# Global Warming has been confirmed



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

It's now been confirmed. Global warming is a fact and the Earth is hotter than ever and getting hotter, causing extreme winters and extreme summers. Now this topic is not to start a political debate or to conjecture about whether or not global warming is man-made. It's to give people something to think about for the future, and maybe to discuss ways of planning ahead to adapt, and to combat or lessen the impact of extreme winters and extreme summers. 

For example, how will this effect your future plans for planting crops and raising livestock in the area that you live in? How do you see this effecting agriculture and the economy across the continent and around the world? 

Please read the full report:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...l-warming-is-real-researchers/article1655436/



> &#8220;The conclusion is unmistakable &#8211; yes, the planet is warming,&#8221; said Derek Arndt, a co-editor of the report, called State of the Climate, which was published by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA..... "&#8220;The facts speak for themselves, and speak simultaneously,&#8221; .... &#8220;they all point toward the same conclusion &#8211; the globe is warming.&#8221;
> 
> The report &#8211; co-edited by researchers in the United States, Canada, Britain and Australia &#8211; pulled together data from 10 climate indicators measured by 160 research groups in 48 countries. The scientists compared the figures decade by decade as far back as possible, more than 100 years in some cases. They concluded 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade ever, and the Earth has been growing warmer for 50 years. Each of the past three decades &#8211; 1980s, 1990s and 2000s &#8211; was the hottest on record, the researchers said.
> 
> This year is shaping up to be even warmer.........


.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

A longer growing season. More production. However, if your assertion that an extreme winter is the result of global warming, I may be disappointed. It is confusing when one claims colder and hotter . . . which is it?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Colder and hotter is curious. Considering the Earth takes 365 days to revolve around the Sun and the Sun takes millions of years? to circle the galactic center it's hard to say what changes in the orbits we have no clue about. Many of the climate changes have been traced to the relationship between the Sun and the Earth. Of course the Sun still tops any other influence on the climate. 

I still wonder about the Medieval Warm Period which was much warmer than today. It was warm enough for Greenland to be named GREENland. I suspect the folks there will be happy to see the climate warm up like it was in the Viking days.

Even the Sahara Desert has been traced to a planetary cycle. At some point in the future it will return to being an inland sea. That may be a few million years in the future. For me I'm waiting for the concerns about global cooling to crank up again. I'd worry much more if someone proved we were going into another ice age.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

Sure as heck has been alot wetter also>Marc


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I asked my cat and he just yawned. This may take some time to interpret, because goodness knows he's usually right.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Tobster said:


> A longer growing season. More production. However, if your assertion that an extreme winter is the result of global warming, I may be disappointed. *It is confusing when one claims colder and hotter . . . which is it?*


It could be both depending on your location. Your location says you're in south Louisiana. I'm not familiar with it but I understand it's considered warm in the winters, is that correct? During the past year many other parts of the continent (and the world) had an abnormally snowy and cold winter, a long, cool, wet spring and are now experiencing an abnormal heat wave - all of which is impacting crops.

What have the growing seasons and production been like there during the past 10 years where you live? What was last winter like there for you, was it normal? Have you been getting the rain you need now for crops in your location?

.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

To directly answer your questions, it won't affect my plans for planting. I think it will mean that (IF TRUE) there will be an increased length of the growing season, which will mean some areas may now get two crops instead of one, and the economy should be enhanced.

Sorry if that deflates any fear balloons.

You do know that many biblical seaside towns of the Mediterranean are now partly under water from warming and climate change? You do know the Sahara was once grassland with animals and early people? You do know that there weren't cars or coal burning causing those changes, that they happened by natural means?

If you think you should change your habits because of global warming, do you think everyone else on the planet will as well, especially the people of nations newly flexing their muscles, like China and India - with _far_ larger populations and an increasing energy diet?

If you think anything you do will be important, have you considered that civilizations and countries grow and then die, just like people? How would you insure the people of a future world power of Brazil or an African nation complied with restrictions that people of north America put on themselves? Do we automatically follow the laws and proscriptions of the Roman Empire, or the Ming Dynasty? Just wondering.


----------



## dezingg (Feb 25, 2010)

Physicists in the 1970s were talking about a limit on how much heat we could produce without affecting climate. Their main point was that if the whole world consumed as much energy per person as the United States does, we'd be in trouble and need to find ways to cool the planet.

But the Global Warming issue has gotten too political and I question the validity and accuracy of the claims that support it.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

naturelover
you're mistaken during the age of dinosaurs the earth was far hotter than today. likewise the previously mentioned midieval warm period averaged several degrees warmer than current averages (according to scientific research). then of course there was the little ice age that ended as we were just beginning to record data and so creating the impression of dramatic human caused warming to those who wish to see it.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Harry Chickpea said:


> To directly answer your questions, it won't affect my plans for planting. I think it will mean that (IF TRUE) there will be an increased length of the growing season, which will mean some areas may now get two crops instead of one, and the economy should be enhanced.
> 
> Sorry if that deflates any fear balloons.


No fear balloons for me, I agree with that about the increased growing season and extra crops in some places. 



> You do know that many biblical seaside towns of the Mediterranean are now partly under water from warming and climate change? You do know the Sahara was once grassland with animals and early people? You do know that there weren't cars or coal burning causing those changes, that they happened by natural means?


I know about all that. However, that was in the past when there wasn't nearly 7 billion people on the planet so not as many people needing to be fed. Whether or not climate change in the past was natural is kind of a moot point, in my opinion.



> If you think you should change your habits because of global warming, do you think everyone else on the planet will as well, especially the people of nations newly flexing their muscles, like China and India - with _far_ larger populations and an increasing energy diet?


No, I don't think other people on the planet will prepare or make changes until it's too late and they're already starving because of lack of rain in places and not protecting their water resources.



> If you think anything you do will be important, have you considered that civilizations and countries grow and then die, just like people? How would you insure the people of a future world power of Brazil or an African nation complied with restrictions that people of north America put on themselves? Do we automatically follow the laws and proscriptions of the Roman Empire, or the Ming Dynasty? Just wondering.


Perhaps this sounds ruthless but I'm not concerned about ensuring that other nations comply with north american restrictions. I don't think it's up to us to police the world. I would like to think that north america could set a good example for other nations to follow but they will have to look after themselves and protect their own resources.

I'm more interested in what Canada and America can or will do to ensure the food supplies of this continent and the protection of our mutual resources that we share and trade with each other.

.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I love figs and artichokes. How long before I can grow them in Minnesota?


----------



## oneokie (Aug 14, 2009)

naturelover said:


> > as far back as possible, more than 100 years in some cases. They concluded 2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade ever, and the Earth has been growing warmer for 50 years. Each of the past three decades â 1980s, 1990s and 2000s â
> 
> 
> Please read the full report:
> ...


100 years is just a blip on the weather conditions of Earth. Scientists do know that there have been warm and cold cycles, *BUT* they have no firm data to base a decision on as to why those cycles occured.


----------



## Ravenlost (Jul 20, 2004)

springvalley said:


> Sure as heck has been alot wetter also>Marc


It has?


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

dezingg said:


> But the Global Warming issue has gotten too political and I question the validity and accuracy of the claims that support it.


I remember in the 1970s the impending ice age.

Agree with your above statement 100%,it has been horribly politicized and some big names plan to cash in on the current line.

For that reason I dont feel it will change my life at all,short of having my wallet stolen if they get their way.

Dont know how you can expect an answer without politics,as its a pure political play in my opinion.


----------



## Joshie (Dec 8, 2008)

It's funny. In the 70s scientists had all sorts of "proof" that the earth was getting colder. 

Ummm, where did they get their information about temperatures 100 years ago? 150? 200? One hundred years is not even a blip on the map of eternity.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> naturelover
> you're mistaken during the age of dinosaurs the earth was far hotter than today. likewise the previously mentioned midieval warm period averaged several degrees warmer than current averages (according to scientific research). then of course there was the little ice age that ended as we were just beginning to record data and so creating the impression of dramatic human caused warming to those who wish to see it.


I understand all that too but it doesn't matter if it was hotter during the dinosaur age. There weren't any people around then to be effected by it. It doesn't really matter if climate change now is caused by humans or not. What does matter to me is that climate change is a happening thing _now in the present_ and that the world has a population of nearly 7 billion people. I think most of them will starve (which is sad for them I guess) and that may be unavoidable. I'm more interested in how the 366 million people on this continent will prepare for it once it's accepted that climate change is happening.

.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

What will happen is new taxes - 'Cap & Trade' will destroy what is left of the North American ecconomy. All farming af any account will be banned or taxed into oblivion, and we will depend upon cheap food from South America and Mexico to live on. 

Pretty much destroy my life.

you picked quite a topc there, near & dear to my heart.

Guess I'll need to live out my life on govt aid. Let someone else feed me.

--->Paul


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by springvalley
> Sure as heck has been alot wetter also>Marc


Not here. It's "Abnormally Dry"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I understand all that too but it *doesn't matter if it was hotter *during the dinosaur age


It does when people are trying to claim it's "hotter now than ever"



> They concluded 2000 to 2009 was *the warmest decade ever*


The danger in all this is that many will now be convinced we "need to do something" about it.


----------



## Dexter (Sep 27, 2008)

Seems that everyone answering is stuck repeating what their favourite political commentator has been saying, and not considering the question at hand.

For me, a possibly longer growing season could be of minor benefit with certain crops. Sometimes melons ripen sometimes not- maybe in 10 years they will be consistent.
The main crops (including pasture) will remain unaffected, that is hoping that warm season pests don't spread north (which of course they will)... long winters control pests here and that is how we like it.

Another issue is weather patterns. Bigger storms dumping more water at once. NOT good for irrigation. And flooding is an issue here. So, negative for sure.
A lot of the States (and central Canada for that matter) already have SERIOUS water issues. That will get worse, and there is no cure for lack of water. Strangely- those in the dry spots often claim there are no problems- what's up with that??

In my case I'd like it to stay as is.


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

naturelover said:


> It could be both depending on your location.
> What have the growing seasons and production been like there during the past 10 years where you live? What was last winter like there for you, was it normal? Have you been getting the rain you need now for crops in your location?
> 
> .


