you will be ignored cuz you're off topic nitwit....geez
Climate Change (nee Global Warming) Strkes Again!!
by slipnslidemaster 108 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
villabolo
Kurtbethel, climatologists have been documenting the fact, to their own surprise, that some swings from Ice Age to warm interlude occur in as little as a single decade. Because of the hair trigger sensitivity to climate change that we've had in the previous two million years (due to the joining of North and South America by the Panama Isthmus and it's effects on ocean currents) it only takes a small change in the natural cycles to trigger off either an Ice Age or a Warm Interlude.
However, with the existence of technologically advanced humanity and densely populated humanity at that, we are capable of changing the climate just as well. Concerning whatever you've watched on on the Discovery Channel, it is true, for the most part, that most geologic processes take much longer but our current batch of Ice Ages in the past two million years and possibly other types of climate changes such as mega droughts etc. could and do occur much quicker.
villabolo
-
villabolo
What-A-Coincidence:
"wolf boy didn't have money to make FROM it.
FOLLOW THE $$$"
WAC, please follow your own advice. It will lead you to Exxon Mobil.
villabolo
-
sammielee24
What drives me insane is the real haste and furor on one hand - stop driving, stop using oil, use solar and wind....but little real change underneath it all. In the USA mega housing is normal all throughout the country. A family of three or four people living in a 3,000 square foot with a pool and 2 or 3 car garage is fairly average when just 20 years ago, families were living in 1200 sq foot homes and doing quite fine. In climates where there is year round sunshine there should be laws in place that force home and commercial builders to put solar in place at the point of building.
I was in a town in California not that long ago, where there were rows of decaying homes, hundreds of them with holes in the roofs and doors gaping open, all owned by the government - all empty. Hundreds of them.
Down the road, land was ripped up to put in more housing, hundreds and hundreds of them for the buyers that no longer exist. New homes. large homes - many empty. New malls nearby that are half empty - all of this just down the road from government owned property that contains hundreds of empty decaying homes already.
We ban one type of lightbulb in favor of a new improved one, but then fail to follow up on that bulb disposal for a product that contains mercury.
We find out that in the USA, 40 States have water that is in fact, unsafe to drink in many communities - as fast as we run to buy a Prius, we can't fathom moving out of our house with the 20 foot kitchen and pool even though we pick up those energy saving bulbs along the way.
sammieswife.
-
journey-on
Good points, sammieswife. I am especially peeved when the Al Gore types insist on telling us commoners what we should be doing to "save" the planet, then flit all over the planet in their private jets, then come home to their 10,000+ s/ft. homes with all the decadent ammenities!
Speaking of decaying government housing, check out Valerie Jarrett's real estate holdings in Chicago and their government connections. Talk about a hypocrit! These government-connected types really know how to screw the tax paying public but make you think they are so-o-o-o concerned and people-conscious.
-
villabolo
Sammielee and journey-on, are you familiar with Arcosanti? If so, what do you think of it as a replacement for the lifestyle you've mentioned?
villabolo
-
journey-on
villabolo, you've mentioned Arcosanti before and I went on the website awhile back and looked at what they are all about. Ecology combined with Architecture seems to be their methodology to answer the problem of urban sprawl and conservation. The entire concept is very appealing, but further evaluation of the site gave me the feeling that it is a for-profit endeavor. Paolo Soleri seems to be the "product" being sold. That doesn't turn me off in the least, however. It actually made me even more intrigued. The idea is fascinating and I couldn't help thinking that it's too bad we can't just flip a switch and implement these theories. But, society is so culturally diverse that getting anything moving in the right direction is like trying to turn a gigantic wheel while avoiding obstacles in the road.
-
sammielee24
I find it intriguing and definitely within the realm of possibility and I believe that less waste of land is better for us all. I don't believe however, that people will ever buy into something this progressive all that easily - there is far too much ego built into people that fuels their need for things that they believe are a measure of their success. Things take up space and we like the biggest to prove we are the best. People could use a lot less energy, produce a lot less garbage, use less water if we were more conscious of our living spaces and if business was forced to work in a way that was of benefit to the people and not just the profit.
sammieswife.
