather" is seasonal...and SO IS "CLIMATE"? That's that whole "cyclical" thing...temps go up...temps go down...it's a pattern. A rhythm. A cycle. And again - we aren't causing it, nor can we change it. Nor should we. | ||
| Ducbsa |
How are we supposed to react when we are told this by our "betters"? https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/clim ate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/29/un-appointe d-climate-science-team-demands-the-end-of-capitali sm/ | ||
| Ebutch |
 | ||
| Ratbuell |
From the second link in Duc's post above: No doubt the United Nations will step in to provide the necessary strong governance if we ask them to. ...and, I'm willing to bet....even if we DON'T ask them to. It's almost a shame I have another 50-60 good years in me, and I have to put up with living with this crap... | ||
| Falloutnl |
Call me when the temps skew out of the normal range of variance. That's exactly it though. That's precisely what they say is happening. That it's an abnormal rate of increase. So yes: That's that whole "cyclical" thing...temps go up...temps go down...it's a pattern. A rhythm. A cycle. this is true, but there appears to a significant deviation from what is considered 'normal' for the current cycle. While it's very hard to predict precisely what to expect in terms of time frames and consequences and exact sea level rises (to name one indicator), I feel it's not productive or fair to say "see! You're entire model is shit" because the temperature rose by x instead of projected y. Though the opposite is actually true. Observations often outpace the projections... which is why the IPCC lowered the threshold to 1.5 degrees C instead of 2 as a point of no return. You mention Gore - saw on the news last night, the "prince of climate" has TWENTY-ONE TIMES the carbon footprint of the average family. Monster house, private jets, you name it. Oh, and he and his buddy Leo DiCraprio are private-jetting to their 24 hour "climate summit" soon, along with countless other "greenies". How's it green to fly solo in your own jet, which even you admit it to be "one of the most harmful things you can do, environmentally"? Yeah, I'm with you. That's messed up. And they're a bunch of blowhards. But that says little about the cause they're seeking to gain attention for. they want to run your life, and take your money. Period. How though? To make a monthly donation to some environmental organisation? Seems like a lot of work to create such a large conspiracy for a few measly dollars each month. If anything, they're telling people to produce less, buy less, try to make (I don't know) a phone you bought last longer), to restore that S1 Lightning instead of buying new. Still kind of an odd point to make when you're flying around in a private jet, of course. But like my undying love motorcycles, doesn't make me or them wrong, does make us hypocrites. The point however, and I do wish to emphasise this, I don't believe in personal action or that any one of us should try to make a difference himself. Sure, that's all very good and well from a moral standpoint, but it won't make a lick of difference in the long run if the vast majority keeps trucking towards the proverbial abyss. Global governments need to extricate themselves from pockets of wealthy multinationals and start implementing top down policy to prevent further disaster. It will never happen though, but I do enjoy the discussion. |