Hi Naturelover, since 1999 and until recently our summers persisted well into late September or early October. In 2005, the year of Katrina our Summer would not go away. It lingered well into November. The last two years, Spring and Fall have been longer and more what one expects for that time of year. The result has been milder temperatures between the summer and winter months. This current pattern has occurred during the past 2 years, who knows if it is a trend. November of 2008 we had a dusting of snow, I can not recall snow in November. We also had a light snow in December of 2009 followed a few months later during the Winter of 2010 with consecutive days below freezing. Actually 3 days in a row below 25 degrees, very unusual for temperatures not to rise above freezing during a cold snap. You ask about rain. Rain is always the wild card. For instance, a couple of weeks ago we had 'Bonnie' in the Gulf. It was a tropical storm projected to become a hurricane if conditions lined up. Conditions did not favor it becoming a hurricane. The best Bonnie could manage was 30 mph gust and she broke up prior to making landfall. But, that system greatly affected our weather conditions. We had about 8 days of overcast skies and rain. It was wonderful, temps were lower due to the sun being blocked, a light breeze was evident . . . life was good as the intensity of this summer was put on hold during the brief days of Bonnie. In my opinion, you are correct to ask about rain. Data on rain is one of the keys to temperatures and other dynamics associated with Earth's weather. You ask about the past 10 years. I would say that down south we steadily warmed through 2005 and now the cycle has reversed, At the risk of getting off subject let me add this. I am a backyard observer and amateur astronomer. Three or four years ago there were several stories in magazines such as 'Sky and Telescope' and 'Astronomy' concerning the shrinking of the polar ice caps on Mars. I was amazed by this event and could not understand why it was never associated with Earth's warming cycle. As far as both cold and heat making your point, if you wish to adopt the notion that both warming and cooling confirm your assumption, then I don't see how you can be wrong. You seem to have covered all the bases. One could adopt your position and claim it to be global cooling and then maintain that warming confirms their view of cooling.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

naturelover said:


> I understand all that too but it doesn't matter if it was hotter during the dinosaur age. There weren't any people around then to be effected by it. It doesn't really matter if climate change now is caused by humans or not. What does matter to me is that climate change is a happening thing _now in the present_ and that the world has a population of nearly 7 billion people. I think most of them will starve (which is sad for them I guess) and that may be unavoidable. I'm more interested in how the 366 million people on this continent will prepare for it once it's accepted that climate change is happening.
> 
> .


I guess this deal depends on young people feeding it. Older people remember the temp swings, the very different winters & summers, the dry spells, the wet spells.

The earth is always changing. Decade to decade, it seems different.

The 60's were terrible wet. The 80s were terrible dry. The 90's were terrible wet. Three of the last 5 years were terrible dry. 2009 was increadably cool - crops didn't mature. In the 30s it was terrible dry. Some of the 50s was pretty wet.

If you can see global climate trends in that, fine. The last 10 years don't much matter on this sort of thing.

Through all those changes, we've had growing food supplies year after year. I think only 3-4 years of all those decades have we ever had smaller crops. The trend line of food production is up up up, with very variable weather.

If the climate changes, the weather paterns will change as well. So if it happens, we will need to adapt. That is what we humans do - adapt. Unless a bunch of artifical rules handcuff us into doing nothing.

What will destroy us is knee-jerk reactions. imho Your questions are based on 'always' or 'ever' or 'the last 10 years' which just means nothing on a 4 billion year old planet that has seen many ice ages, heat waves, and so on in just the last 100,000 years. It means folks are not thinking on this in the right way. It is knee-jerk reactions to something that is not understood.

I think the net result of climate change in North America is a destruction of our society, as we hand the reigns to other regions of the world and allow them to become stronger & we become weaker. That is the political effort we are getting.

--->Paul


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Joshie said:


> Ummm, where did they get their information about temperatures 100 years ago? 150? 200? One hundred years is not even a blip on the map of eternity.


I haven't seen the report but I would assume from what was said in the news article about the oceans being warmer now that some of their conclusions will be based on reports from marine biologists and their ongoing coral studies. Some corals are hundreds and even thousands of years old in their structure and scientific study of them shows what temperatures and conditions the water was from 100, 200, 500, 1,000 years ago.

.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Here we go, I found NOAA's report. It's called State of the Climate and was released July 28th, 2010:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global


And here is their Global Hazards report, you can change the dates on it for reports going back to 1998:

June http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=hazards&year=2010&month=6&submitted=Get+Report

July http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=hazards&year=2010&month=7&submitted=Get+Report


.


----------



## pheasantplucker (Feb 20, 2007)

Even if this report convinces a few folks who were previously undecided as to whether GW is legit, it still doesn't claim that it is a result of human behavior (influence). I personally agree that we humans and our activities (driving, burning fossil fuels, etc.) are largely responsible, but there will be no convincing of some. Heck there are probably some folks who still believe the earth is flat.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

You are completely ignoring the politics and the censorship of scientists who dare disagree with the accepted line of global warming.As others have said,the world is always changing,always has,always will.

Why do you think Greenland was called Greenland.

We will adapt just fine.

As for Global Warming,it is strictly a power grab,as Rambler points out,and That is how we will be affected.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

It's total bunk. Lets wait 10 years and see. If it doesn't cost us any $$$$CASH$$$$ , I don't care what you belive.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

Got it covered here in Michigan. First we got a Canadian for a governor, next we will annex Ontario and move our houses northward..........

geo


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

I'm going to deal with today, and hope for tomorrow. Worrying about the future is butting into God's business.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

> I'm more interested in how the 366 million people on this continent will prepare for it once it's accepted that climate change is happening.


 This part I can answer. I'm going to pay more taxes, have less freedom, and likely eventually lose out to the several billion people across the Pacific who could care less about climate change.


----------



## olivehill (Aug 17, 2009)

geo in mi said:


> Got it covered here in Michigan. First we got a Canadian for a governor, next we will annex Ontario and move our houses northward..........
> 
> geo


Speak for yourself, this is as north as this heat-lovin' lady goes. :nana:


----------



## mudburn (Feb 26, 2010)

naturelover said:


> It's now been confirmed. Global warming is a fact and the Earth is hotter than ever and getting hotter, causing extreme winters and extreme summers. Now this topic is not to start a political debate or to conjecture about whether or not global warming is man-made. It's to give people something to think about for the future, and maybe to discuss ways of planning ahead to adapt, and to combat or lessen the impact of extreme winters and extreme summers.


The effects upon my life are to require greater proof than the assertions of bureaucrats, politicians, and "scientists" before I believe the claims about "global warming/climate change" and the associated political solutions that are proposed. In the context of much history of the social world, governments, and man's pursuit of dominion over other men, "global warming/climate change" is just another excuse to enslave the masses to an even greater degree.

Personally, I will make changes in my life that conform to the conditions in which I live, not the prognostications of self-proclaimed experts and their lackeys. Personal responsibility is important, but it is not something that can be effectively legislated/regulated. It seems that most of the "global warming/climate change" enthusiasts I'm aware of believe in some sort of social/governmental "solutions" which are deeply embedded in collectivist thought.

mudburn


----------



## glenn amolenaar (Mar 3, 2007)

I guess most of the people are to young to understand "greed" "politics" we had weather patterns cold/hot, OH "wait the sky is falling" Deacon jim sez it best.
Glenn


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> I remember in the 1970s the impending ice age.
> 
> Agree with your above statement 100%,it has been horribly politicized and some big names plan to cash in on the current line.
> 
> ...


Well said. :clap:


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

mightybooboo said:


> Why do you think Greenland was called Greenland.



Salesmanship! It is more than adequately documented that it was named that way to get suckers. Oh, I mean immagration. :grin:


Kinda like AGW. All I have to ask about the OP. Is what adjustments were used for the data? Was the past data edited. You know edited for the fact that a bucket of water when removed from the surrounding sea warms instantly and with great vigor.


----------



## LFmenagerie (Mar 29, 2007)

As a science teacher/geek I feel compelled to clear up a couple of things up. First, weather is what is happening outside today and climate is the averages of the weather for an area over a period of years. Global warming is climate change, so the average temperature of the entire planet is going up. Second, science is all about questioning EVERYTHING. There is no real censorship of scientists by scientists, because everything is open to discussion and debate. The only significant debate about global warming that I have seen within science in the last few years is between people that question whether human behavior or natural fluctuations are causing the temperature rise of the Earth.

To answer the OPs question about what changes will happen on our homestead - I wouldn't mind being able to grow more fruit trees like peaches, plums, cherries, and pears. The current northern zone three we are in doesn't allow much for varieties of those trees at this point. The gardens and livestock shouldn't change much at all, other than planting and harvest dates and possible issues with better drainage of clay soils or more irrigation depending on whether we get more or less rain in the future. The things I am not looking forward to are the movement of pest and poisonous species northward as the climate changes, such as japanese beetles, africanized bees, mosquitoes that carry other diseases, or rattlesnakes.

Lastly, I think the government has to play a role. The largest producers of greenhouse gases are the power and transportation industries. These industries are too large, powerful, and greedy to be influenced by anything other than the government in my opinion.
Tom


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Our climate has started changing already. We've got species moving upward into our area. Gray fox, possum, map turtles, cardinals. We've got frogs calling in November. We've got non-stop roaring wind for 48 hours or more in an area that is not known for it's wind. We've got -20 below in December and +80 in April. We've got torrential rains time after time.

My biggest concern is how our changing climate is going to affect rainfall patterns. Temperature change is somewhat adaptable for food production but fairly predictable rainfall is critical. Too much, too little, too soon, or too late means crop failure. If that happens over the nations bread basket we are in serious trouble.

It's already happened in 16 territories of Russia forcing that nation to declare an emergency. We are so close to the intersection of food supply and food demand caused by population density that we cannot afford any major loss of food supply. Look what happened during the dust bowl period when our population was probably 1/3 of what it is now.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

The US is falling behind other nations because of the deliberate stalling in Congress. If this continues we will be buying our energy efficiency technology from China at Wal-Mart as we go to our drive thru jobs at the burger palace.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

fishhead said:


> The US is falling behind other nations because of the deliberate stalling in Congress. If this continues we will be buying our energy efficiency technology from China at Wal-Mart as we go to our drive thru jobs at the burger palace.


Well, that's already happening. Didn't you read that China is building the wind generators, despite Obama promising that there would be 'green jobs'.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Every attempt to move the US forward is blown up by the Republican insurgents. Meanwhile the US falls further behind in the coming sustainable economy.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

fishhead said:


> Every attempt to move the US forward is blown up by the Republican insurgents. Meanwhile the US falls further behind in the coming sustainable economy.


So republicans have stopped YOU from starting a business making alternative energy? No, they have stopped the subsidy of your desire. 


So your for corporate welfare? For the betterment of the bottom line rather than cheaper energy for all? Is this the row you wish to hoe?


Edited to add.... If it was better and cheaper it would need to be promoted.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

fishhead said:


> Our climate has started changing already. We've got species moving upward into our area. Gray fox, possum, map turtles, cardinals. We've got frogs calling in November. We've got non-stop roaring wind for 48 hours or more in an area that is not known for it's wind. We've got -20 below in December and +80 in April. We've got torrential rains time after time.
> 
> My biggest concern is how our changing climate is going to affect rainfall patterns. Temperature change is somewhat adaptable for food production but fairly predictable rainfall is critical. Too much, too little, too soon, or too late means crop failure. If that happens over the nations bread basket we are in serious trouble.
> 
> *It's already happened in 16 territories of Russia forcing that nation to declare an emergency. *We are so close to the intersection of food supply and food demand caused by population density that we cannot afford any major loss of food supply. Look what happened during the dust bowl period when our population was probably 1/3 of what it is now.