-
besty
@ sl24
Sorry Besty but I don't see any disconnect. I believe that quite simply, as humans we are killing our planet. We pollute the water, earth and air simultaneously. We disregard overpopulation in specific regions of the world in favor of religous freedoms or cultural norms. We upset the balance of our planet through destruction of the forests; pollution of our water systems; alteration to our foodstuffs including the introduction of chemicals and in general, we end up destroying what we have because of greed. In essence I don't dispute the scientific evidence but I'm also not naive enough to believe that there is not corporate and government greed involved at every level. My logic tells me that those in power who scream climate change and push the fear upon us, but who then create an avenue of profit for themselves from that very issue, have something other than the 'good of all mankind' on the agenda. Follow the money. We all need to work toward a cleaner planet and do our part. sammieswife.
OK - I hear ya and agree with most of the above. It seems evident to me that that large problems require large ie government-led solutions.
Or putting that in the form of a question - why does the average Californian consume 40% less electricity than the average American?
-
BurnTheShips
Here’s a map showing the 877 snowfall records set last week.
The Gore Effect Is Everywhere!
And that’s not all, for the week ending Dec 13th, there were 815 new snowfall records set. December 2009 is shaping up to be quite the snowmaker.
Of course, the AGW alarmists dismiss such observations as “noise” in the data which does not challenge the “settled” science of catastrophic warming caused by CO2.
Noise. It’s a term which conjures up static on the radio, mere “interference” with the broadcast that must be tolerated. “Noise” matters not, you must simply ignore it to hear the program. Watch for that term “noise.” It’s a favorite of Al Gore, for example.
I’ll tell you what it means. It means “pixie dust.” It means “I can’t explain what is happening.”
Most importantly, it really means “my CO2-based AGW hypothesis has beenfalsified” and they don’t want to admit it because there is so much money, power and corruption involved.
The hypothesis has been falsified by:
(1) the missing thermal signiture of CO2 in the tropical atmosphere which the IPCC model requires (in order to trigger a water vapor feedback loop), an inconvenient truth that they continue to kick under the rug. Keep in mind, everyone sorta has to admit that CO2 by itself doesn’t do much. Even at current concentrations, it’s a teensy weensy bit of the atmosphere (.00038%) that soaks up only a teensy weensy bit of the sun’s long-wave radiation at a particular high altitude in the tropics (the tropics account for about 80% of the Earth’s energy budget). Moreover, we have long since passed CO2 concentrations which are more than sufficient to flag down 99% of that wavelength. So, a hypothetical “feedback loop” is necessary in order to make CO2 scary.
(2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores showing thatCO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect.
(3) the recent demonstration by German physicists, published in International Journal of Modern Physics, that the IPCC model violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodymics (i.e., their predictions are impossible) and that the atmosphere does not faintly resemble a greenhouse. (Because, there’s no frickin’ glass wall around the planet to make it a closed system.) In other words, ignore Al Gore when he smugly asserts that the “greenhouse effect” has been proven in the lab. He is referring to glass enclosures, not an atmosphere open to space.
(4) both surface station data and new satellite data (which is not subject to distortion from the “urban island effect” or rigging by undisclosed computer models used by AGW alarmists) indicate that the warming trend had stopped by 2002 while CO2 continued to increase substantially — which the IPCC model does not permit. Whoa, it’s really getting noisy, huh?
(5) recent publication, in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, of evidence that the actual cause of modern global warming is CFCs interacting with cosmic radiation. Unfortunately for the politicians, bureaucrats and grant pimps, CFCs are a problem that has already been fixed, and the ozone holes over the poles are repairing themselves.
How can the AGW alarmists maintain their religion in the face of such science?
And, by the way, has climatology even earned the status of a science? There was an interesting observation in the article linked at #3 above — the climatologists you read about today never took a single course in climatology when they were in college. The field did not exist. They are making stuff up as they go along to invent this new “ology.”
Most of what you read about global warming is not actually science, i.e., the application of the scientific method to observed data to test an hypothesis. It’s computer modeling based on assumptions that are literally pulled out of one’s ass (about stuff we don’t know like the actual effect of cloud cover at various altitudes), and breathless predictions about the awful things that could happenif AGW accelerates, like the drowning of London if the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets melt real fast. (Last I read, the retreat of the northern ice sheets had stopped are starting to rebuild, and the Antarctic ice sheet continues to grow.)
Mark my words. You are going to hear a lot about “noise” the weeks and months to come.