I bolded your statement regarding Russia. Due to the unheard of heat wave in Russia (since record keeping in Russia began, there has NEVER been triple digit temperatures recorded in Moscow) the price of wheat has gone up significantly. Russia is a major exporter of wheat and because of the intense heat and droughts/fires there - wheat production may experience a severe shortfall.
For those that demand links:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mark...t-month-in-half-a-century-20100802-1135e.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jy7EW7Gfpc6GvNQTegkhjFeQaL7A

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...damage-industries-putin-s-party-vtb-says.html

That said, I would prepare to pay MORE for wheat flour since the demand for US wheat is also rising and prices are expected to rise in the near term.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

I thought just last month we had confirmation that Global Warming was a load of stuff? So this month it's on again. Next month will be off again.

NOW....

I do not deny that the planet is undergoing normal cyclical changes. But to think that humans have any more than on oh-by-the-way part in it is typical human egotism at it's grandest. I will have to go back and dig up the links that show the first warming cycle happened before humans were even thought of. Course, as I stated when I first posted that link, could be greenhouse gasses from mammoths, sort of like cows now. Give me a few hours and see if I can dig up those trends. I have a 5yo clamoring for attention, too.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

fish head said:


> Every attempt to move the US forward is blown up by the Republican insurgents. Meanwhile the US falls further behind in the coming sustainable economy.


Forward to what? We are falling behind because of "forward ideology" also known as "progressivism" "socialism" "communism" . Glodal Warming is only an excuse to Tax and control us some more into your way of life. No Thanks, I won't be fooled.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

O didn't say where he was creating green jobs :umno: Nor has anyone said just what one is . His idea of green jobs is counting the green from selling carbon credits to those stupid enough to buy them just like Hc :hobbyhors


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Again I must point out something. One of the reasons there is "proof" of GW is the fact that recording stations which used to be in rural area are now in urban areas. Urban areas ALWAYS have higher temps than rural ones. Therefore the temps at these stations are going to be hotter today than decades ago.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

watcher said:


> Again I must point out something. One of the reasons there is "proof" of GW is the fact that recording stations which used to be in rural area are now in urban areas. Urban areas ALWAYS have higher temps than rural ones. Therefore the temps at these stations are going to be hotter today than decades ago.


http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

ok, it's all those baby boomers hitting menopause.


----------



## Dr. Mom (Jan 13, 2008)

Global Warming is a sham. It's just an immoral scam brought on by billionaires and politicians to impose more taxes on the already struggling taxpayers. It's a global farce to eliminate the middle class by taxing them out of existence. It has nothing to do with climate changes. 

What caused the last Ice Age to disappear? What caused the Ice Age? The earth warms and cools in cycles. Some of our problems now, I believe, are caused by El Nino and La Nina. Not Global Warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño-Southern_Oscillation


----------



## Dr. Mom (Jan 13, 2008)

7thswan said:


> ok, it's all those baby boomers hitting menopause.


:rock: Right on, Swan! Groovy!


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

dezingg said:


> Physicists in the 1970s were talking about a limit on how much heat we could produce without affecting climate. Their main point was that if the whole world consumed as much energy per person as the United States does, we'd be in trouble and need to find ways to cool the planet.
> 
> But the Global Warming issue has gotten too political and I question the validity and accuracy of the claims that support it.


I'm sorry, but this is not accurate. In the '70's and even into the very early '90's, the concern was Global _Cooling_ and the coming Ice Age.


rambler said:


> I guess this deal depends on young people feeding it. Older people remember the temp swings, the very different winters & summers, the dry spells, the wet spells.
> 
> The earth is always changing. Decade to decade, it seems different.
> 
> ...


ITA


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Ross said:


> I asked my cat and he just yawned. This may take some time to interpret, because goodness knows he's usually right.


Wrong. Cats are ALWAYS right. It's just people who sometimes forget that.:hysterical:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Amazing, this comes right on the heels of all those "accidental" oil spills and crap and trade talk.
Just part of the scam, don't send any money to Algore and don't relect any of these crooks pushing this.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I'm stocking up on sun tan lotion just in case. And as for poor algore, he is always second string isnt he? I mean old Bill at least got a BJ out of his romp and apparently Al only got a hug. Kinda sad really.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

naturelover said:


> It's now been confirmed. Global warming is a fact and the Earth is hotter than ever and getting hotter, causing extreme winters and extreme summers. *Now this topic is not to start a political debate or to conjecture about whether or not global warming is man-made. It's to give people something to think about for the future, and maybe to discuss ways of planning ahead to adapt, and to combat or lessen the impact of extreme winters and extreme summers.*
> 
> For example, how will this effect your future plans for planting crops and raising livestock in the area that you live in? How do you see this effecting agriculture and the economy across the continent and around the world?
> 
> ...


How very considerate of HQ's mod to move this topic from HQ to GC so it could get trashed by the political conspiracy crowd. I guess we know what his answer to the question was.



> how will this effect your future plans for planting crops and raising livestock in the area that you live in? How do you see this effecting agriculture and the economy across the continent and around the world?


Well, as you already know, we never had a winter here last winter in the lower mainland. Spring started in December and corn was 6 inches tall by mid-February. Farmers here have already gotten 2 hay crops in and will get in a 3rd by mid August and maybe a 4th for silage by November, just like last year. Most of the regular agriculture crops have matured 2 or 3 months earlier than usual this year and the farmer's markets are full to overflowing with produce we wouldn't normally see til September. Which I guess is a good thing since now the entire province is as dry as a bone from not getting the usual amount of rain on the 'wet' coast and having absolutely no snow cover in the mountains. Most of the glaciers are melted now, only a few remain at very high altitudes in the Pacific Ranges. 

In 60 years I've never seen the Skeena, Thompson, Pitt or Fraser rivers as low as now and that concerns me for the sake of the spawning salmon who can't traverse the bare rocks and mud flats. If those large rivers are like that then all the other smaller rivers are bound to be the same, I'm sure. So I think that will effect the wild salmon product in the next 3 or 4 years. It may be a good thing now to start farming tilapia in the delta, I'd like to see more of that happening on some of the fish farms that are only raising trout.

For me - No more rabbits, they cant tolerate the months and months of extreme heat. More muscovies and less chickens, those are tropical waterfowl and seem to tolerate the heat better as well as any unseasonal rains and floods. No more broad leaved produce like squash and zucchini, they are all dying from the powdery mildew this year, same thing goes for tomatoes - just like last year. The chards, collards, other brassicas and the root crops are producing 2 crops though.

I'm really glad that n.w. Washington state and British Columbia are cooperating with each other to manage and restrict the use of our mutual Abbotsford/Sumas underground aquifer because it's not very big. I don't know what other folks further south of us in the states are going to do when the Columbia river here on this side dries up, I think that may have a severe impact on them.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

NL again the data is skewed and until the data is pure and unmanipulated the entire theory is bunk...science doesnt give leeway to cherry pick if its good science...tell me why the medevial warming trend and the little Ice age data was taken out of the data stream to come up with the averages and trends...for example(simplistic example follows)
if I take 11,22,433,44,35 and get and avg its = 109 but if i drop 2 and 4 its = 159.66 you either have to include all the data or none....its simple math and simple science to say if I drop those warm and Cool periods out randomly I can significantly change the average...you cannot say GW exist simple due to a decade...The earth Cycles app every 13-1500 years....you have to get about two or more of these cycles to see the effective average....think Keff(=>)1 super crtical temp averages in a reactor its a life span formula and it requires all the data....to see if the earth is significantly warming or cooling more than normal you must include all the data from the beginning...it simply is an impossible project...more over to suggest that a single decade can help determine that is complete and utter hogwash....such a small sample is at best insignificant and in reality will most certainly result in warming trends due to the small nature of the sample less numbers to affect the average meeans more significant and dramatic swings...when placed against the history scale and the reall data its insignificant at best...similiar to caalculatting lifetime batting average as oppsoed to game Batting average for a ball player...the more at bats lessent the impact of each at bat ....this is disengenuous and a blantant attempt at another way to skin a cat for the AGW people in short this is the new ploy since the last one was completely and utterly debunked by the fact of the emails...so the new PR for AGW is we wont call it AGW we will just say GW and scare folks with half baked science till they buy it...Laughable....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Paumon said:


> How very considerate of HQ's mod to move this topic from HQ to GC so it could get trashed by the political conspiracy crowd. I guess we know what his answer to the question was.
> 
> 
> Well, as you already know, we never had a winter here last winter in the lower mainland. Spring started in December and corn was 6 inches tall by mid-February. Farmers here have already gotten 2 hay crops in and will get in a 3rd by mid August and maybe a 4th for silage by November, just like last year. Most of the regular agriculture crops have matured 2 or 3 months earlier than usual this year and the farmer's markets are full to overflowing with produce we wouldn't normally see til September. Which I guess is a good thing since now the entire province is as dry as a bone from not getting the usual amount of rain on the 'wet' coast and having absolutely no snow cover in the mountains. Most of the glaciers are melted now, only a few remain at very high altitudes in the Pacific Ranges.
> ...


Paumon arent you in Canada? if so your telling me Rabbits cant take the extreme heat of Canada but they thrive here in the cool climate of Louisiana are you serious? Drama meter and Bunk meter seems to be pegged high on that one....LOL

Get a grip its 72 in vancouver today that is not extreme heat...LOL thats chilly its over hundred in Louisiana today and rabbits are running around bursting into flames...LOL



> Current Weather Updated: Monday, August 2, 2010, 16:00 PDT - Vancouver Airport
> Vancouver, BC 72Â°F
> Â°CÂ°F
> Overcast
> ...


----------



## tyusclan (Jan 1, 2005)

Paumon said:


> How very considerate of HQ's mod to move this topic from HQ to GC so it could get trashed by the political conspiracy crowd. I guess we know what his answer to the question was.


Sorry, but the OP knew when she posted that this would turn into a political discussion. This is exactly where it should be.




Paumon said:


> Well, as you already know, we never had a winter here last winter in the lower mainland.


Meanwhile, here in our little corner of the world we had the longest, coldest winter anyone could remember in years.

It's all a natural cycle and there is NOTHING we can do to affect it one or another.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Bigkat it an't no fair comparing those Louisiana rabbits to those Yankee rabbits :grumble:

I heard those Southern rabbits you got down there can whip a gator :bouncy:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bigkat80 said:


> ...more over to suggest that a single decade can help determine that is complete and utter hogwash....such a small sample ......... in short this is the new ploy since the last one was completely and utterly debunked by the fact of the emails....


I guess you didn't read the article or the NOAA reports. The data has been taken from several decades, not from a single decade. As to the emails scandal, that was debunked too.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...l-warming-is-real-researchers/article1655436/

*"The study is the most extensive ever done by the agency and it comes after controversy erupted last year when leaked e-mails purported to show that scientists at a world-leading climate institute in Britain had fudged research. Three investigations have concluded that the researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit did not tamper with data or interfere with the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming."*

But you know what, it's okay if you and several others prefer to consider it all nonsense and carry on as though there's no changes in climate. That's your perogative and your funeral. I got the impression from NL's post that she was not asking for opinions from nay-sayers, she was asking for comments from people who are considering making changes in their own lifestyles and homesteading habits to accomodate climate change.

Why don't you want those folks to have a voice?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bigkat80 said:


> Paumon arent you in Canada? if so your telling me Rabbits cant take the extreme heat of Canada but they thrive here in the cool climate of Louisiana are you serious? Drama meter and Bunk meter seems to be pegged high on that one....LOL
> 
> Get a grip its 72 in vancouver today that is not extreme heat...LOL thats chilly its over hundred in Louisiana today and rabbits are running around bursting into flames...LOL


BK, you have tunnel vision, you need to broaden your horizons. Vancouver is in a teeny tiny little corner of the province on a river delta right on the coast where it's cooled by ocean breezes. It is the most temperate little corner of the province and is insignificant by comparison with the rest of the province. 

Now consider Osoyoos or Kamloops (96 degrees right now) in the mid to southern interior of the province, where much of our water comes from. There the temperatures have been in the 90's for a long time and are forecast to remain so. The entire province is now classified at highest extreme wildfire hazard and there are thousands of lightning strikes and over 300 wildfires burning through the province with people getting evacuated from various places.

Don't focus on one small place that is lush and green in one little corner of our hot, dry province.

:stars:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

I'm all ears die:


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Paumon said:


> Spring started in December and corn was 6 inches tall by mid-February. Farmers here have already gotten 2 hay crops in and will get in a 3rd by mid August and maybe a 4th for silage by November, just like last year. Most of the regular agriculture crops have matured 2 or 3 months earlier than usual this year and the farmer's markets are full to overflowing with produce we wouldn't normally see til September.


It takes a real gambler for a farmer to go out and plant months ahead of the typical dates. 

And for a crop normally taking 125 days to mature, to become mature two to three months ahead of schedule, is miraculous. We have a short growing season, I wish some of those miracle seeds could show up here and sprout and mature at twice the normal rate.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Ed Norman said:


> It takes a real gambler for a farmer to go out and plant months ahead of the typical dates.
> 
> And for a crop normally taking 125 days to mature, to become mature two to three months ahead of schedule, is miraculous. We have a short growing season, I wish some of those miracle seeds could show up here and sprout and mature at twice the normal rate.


LOL. I think you will have to move to the BC lower mainland then if you want that to happen. :hysterical:


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Paumon said:


> BK, you have tunnel vision, you need to broaden your horizons. Vancouver is in a teeny tiny little corner of the province on a river delta right on the coast where it's cooled by ocean breezes. It is the most temperate little corner of the province and is insignificant by comparison with the rest of the province.
> 
> Now consider Osoyoos or Kamloops (96 degrees right now) in the mid to southern interior of the province, where much of our water comes from. There the temperatures have been in the 90's for a long time and are forecast to remain so. The entire province is now classified at highest extreme wildfire hazard and there are thousands of lightning strikes and over 300 wildfires burning through the province with people getting evacuated from various places.
> 
> ...


Again Drama...90's is downright cool here as I said My rabbits are doing just fine...dont tell me the rabbits in Canada cna tke the heat....I tell you what tell me what town you live in and I will look see what the temp is for you......I ambetting its not as hot and humid as here in Bossier city Louisiana...Bet? Thats what this carp is all about half truths and misinformation by the GW church goers...its all been challenged by scientist and they have been ignored...


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Ed Norman said:


> It takes a real gambler for a farmer to go out and plant months ahead of the typical dates.
> 
> And for a crop normally taking 125 days to mature, to become mature two to three months ahead of schedule, is miraculous. We have a short growing season, I wish some of those miracle seeds could show up here and sprout and mature at twice the normal rate.


Its all Lies dude dont try to verify it....OR legitmize it....

Here is the Temp charts for the BC for February\

7.0 -9.5 -8.3 26.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 35 
02&#8224; -6.0 -11.5 -8.8 26.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 39 
03&#8224; -8.5 -10.5 -9.5 27.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 39 
04&#8224; -9.0 -14.5 -11.8 29.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 
05&#8224; -10.0 -19.5 -14.8 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 39 
06&#8224; 1.5 -13.5 -6.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 38 
07&#8224; 4.0 -2.0 1.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36 
08&#8224; 2.0 -3.5 -0.8 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 
09&#8224; -3.0 -13.5 -8.3 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 
10&#8224; -3.0 -10.5 -6.8 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 
11&#8224; -9.5 -17.5 -13.5 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 33 
12&#8224; -7.5 -17.0 -12.3 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 33 
13&#8224; -5.5 -13.0 -9.3 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 32 
14&#8224; 0.0 -9.0 -4.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 32 
15&#8224; 3.0 -2.0 0.5 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 32 
16&#8224; 0.0 -10.5 -5.3 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 30 
17&#8224; 2.5 -3.0 -0.3 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 
18&#8224; 2.5 -3.0 -0.3 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
19&#8224; -6.0 -15.0 -10.5 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
20&#8224; -7.0 -17.5 -12.3 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
21&#8224; -7.5 -19.5 -13.5 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
22&#8224; -9.5 -22.0 -15.8 33.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
23&#8224; 1.0 -20.5 -9.8 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
24&#8224; -1.5 -11.5 -6.5 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 29 
25&#8224; 0.5 -6.0 -2.8 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
26&#8224; 5.0 -6.0 -0.5 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
27&#8224; 2.5 -16.0 -6.8 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 
28&#8224; 2.5 -2.0 0.3 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 
Sum 701.3 0.0 0.0 9.5 9.5 
Avg -2.6 -11.4 -7.02 
aVERAGE HIGH WAS 34 DEGREES fAREHEIGHT...YOU EXPECT US TO BU THAT YOUR CORN SPROUTED THROUGH29 inches of snow...LOL what the heck are you using for fertilizer......

\


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

BK, I don't care what's happening in Louisiana but if you're happy with it then I'm happy for you. I'm more concerned about what's happening in Canada.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...torms_02_08_2010?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories



> August 2, 2010 â The weather pattern keeps repeating itself in the Prairies. By now, it's become a familiar story to people who live in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Isolated severe thunderstorms are bringing torrential downpours, flooding, powerful winds and large hail -- day after day.


http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...sFire_28_07_2010?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories



> August 2, 2010 â Firefighters are facing difficult conditions in the British Columbia interior, where lightning strikes and dry conditions continue to spark fires. As the hot and dry weather persists in B.C., hundreds of fires are burning in the province, and new ones are ignited each day. Lightning, dry ground, steep terrain, wind gusts and heavy smoke are making the fire situation dangerous and difficult.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Paumon said:


> BK, I don't care what's happening in Louisiana but if you're happy with it then I'm happy for you. I'm more concerned about what's happening in Canada.
> 
> http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...torms_02_08_2010?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories
> 
> ...


tHEN stick to those stories cause we know dang well you lose credibility when you try to tell us your corn was six inches tall when the tem was average 36 degrees and 29 icnhes of snow on the ground in Feb in BC....you making stuff up does not help your case....

If I seem to be harsh on you I am sorry but that was not the truth...no way did you have corn 6 inches or even planted in Feb anywhere in BC


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bigkat80 said:


> tHEN stick to those stories cause we know dang well you lose credibility when you try to tell us your corn was six inches tall when the tem was average 36 degrees and 29 icnhes of snow on the ground in Feb in BC....you making stuff up does not help your case....
> 
> If I seem to be harsh on you I am sorry but that was not the truth...no way did you have corn 6 inches or even planted in Feb anywhere in BC


Sorry dude but you're looking in the wrong places again. 

The lower mainland never got ANY snow last winter, not one bit, nor much rain either. Temps were in the 50's and 60's through the winter - remember, the olympics committee had to truck in snow for the olympics events because it was so warm with no snow on the mountain. 

Corn was growing in the lower mainland in February 17th, the hottest day of the month, I took pictures of the corn and hayfields and farms as well as dozens of pictures of the rest of the lower mainland farmlands and I *posted a topic about them here on the Country Families board in March*. 

Here, check it out, go to the link posted there on that topic and look at the pictures. http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=345892


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Sorry dude but you're looking in the wrong places again.
> 
> The lower mainland never got ANY snow last winter, not one bit, nor much rain either. Temps were in the 50's and 60's through the winter - remember, the olympics committee had to truck in snow for the olympics events because it was so warm with no snow on the mountain.
> 
> Corn was growing in the lower mainland in February, I took pictures of the corn and hayfields as well as dozens of pictures of the rest of the lower mainland farmlands and *posted them here on the Country Families board in February*. Would you like me to find the post for you if it hasn't been deleted?


Daily Data Report for February 2010 D
a
y Max Temp
Â°C
Min Temp
Â°C
Mean Temp
Â°C
Heat Deg Days
Â°C
Cool Deg Days
Â°C
Total Rain
mm
Total Snow
cm
Total Precip
mm
Snow on Grnd
cm
Dir of Max Gust
10's Deg
Spd of Max Gust
km/h

01&#8224; -7.0 -9.5 -8.3 26.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 35 
02&#8224; -6.0 -11.5 -8.8 26.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 39 
03&#8224; -8.5 -10.5 -9.5 27.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 39 
04&#8224; -9.0 -14.5 -11.8 29.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 
05&#8224; -10.0 -19.5 -14.8 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 39 
06&#8224; 1.5 -13.5 -6.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 38 
07&#8224; 4.0 -2.0 1.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36 
08&#8224; 2.0 -3.5 -0.8 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 
09&#8224; -3.0 -13.5 -8.3 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 
10&#8224; -3.0 -10.5 -6.8 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 
11&#8224; -9.5 -17.5 -13.5 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 33 
12&#8224; -7.5 -17.0 -12.3 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 33 
13&#8224; -5.5 -13.0 -9.3 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 32 
14&#8224; 0.0 -9.0 -4.5 22.5 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 32 
15&#8224; 3.0 -2.0 0.5 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 32 
16&#8224; 0.0 -10.5 -5.3 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 30 
17&#8224; 2.5 -3.0 -0.3 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 
18&#8224; 2.5 -3.0 -0.3 18.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
19&#8224; -6.0 -15.0 -10.5 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
20&#8224; -7.0 -17.5 -12.3 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
21&#8224; -7.5 -19.5 -13.5 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
22&#8224; -9.5 -22.0 -15.8 33.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
23&#8224; 1.0 -20.5 -9.8 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
24&#8224; -1.5 -11.5 -6.5 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 29 
25&#8224; 0.5 -6.0 -2.8 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
26&#8224; 5.0 -6.0 -0.5 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 
27&#8224; 2.5 -16.0 -6.8 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 
28&#8224; 2.5 -2.0 0.3 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 
Sum 701.3 0.0 0.0 9.5 9.5 
Avg -2.6 -11.4 -7.02 
Xtrm 5.0 -22.0 
i DONT BELEIVE IT NOR WILL i so it would be a waste of time.....THESE FOLKS DONT HAVE AN AGENDA unlike you


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Bigkat80 said:


> Its all Lies dude dont try to verify it....OR legitmize it....


I wasn't trying to. I was wanting some of those miracle Jack in the Beanstalk seeds they have available up there. I could use them here. Imagine germination in those conditions, the soil temp was probably below 30 degrees. 




> aVERAGE HIGH WAS 34 DEGREES fAREHEIGHT...YOU EXPECT US TO BU THAT YOUR CORN SPROUTED THROUGH29 inches of snow...LOL what the heck are you using for fertilizer......
> 
> \


When someone finally decides to believe in AGW, then they have shown themselves capable of believing in anything. In for a penny, in for a pound.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Go look at the pictures, the link is posted above. ..... and here too for good measure:
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=345892


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Go look at the pictures, the link is posted above.


I looked at the Pictures while a very pretty place they dont have any time or date stamps so How am I to know thats Feburary not say june/july or even this year for petes sake...

ETA: i Looked up the fraser Valley the average High Temp this year in Feb was 48.3 degrees F no way did corn sprout at those temps even if they were constant much less with the lows at night...NO WAY I will give you the snow I saw not much snow on the weather site I derived the data from....But NO WAY did Corn sprout at 45-50 Degrees highs


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

I hope this means I can plant them big gourds now and actually get a crop off them.  I so want to grow a big gourd.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

When to Plant
In late spring or early summer, sow seeds in warm, fertile and well-worked soil that contains plenty of nitrogen. Sow early varieties one to two weeks before main season varieties for a longer harvest season. Many gardeners sow their early sweet corn when apple trees are in full bloom.
From Mother earth about planting corn...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bigkat80 said:


> I looked at the Pictures while a very pretty place they dont have any time or date stamps so How am I to know thats Feburary not say june/july or even this year for petes sake...


I really don't like being called a liar BigKat. 

The first group of pictures of Vancouver city itself (note the autumn leaves on the trees) was taken December 15th and all the others starting at Pitt Meadows and touring through the valley were taken February 17th. Note the corn farm in Kent and the size of the corn. The pictures were resized and then posted on March 19th.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Paumon said:


> I really don't like being called a liar BigKat.
> 
> The first group of pictures of Vancouver city itself (note the autumn leaves on the trees) was taken December 15th and all the others starting at Pitt Meadows and touring through the valley were taken February 17th. Note the corn farm in Kent and the size of the corn. The pictures were resized and then posted on March 19th.


I havent seen any proof to the contrary...Corn cannot grow in 48 degrees its physically impossible....it will not germinate and sprout....Cmon give up the ghost.....
I dont know how to tell you this but I was taught to never call someone a liar so I wont...BUt I am Highly dubous of your non plausible story.....


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Bigkat80 said:


> I havent seen any proof to the contrary...Corn cannot grow in 48 degrees its physically impossible....it will not germinate and sprout....Cmon give up the ghost.....
> I dont know how to tell you this but I was taught to never call someone a liar so I wont...BUt I am Highly dubous of your non plausible story.....


Nope. It doesn't matter if you don't believe me because I know you don't want to. And that's okay, that's just you and I understand it's because of your personal grudge. 

But I won't quit here just because you call me on it, there's other folks may be inclined to accept the truth and not convince themselves that I planned some kind of conspiracy to trick you with today when I took those pictures last winter. 

You think it was pretty, well it was very pretty back then in the winter but it isn't so very pretty now. Now it's yellow and brown. Here's what it looks like now because of the heat. These pictures now were taken this July a couple of weeks ago, standing on top of one of the higher ski mountains on the north slope looking south east, south and south west over the whole valley and the city of Vancouver and the bay. 

This is something I've never seen before, ever. There's so much dirty heat haze and dust in the air you can barely even see the mountains on the other side of the valley or on Vancouver Island.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Today was so humid that my underwear hanging on the clothesline is still damp even though it was 80 degrees and sunny. I've never seen that before. This summer has been day after day of high humidity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Corn was growing in the lower mainland in *February 17th, the hottest day of the month*




Weather conditions Feb 17, 2010 Vancouver

http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-short-track-speed-skating/



> Weather: Cloudy
> Air Temperature: 8.3Â°C / 46.9Â°F
> Wind: E at 3.6 m/s
> Humidity: 80%


Thats some powerful corn if it can grow in those temperatures.
No one plants here before April, and we are a LOT warmer than you


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Sorry BFF but that's for Vancouver. It's not for the valley. The valley is wedge shaped with high mountains on 2 sides of the triangle and open ocean on the 3rd side where Vancouver is right on the ocean. There are giant hills that poke up in places all through the eastern end of the valley that shelter the farming areas and create numerous micro-climates throughout the whole valley. 

I don't know if you looked at the pictures I posted of the valley but in Pitt Meadows in the picture of the blueberry plantation those blueberry plants were just starting to put out new leaf buds, and in Kent, the corn farm with Mt. Cheam in the background where you can see the corn shoots coming up - those are 2 of the warmest places in the valley pretty much year round. Pitt Meadows is actually the hottest hot-spot of the valley, you could check the airport temps there if you want to see what the temps were there that week. 

I hope you'll foregive me if I don't do that for you because I already know what it was like here last winter and that's really all that counts. I don't know what kind of corn that was, I just know they grow corn there every year and I know that I'm really enjoying eating the local corn that we're getting right now from all the other farms and I'm grateful for it.


----------



## Sunbee (Sep 30, 2008)

Someone mentioned wondering how warming temperatures can cause worse winters. It's really pretty simple: when the arctic ocean is open, the air coming south carries more moisture and the northern hemisphere gets more snow. This was modeled quite a while ago (1960s) by paleontologists trying to figure out how northern hemisphere glaciation had historically occurred. Look it up in Science, I believe Ewing and Dorn are the authors but my memory might be a bit rusty.
If you live near a lake or ocean you're familiar with the phenomenon already.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I think it's really weird that people are so much in denial about the possibility of a place like this having spring weather in the winter when it's so easy to verify the facts. 

Something else you should know is that we get spring flowers blooming here in February every single year. All the bulbs plants - daffodils, tulips, crocuses, snow drops, the forsythias, even some roses start blooming here in February. That is a verifiable fact. In Victoria it starts even earlier. If the soil and air temperatures are warm enough for those plants to bloom then why might it not be acceptable for other things to be growing as well?

I think some people just need to take their blinkers off and stop thinking there's some kind of great conspiracy going on. All locations are different around the world.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bigkat? You've got blazing rabbits in Louisiana? Really? You're writing like you're having an apoplectic fit about it! Did your keyboard get stuck because of your blazing fingers too? :hysterical:

I sure wasn't wanting to see an arguement get started on this topic. Which was why I posted it in Homesteading Questions btw in the hopes of avoiding the conspiracy nuts getting nasty but I guess Cabin Fever figured he couldn't handle the heat there. Get it? HEAT! Hahahaha! :hysterical:

I have to back up my sister on this since she's telling the truth. If she was mistaken about it I'd correct her on it myself .... and Bigkat, it's not nice to call people liars when you don't know yourself what you're talking about and not familiar with the territory. :nono: 

It was Feb.17, 2010 and the temperature was 17 degrees C. out in the valley - that's *62.6 F*. I know this because I was there taking documentary pictures too. People were walking around in shorts and shirt sleeves, including American visitors there for the Olympics from the southern States. There were leaves budding out on the blueberry bushes, corn shoots growing in Kent, dandelions, daffs and crocuses flowering and *cherry blossoms* starting to come out on some of the ornamental cherry trees on the boulevards. 

Check out the picture of the cherry tree and the story in this CBC news article about the warm weather that month, the article is dated Feb. 15th, 2010. 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-co...15/bc-lower-mainland-record-warm-weather.html

The previous summer (2009) for the lower mainland and the rest of the province had already been the longest and hottest summer on record (temps in the high 90's - low 100's in July/August) followed by the warmest winter in 114 years.

No lie. 

Oh, and Paumon - the tilapia farming idea sounds good to me. :thumb: 

.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

The further north you go them more the temperature/climate is expected to change. That makes me wonder if the more southern states are going to stay closer to what we've experienced for the past 200 years.

This morning I noticed the weather girl noted that this summer the rains have been torrential instead of the usual all day soaking rains we usually have in MN. I wonder if that has something to do with the elevated humidity this summer.


----------



## Bret4207 (May 31, 2008)

Climatic changes are cyclical. Yeah, our weather changes from year to year, decade to decade. Has since time began. This is news? No, what's news is those who believe that man can somehow change the climate. True, you blacktop thousands of acres and you develop a micro climate in that area. But until man paves the Atlantic and Pacific oceans then very little we do will affect the overall climate. Now if you want to talk sustainable agriculture, clean air and water, etc. that's fine. But right now the only people concerned with the climate are the western nations, primarily the US, Canada and some European countries. The big polluters, both "green house gases" and chemical pollution, are China and India and their neighbors. We will never get China to change her ways and they will always be in favor of cutting us off at the knees. So, at this point all the blustering is pretty much a worthless waste of bandwidth, just like this post.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bret4207 said:


> Climatic changes are cyclical. Yeah, our weather changes from year to year, decade to decade. Has since time began. This is news? No, what's news is those who believe that man can somehow change the climate. True, you blacktop thousands of acres and you develop a micro climate in that area. But until man paves the Atlantic and Pacific oceans then very little we do will affect the overall climate. Now if you want to talk sustainable agriculture, clean air and water, etc. that's fine. But right now the only people concerned with the climate are the western nations, primarily the US, Canada and some European countries. The big polluters, both "green house gases" and chemical pollution, are China and India and their neighbors. We will never get China to change her ways and they will always be in favor of cutting us off at the knees. *So, at this point all the blustering is pretty much a worthless waste of bandwidth, just like this post*.


Unless......you can figure out a scam that would make you a boatload of money selling carbon credits and convincing people that, somehow, that's going to save the environment.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Unless......you can figure out a scam that would make you a boatload of money selling carbon credits and convincing people that, somehow, that's going to save the environment.


Oh those can be purchased in advance at Al's One Stop with branch offices near you . Might inquire about Farm Dust Credits and Hc credits can't see Al passing up a crises after all our Thief in Chief needs his cut too :teehee:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Unless......you can figure out a scam that would make you a boatload of money selling carbon credits and convincing people that, somehow, that's going to save the environment.


Jesse Ventura did a TV expose on it.Its being run by this reclusive billionaire who has been setting this scam up for decades and along with the sleazy (ALGORE) style politicians he has in his pocket.

Scientists,working either for the gov directly or indirectly are firmly censored if they have an opposing view.If a gov guy,kiss your carreer goodbye,if a university guy they threaten to withold grant funding,kiss your job goodbye.

Biggest freakin' scam ever,gonna make the economic rape by the wallstreeters look like childs play.

And why not,they pulled off that trillion dollar rape in finances,they KNOW they can pull this rape off too.In spades.

Watch out for that NWO,they exist,and they are out to do US in.

But if you want to believe the propaganda lies you are being spoonfed,and cant think for yourself and study history (Which you are doomed to repeat) that clearly shows the Earths climate is DYNAMIC,never static,then kiss your freedom and wealth goodbye in the name of....OMG!!! GLOBAL WARMING!!!! 

Like we could change it even if we wanted to.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

mightybooboo Yep been it the works a long time . The rich are just playing us like a cat with a mouse :help: They don't want to kill it because then the fun and games would be over .:cowboy:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Well, you know, it's hard to tell around here, since our weather patterns are very unreliable. One winter it's freezing, then Summer's cool, then winter's warm, and summer's hothothot, then winter's frigid, and summer's cool, and sometimes spring is frigid and sometime fall is frigid or hot... So I can't say I'm going to base my opinion on local weather!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Oh, and another thing... I'm always hering "hottest temperatures on record". Well, accurate record keeping only begin the last century or two!!


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, you know, it's hard to tell around here, since our weather patterns are very unreliable. One winter it's freezing, then Summer's cool, then winter's warm, and summer's hothothot, then winter's frigid, and summer's cool, and sometimes spring is frigid and sometime fall is frigid or hot... So I can't say I'm going to base my opinion on local weather!


The reason is simple remember those old coal fired trains how they belched smoke in bursts ?? Well it has took this long for those puffs to do their thing so the break in between puffs thus the changes in temp .:shrug:


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Now wait a second.

Let's say that global warming IS confirmed. Let's just postulate that for a minute. Let's call it a given.

My question. (hopefully you'll answer Naturewoman)

What should we do about it? Serious answers please. If you can't possibly conceive the earth is getting hotter... don't answer.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

mightybooboo said:


> Like we could change it even if we wanted to.


Uummm - that was the whole point for starting this topic. If global warming is happening you can't change it or stop it. 

Whether or not there's some kind of global power scam going on is besides the point. 

If global warming is happening and you can't change it or stop it then what will YOU do to change your own lifestyle to ADAPT yourself to the climate changes?

That was the point of the topic.

.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Uummm - that was the whole point for starting this topic. If global warming is happening you can't change it or stop it.
> 
> Whether or not there's some kind of global power scam going on is besides the point.
> 
> ...


Thanks that is clearer will have to think about that some :bow:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

seedspreader said:


> Now wait a second.
> 
> Let's say that global warming IS confirmed. Let's just postulate that for a minute. Let's call it a given.
> 
> ...


Thank You !! Thank you Seedspreader! :kissy: That's the reason for this topic.

.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Thank You !! Thank you Seedspreader! :kissy: That's the reason for this topic.
> 
> .


I could concieve hot temperatures, what I have a problem concieving is this global warming 'scam'.


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

Hmm.. I also don't believe in global warming. Did a huge paper on it for school... thought I was just going to argue a point I didn't believe (because I really DID believe in global warming until then.). Started doing the research... and now I'm a convert. No way I believe it's happening. And to the pp who said that scientists report unbiased opinions.. I only wish that was true. Grant money has to be won. 

At any rate.. I'm willing to pretend for the sake of the thread, however 



I would have longer growing seasons. YAY! I would maybe have time to grow an entire tomato plant AND get tomatoes on it from seed directly in my garden. YAY! 

I would also have to deal with more insects, and there is a good chance poisonous snakes would finally break across the border into Maine. That wouldn't be so hot.

Overall, though, a warming in my state might be a good thing. I'm not blessed with a growing season that stretches from February :heh: and have to make due with 3 months of summer, fall, winter, and more winter. Oh, then mud season. Maybe there would be less mud as well 

More rainfall would be ok. My garden is planted on a slight hill, and more rainful means less watering. The hill means it drains well, so no flooding there for me. 

Of course, in this scenario how long does it warm up for? Is there a temp when it all stabilizes or does it warm to infinity? Does it cool back down?

Interesting topic, and interesting question. Not sure there is a good answer though.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If global warming is happening and you can't change it or stop it then what will YOU do to change your own lifestyle to ADAPT yourself to the climate changes?


I can't see the point in changing anything because it's *a little over 1 degree *hotter.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

That's the average temperature. If the average changes, it reflects much larger changes. An average change by 1 degree can mean a lot... I think. Anyone have any info on how they get the average?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I can't see the point in changing anything because it's *a little over 1 degree *hotter.


Yes there is set the Ac two degrees lower :lookout:


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's the average temperature. If the average changes, it reflects much larger changes. An average change by 1 degree can mean a lot... I think. Anyone have any info on how they get the average?


They go to Yellowstone in the winter. The geyser temp is 212, the snowbank temp is -12. The average winter temperature in Yellowstone is therefore 100 degrees.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes there is set the Ac two degrees lower


We only cool half the house now.
I spend most of my time outside anyway, so we just cool the upstairs bedrooms


----------



## Bret4207 (May 31, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's the average temperature. If the average changes, it reflects much larger changes. An average change by 1 degree can mean a lot... I think. Anyone have any info on how they get the average?


Also remember most of the measurements are in Celsius not Fahrenheit. Yes, it can mean a lot. It can also mean nothing. Depends on who's doing the measuring and what they want it to mean. 

What to do to prepare? For what? Hotter or colder? Wetter or drier? Massive storms or Biblical proportion or balmy spring days in Feb? Sorry, but that's kind of like asking how to prepare to live. Your best best is to remain flexible and observant.


----------



## MushCreek (Jan 7, 2008)

In the discussion of an assumed warming, the change in sea levels would have a HUGE effect on mankind. Look where all of the population centers are- a huge number of people live right along the coast. Never mind whether the climate is conducive to farming- you're going to lose an incredible amount of acreage, plus you're going to have all the people that USED to live there moving inland. I know that here in FL, even a 5' rise in seal level would wipe out a lot of the state. 25 feet, and there wouldn't be anything south of Orlando.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

seedspreader said:


> Now wait a second.
> 
> Let's say that global warming IS confirmed. Let's just postulate that for a minute. Let's call it a given.
> 
> ...


What should *we* do about it? Do you mean our society? - Just my opinion but I think we as a society need to look ahead to finding more means of protecting and conserving freshwater resources. Even the torrential rain waters as well as the diminishing freshwater ice packs, icebergs. I think we should be collecting it where possible into protected reservoirs. As to rising sea waters encroaching on land, I think digging dikes and canals and providing places where *we* choose for the sea water to go would be easy to do. Heck, it might even be possible to channel the ocean water to create small inland salt seas where farming of marine life could take place, like shrimp and other crustaceans and shell fish and small salt water fish. Just a thought. 

As to what I, on a personal level, as just one individual am doing to adapt to climate change? - I'm just one person, no large family at home anymore and don't have livestock that I need to grow for, plus I often have to pick up and move from one location to another - so I'm a big advocate of mobile container gardening. It's easier for me to nurture and protect plants and trees that can be moved around. I'm talking about really big containers on skids or wheels, not ordinary plant pots. They can be moved to follow the sun through the seasons and they're easier to protect or isolate during extreme weather or disease conditions. Also I'm a HUGE advocate of big greenhouses (which CAN be moved), as well as house solariums that have a lot of holding capacity. Things can be grown in them at different levels above and below and they're both great to have for protecting and growing plants through the winter months.

.


----------



## Bret4207 (May 31, 2008)

naturelover said:


> What should *we* do about it? Do you mean our society? - Just my opinion but I think we as a society need to look ahead to finding more means of *protecting and conserving freshwater resources. Even the torrential rain waters as well as the diminishing freshwater ice packs, icebergs. I think we should be collecting it where possible into protected reservoirs.* As to rising sea waters encroaching on land, I think digging dikes and canals and providing places where *we* choose for the sea water to go would be easy to do. Heck, it might even be possible to channel the ocean water to create small inland salt seas where farming of marine life could take place, like shrimp and other crustaceans and shell fish and small salt water fish. Just a thought.
> 
> As to what I, on a personal level, as just one individual am doing to adapt to climate change? - I'm just one person, no large family at home anymore and don't have livestock that I need to grow for, plus I often have to pick up and move from one location to another - so I'm a big advocate of mobile container gardening. It's easier for me to nurture and protect plants and trees that can be moved around. I'm talking about really big containers on skids or wheels, not ordinary plant pots. They can be moved to follow the sun through the seasons and they're easier to protect or isolate during extreme weather or disease conditions. Also I'm a HUGE advocate of big greenhouses (which CAN be moved), as well as house solariums that have a lot of holding capacity. Things can be grown in them at different levels above and below and they're both great to have for protecting and growing plants through the winter months.
> 
> .



Cool. So tell me, who do you think will own the water?..........


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bret4207 said:


> Cool. So tell me, who do you think will own the water?..........


I don't think that matters because I don't think it will happen in our day and age. When/if it does happen, by that time there will be such a global power struggle for who has fresh water that there will be wars over it. Whichever nation/continent has the most fresh water resources protected will own the world.

.


----------



## 36376 (Jan 24, 2009)

The Climate change and Global Warming theories are just devices for more government control for us. We've had healthcare rammed down our throats for our own good, Financial reform for our own good and now possible legislation to regulate how much energy we can and cannot use for our own good. Raising taxes in this economy for all of these things is good? Do you people who believe this stuff see where it's going? Total and complete control over every aspect of our lives. Yeah, the goverment needs to do something alright... It's done enough already.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Here is my reality...

It's hot here today that is true.. in fact the weather folks predicted it to be _"dangerously hot".. _temps with heat index 116-120..humidity will be close to 100% with the storm moving in...although I would really like to worry about the rest of this nation and even maybe some about Canada's "warming".. what I am really worrying about is making it the 1 hour ride home from work in a car without AC at 3pm...where temps will exceed 120in the car.

As for the Farm and how the "warming' has affected it....

My rabbits were jumping around fine this morning at feeding time...the husband is probably sitting in front of the AC and TV.. not sure if he is fine.. as he dehydrates easily due to kidney disease..again I would like to concern myself with other issues but that is foremost on my mind today..keeping him cool and hydrated. when I left the house it was 92 this morning...but the grandkids were running all over the place just like it was just another day...not a care in the world for them.

The chickens are taking the week off.. they hate the heat and refuse to give me one egg when they are hot.. I don't blame them.. have a good vacation ladies. I haven't seen the dogs and cats and wondered if they might be missing.. not really I know they are just under the house where it is the coolest.

Most of my summer garden is finishing up.. but the okra, beans and sweet potatoes are going crazy.. they love this heat.

So for me at the farm.. all is the same as it is every August.. hot as all get out (another one for you southernors) and everything from people to animals is just doing all they can to keep cool.. and counting down the days ( 48) until fall...

From my POV, this nation is in two wars, over 13 trillion in debt, being invaded by illegal immigration, unemployment was higher this week than expected.. people are really hurting and struggling to make it...we have corruption at every level of government and we are fighting these crooks daily to keep what was always ours.. our freedom. 

Can I imagine the earth heating up? Sure I can... but _why_ do we need to worry about more than all I have posted above.. Why? Especially in this heat?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

ALG, thanks for your post. I deleted some of the extraneous comments from your quote below and I want to stick to addressing the heat-related things you mentioned but first I want to comment on this quote:



Aintlifegrand said:


> _From my POV, this nation is in two wars, over 13 trillion in debt, being invaded by illegal immigration, unemployment was higher this week than expected.. people are really hurting and struggling to make it...we have corruption at every level of government and we are fighting these crooks daily to keep what was always ours.. our freedom._
> 
> _Can I imagine the earth heating up? Sure I can... but why do we need to worry about more than all I have posted above.. Why? Especially in this heat?_


 
The answer to that is that the topic is not about worrying about those things, it's about planning ahead for your own personal, practical purposes. With regards to the state of the nation, the wars, corruption, illegal immigration, maintaining freedom, etc. - those are not concerns that enter into the equation when you're making personal considerations about what YOU will do to enable your family (and animals and plants) *to adapt to increasing heat for longer periods of time*. So, for the purpose of this topic, don't worry about those other things and try to put them out of your mind.



Aintlifegrand said:


> Here is my reality...
> 
> It's hot here today that is true.. in fact the weather folks predicted it to be _"dangerously hot".. _temps with heat index 116-120..humidity will be close to 100% with the storm moving in..... what I am really worrying about is making it the 1 hour ride home from work in a car without AC at 3pm...where temps will exceed 120in the car.
> 
> ...


Because the increasing heat and longer summer conditions might bring you all down to your knees before all those other 'political' things do. 

I noticed you made mention twice of A/C and it sounds as though your husband could be dependent on it at some times for medical reasons. I can relate to that. I have renal problems too and know how heat effects that whether I stay hydrated or not. 2 years ago I visited Missouri in July, temps in 90's, humidity around 86% (something like that anyway), apparently that's normal summer conditions for Missouri and most people rely on A/C in their homes and cars. There was no A/C at the isolated farm where I was visiting and I started going into slow renal failure within a week. I found myself spending most of the time I should have been enjoying doing other things I was spending lying floating for hours submerged to my chin in a creek! I had my meds with me but I still had to cut my visit short by a couple of weeks to avoid an on-coming medical emergency (and from turning into a prune). I was fortunate that I had a minus 10 degrees cooler place and an ocean breeze here to return to, even though there was no A/C to come home to. (A/C is practically unheard of up here in this neck of the woods since there's never been a previous need for it up until recently).

So what would happen with your husband if he was without A/C if electricity shut off (or was rationed) because of too much draw on the grid from too many people's increasing use of A/C for longer periods of time? Is that an eventuality that you can plan ahead for on a practical level without 'worrying' about it? Yes, it is.

You can take this for whatever you think it's worth, but if I was in your southern location and on a farm and I knew the heat was going to get hotter and last longer as time goes by, I'd be thinking about installing one or two earth covered cooling centers somewhere on the property (which is sort of what your cats and dogs have found under the house). If I was going to keep chickens (which I won't) I'd keep white leghorns with the biggest combs and wattles because they're known to be the most heat resistant of chickens, plus they're good layers. And just based on the past year's experience here, I wouldn't count the days until autumn in the hopes it will get much cooler sooner. I did that last year, and although the leaves did start changing to brilliant colors late around November into December, autumn never really came. Days did start getting cooler but the usual rains never came and normal late summer conditions stuck around. For the first time in I don't know how many years the kid's didn't have cold rainy conditions to deal with for Halloween. It was splendid for them. We went from late summer conditions in November straight into early spring conditions in the winter. It _was_ lovely then, mind you, I have to admit that but it wasn't what could be considered normal.

.


----------



## Stann (Jan 2, 2005)

What a waste. Global Warming is a SLOGAN. It isn't a scientific definition. Those scientists who promote it's as an issue are propagandists. So, any attempts to address temperature change today based on any long term temperature TRENDS is a fradulant effort.

There is realistically nothing that anyone can do to change it at this time. Perhaps, some day that will change.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Stann said:


> There is realistically nothing that anyone can do to change it at this time. Perhaps, some day that will change.


Yeah, we've already established that in this topic. 

Forget about the politics and scientists and propaganda issues. 

The question is how will you personally adapt to warming if it IS happening? What about YOU?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The question is how will you personally adapt to warming if it IS happening?


We will all sweat a little more.
Other than that, it's just a normal Interglacial cycle

I think you're putting FAR too much importance on a few years of temperature changes in a cycle that can run as long as *100,000 *years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age



> The Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that "the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years," but this has been called into question recently. For example, an article in Nature[31] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I can bear (pun) a little extra heat, although a consistent lack of rain could prove devastating. Green fields, then deserts! I sure hope global warming really is just global whining, otherwise, we be in big trouble. I will start yelling at the cows every time they poop and produce methane, too. (Actually, the methane is more prevalent in feedlot beef, small producers don't have to worry about their cows as Greenhouse Gassers.)


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

When this thread opened I started adjusting the FAQ I made for the staff that always asks me question for this, but I want to be uber factual and it is taking forever. I'm also writing down the "experiential tour" I usually give verbally to newer science majors for you all to follow. Very eye opening and super fun. It is taking a while though since saying it is far easier than writing it! 

I'll probably start a new thread for it because I'm bushed from a heck of a work week. That is, is anyone interested in it or the FAQ? It goes back to about 5 Ga...5 billion years ago. It may really clear some stuff up and put it in perspective but only if you're interested.

Oh, and I wouldn't worry quite so much about it all. In 1.1 billion years we'll actually move out of the life zone for our sun due to slight swelling. No volatiles will survive that..meaning no water. Even the bones of the last things alive will be dust from having the water taken from it. In the long term, all things pass.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

naturelover said:


> I don't think that matters because I don't think it will happen in our day and age. When/if it does happen, by that time there will be such a global power struggle for who has fresh water that there will be wars over it. *Whichever nation/continent has the most fresh water resources protected will own the world.
> *.


I disagree with the bolded portion the real answer will be the nation with the ability to militarily take it will own the world.....


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

ChristyACB said:


> I'll probably start a new thread for it because I'm bushed from a heck of a work week. That is, *is anyone interested in it or the FAQ?* It goes back to about 5 Ga...5 billion years ago. It may really clear some stuff up and put it in perspective but only if you're interested.


Yes, whenever you get around to it, that would be interesting to me.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bigkat80 said:


> > *Whichever nation/continent has the most fresh water resources protected will own the world.*
> 
> 
> I disagree with the bolded portion the real answer will be the nation with the ability to militarily take it will own the world.....


It's the same thing BK. 

.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

ChristyACB said:


> When this thread opened I started adjusting the FAQ I made for the staff that always asks me question for this, but I want to be uber factual and it is taking forever. I'm also writing down the "experiential tour" I usually give verbally to newer science majors for you all to follow. Very eye opening and super fun. It is taking a while though since saying it is far easier than writing it!
> 
> I'll probably start a new thread for it because I'm bushed from a heck of a work week. That is, is anyone interested in it or the FAQ? It goes back to about 5 Ga...5 billion years ago. It may really clear some stuff up and put it in perspective but only if you're interested.
> 
> *Oh, and I wouldn't worry quite so much about it all.* In 1.1 billion years we'll actually move out of the life zone for our sun due to slight swelling. No volatiles will survive that..meaning no water. Even the bones of the last things alive will be dust from having the water taken from it. In the long term, all things pass.


Well, as I don't believe the earth is that old; I'm a young earth believer. I'm not concerned about 1 billion, 1 million, or even 1,000 years in the future.:bored:


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

If you are really that worried about global warming, whether manmade (false) or natural cycles (true), here is how you can adapt. Look to the south of your place enough miles to a spot with a one degree greater average temperature. Or, you could use elevation. We went fishing yesterday at 2100' elevation and it was 101 degrees and the night was 80. We got home this afternoon at 5 and at 5000' it is 73 and the night will be 49.

Where we went fishing, they grow a huge variety of fruits and vegetables that don't survive here. Just a bit south of here, farmers get an extra cutting, sometimes two, of hay. There won't be a big problem here.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

naturelover said:


> It's now been confirmed. Global warming is a fact and the Earth is hotter than ever and getting hotter, causing extreme winters and extreme summers.


Duhh, It's been getting increasingly hotter for the last 10,000 years when the glaciers that covered most of America started melting and retreating,

They are due to start coming back and cover Canada, the great lakes and half of America again in another 10-30k years.

The climate is always changing either getting hotter or getting colder... Has been for the history of the earth and will be until the earth is swallowed by the sun.

There isn't going to be enough change in my lifetime to make any difference in my plans.


----------



## Cindy in KY (May 10, 2002)

Don't know if any of you saw this or not, reported yesterday. Not so good news I guess.


 biggest glacier collapse in recorded history


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Cindy in KY said:


> Don't know if any of you saw this or not, reported yesterday. Not so good news I guess.
> 
> 
> biggest glacier collapse in recorded history


I hadn't seen that, thanks for posting that. No, that is not good news.

We had a glacier collapse here yesterday too, with near drastic consequences. It happened only about 100 miles from here up in Pemberton, just a little north of where some of the olympics events were held at Whistler. A collapsing glacier broke away from high up in a mountain and triggered a massive rock slide on the unstable slope of a dormant volcano. It diverted a river, blocked a creek and piled up rubble that created an unstable dirt dam with water pooling behind it directly above the valley and town of Pemberton. I think it was a miracle that the rubble created the unstable dam, otherwise the diverted river would have instantly come roaring down on the town below. It caused officials to issue an overnight evacuation alert for more than 5,000 people. It would have been awful if the rubble and dirt dam broke in the middle of the night and flooded the Pemberton valley while people were sleeping.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/p...ier+triggers+massive+slide/3370064/story.html​ 
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/O...ng+after+massive+landslide/3372730/story.html​ 
.​


----------



## Cindy in KY (May 10, 2002)

Oh WOW. Not good. "The sheer size of the slide â the largest recorded since they started being tracked over 100 years ago. At least 100 million cubic meters."

That just changed the face of the country up there. Wow.

Another record. These 2 following the hottest summer on record for the US. 

I know June was the hottest on record for KY. The heat is still here. We are running 10 degrees over normal, even now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I hadn't seen that, thanks for posting that. No, *that is not good news*.


LOL Why all the *melodrama* over a NATURAL event that's been happening forever?

All the HYPE about it being the "biggest in recorded history" is pure BS, since it's only been in the last 50 years we've had the technology to SEE it and measure it *accurately*.

It's a piece of *ice*. 
Nothing more


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Global warming is a fact and the *Earth is hotter than ever *


No it's NOT "hotter than ever"
Why keep repeating a fantasy?
You're picking up bad habits on that little bus

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=lbZdTK2BIIGClAfb55SZCA&ved=0CCkQ9QEwBQ

*Accurate *records only go back about* 150 years*


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

150 years??? So 'Hottest on record!' means nothing.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

We've always enjoyed watching PBS over the years. But lately, it seems you cannot watch a program w/out global warming being mentioned at some point. Cooking programs, travel programs, even art programs are talking about it........so much so, that one has to *suspect* that it is intentional propaganda. That is, if one didn't know about the National Endowment for the Arts conference call scandal last year. 

Clearly however, that scandal along w/ the climategate scandal has done nothing to deter them from their mission of cramming the issue down everyone's throats. It's impossible to get away from it.

As I told a friend recently, they (this administration) has made EVERYTHING political.....even right down to the food we eat. I, for one, am sick of it and sick of the propaganda.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a piece of *ice*.
> Nothing more


No, you are missing the irony of it, it's not just a simple piece of ice. It's an essential life-saving commodity that we can't do without. It's a huge chunk of fresh water that holds enough water to keep United States public tap water flowing for 4 months. It could keep Canadian tap water flowing for 40 months. That is a lot of fresh water that is now going to waste, as are all the other glaciers that are disintegrating and melting away into the oceans where they'll cause more harm than good. The smart thing to do would be for people to arrange to start breaking it up into pieces that can be transported to fresh water reservoirs and protected, to be used for human, livestock and agricultural consumption.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That is a lot of fresh water that is now going to waste,


LOL

It's not "going to waste" since no one ever had any plan to USE it.

And it hasn't "GONE" anywhere. It just moved over a little bit



> The smart thing to do would be for people to arrange to start breaking it up into pieces that can be transported to fresh water reservoirs and protected, to be used for human, livestock and agricultural consumption.


Yeah, let's spend a few billion $ to move it somewhere so it can evaporate faster.

The end result is the same. The *amount *of water on Earth doesn't change. It just moves around.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> glaciers that are disintegrating and melting away into the oceans where they'll *cause more harm than good*


Other than a possible hazard to ships, just exactly what "harm" are you referring to?
Please be specific


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

naturelover said:


> No, you are missing the irony of it, it's not just a simple piece of ice. It's an essential life-saving commodity that we can't do without. It's a huge chunk of fresh water that holds enough water to keep United States public tap water flowing for 4 months. It could keep Canadian tap water flowing for 40 months. That is a lot of fresh water that is now going to waste, as are all the other glaciers that are disintegrating and melting away into the oceans where they'll cause more harm than good. The smart thing to do would be for people to arrange to start breaking it up into pieces that can be transported to fresh water reservoirs and protected, to be used for human, livestock and agricultural consumption.
> 
> .



I absolutely respect everyone's opinion, but I have to admit that your post gave me a chuckle.

All I can imagine here is that the ice will eventually melt, the water will evaporate, and it will come down as rain somewhere.. as usual. Not sure how it's going to waste.

And isn't the entire Global warming debate, along with many other environmental issues, about how HUMANS have destroyed natural processes? Well.. an iceberg breaking off and into the ocean to melt is a natural process as well. By shipping it somewhere else to melt and provide water where it shouldn't have been aren't we AGAIN interrupting nature, and destroying something that should have happened in another way? Aren't we increasing salinity (albeit in a microscopic way), killing fish, etc etc etc all due to our interference? 

Not arguing for the group that says hands off, btw. Just making a point that it can't go both ways. You can't argue that humans have caused all sorts of problems by our interference, then argue that we should make use of that supposed destruction to correct other issues that are as nature intended.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Its the biggest collapse since recorded history if recorded history only goes back to 1962? Oops..another doomsday sky is falling fallacy. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...klargerthanmanhattanbreaksoffgreenlandglacier


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> It's not "going to waste" since no one ever had any plan to USE it.
> And it hasn't "GONE" anywhere. It just moved over a little bit
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> Other than a possible hazard to ships, just exactly what "harm" are you referring to?
> Please be specific


Nobody had any plan to use it before global warming started changing the climate and effecting fresh water resources. You are correct that the melted glacial water doesn't go away and the amount of water on Earth doesn't change, but the quality of the water _does_ change. You can't drink sea water and I think it will cost more to create global desalination & purification plants in the future than what it would cost now to transport and conserve fresh water ice to underground or covered reservoirs for human consumption. 

With regard to the ice doing harm to the oceans, I hope ChristyACB with her oceanographic knowledge will chime in here with an explanation because she understands the principles of it better than I do. But basically speaking, when all the glacial fresh water melts into the ocean it changes the salinity and ph levels of the ocean waters and also effects the way the ocean waters circulate. That in turn effects the precipitation of ocean evaporates, it changes both the predictable and non-predictable weather events even more, (witness Russia's drought, Canada's torrential prairie rains and hail, and the Pakistan monsoon floods disaster happing right now), it alters the ocean temperatures and it alters the marine life around the world, including destroying a lot of microscopic marine life that is essential to the continuance of all living things on earth. *That *is the hazard. It is because of what is changing in the oceans now that the earth and atmosphere is experiencing rapid warming along with the rapid warming of the oceans.

You know, it really is a shame about the deletion of that 13 page topic we had here last year when I explained about all the changes and hazards that are happening in the oceans now and how it's effecting the land. There were a lot of references and material of scientific and factual findings posted there and I sure as heck am not going to go looking for all of it again just so it can be deleted again when you guys manage to derail this topic.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> It is because of what is changing in the oceans now that the earth and atmosphere is experiencing rapid warming along with the rapid warming of the oceans.
> .


I ain't so good with graphs. Please point out the rapid warming part?










http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/global-sea-surface-temperature-update-the-cooling-continues/


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

QoTL - Blissfully Unaware said:


> I absolutely respect everyone's opinion, but I have to admit that your post gave me a chuckle.
> 
> *All I can imagine *here is that the ice will eventually melt, the water will evaporate, and it will come down as rain somewhere.. as usual. Not sure how it's going to waste.


:shocked:

:sob: :awh: 

And there we have the blissfully unaware :zzz: attitude of so many people encapsulated right there in a nutshell, expressed by someone who admits to being "Blissfully Unaware" and even has it posted under her name.

Oh my gosh, the irony and tragedy of it all ..... and on a homesteading forum yet.

Naturelover, I agree with one thing the naysayers, political conspiracists and 'head in the sand' ostriches are saying. 

*You should give it up*. This is not the right kind of website or forum to be attempting to discuss a matter like this. They've all got too many other life and death worries on their plates to consider anyway. The possibility of baking to crisps, starving and dehydrating to death because they didn't think ahead is not another worry they want to have heaped on their plates. 

Besides which, most of them don't even like you and wouldn't consider what you have to say anyway even if they thought there was some truth to it.

Take my advice and :run:


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

Paumon said:


> :shocked:
> 
> :sob: :awh:
> 
> ...



Wow, here I was all respectful, and you had to throw rotten tomatoes.

Sad.



There was a time when I believed in Global warming.


Educating myself on the facts instead of the propaganda changed my mind.




And once again, no rotten tomatoes from me. I don't have to be mean when I know I'm in the right. You might want to look at your own motives.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Besides which, most of them don't even like you and wouldn't consider what you have to say anyway even if they thought there was some truth to it.


I "like" *her* just fine, but I don't believe a lot of the *fantasies* she's putting forth.

There is nothing at all unusual about the ice melting and pieces breaking off glaciers, and to pretend it's some kind of ELE is just HYPE.

The DATA doesn't back the rhetoric.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Again, when you jump all over a posting that states "Biggest Glacier Collapse in Recorded History" but the actual collapse of the Peterson glacier is the biggest since 1962 according to the news link you lose any credibility.

It has nothing to do with like or dislike Pauman but number one, all you can do is act locally; your not going to stop AGW is its true so why get your knickers knotted up about it? Number 2, there have been so many headlines and sensationalist reporting that it comes across as a religion, not science. Scientists debate, their hypothesis are open to peer review, and they can be replicated. What yoiu are fawning over is a bunch of pseudo scientists who lable non-believers as "deniers". Sounds more like blind faith religion than science to me. And number 3, follow the money trail...your AGW heros generally stand to gain from this constant stream of "the sky is falling" headlines.

I dont think anyone is for pollution and we may be experiencing climate change but some of the cures you espouse are not only fanciful dreaming (Canada and the US cant agree on much, how are you going to get 180 coutries to sign on in a meaningful way) they are often worse than the ailment.

Just do what you can in your little sphere and dont be surprised when your so called headlines are shot down...the headline about the glacier collapse being the biggest..worst..whatever in recorded history was patently false and I even provided you a link (there are more..like that bastion of AGW deniers CNN). But then that doesnt fit your neat view that the world is coming to an end, we are all going to burn to a crisp, die of dehydration, drown from massive flooding, etc.

Whatever truth there is to AGW or just general global warming has been lost in a sea of false prophets.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

salmonslayer said:


> Again, when you jump all over a posting that states "Biggest Glacier Collapse in Recorded History" but the actual collapse of the Peterson glacier is the biggest since 1962 according to the news link you lose any credibility.
> 
> It has nothing to do with like or dislike Pauman but number one, all you can do is act locally; your not going to stop AGW is its true so why get your knickers knotted up about it? Number 2, there have been so many headlines and sensationalist reporting that it comes across as a religion, not science. Scientists debate, their hypothesis are open to peer review, and they can be replicated. What yoiu are fawning over is a bunch of pseudo scientists who lable non-believers as "deniers". Sounds more like blind faith religion than science to me. And number 3, follow the money trail...your AGW heros generally stand to gain from this constant stream of "the sky is falling" headlines.
> 
> ...


Very well said.
:clap::clap:


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Sorry...but with tropical activity I've been working most of the weekend. One more warning on Colin then he's kaput too.

I'm working on this thing but it is taking forever. It's pages and pages. 

As for the glacier, the temps, all of it. Well...everyone is correct to some extent.

The world has been hotter than this many times. And the Holocene Climate Optimum..or Holocene Ideal...was actually about 1 deg c warmer than this. It roughly coincides with an episodic period of global warming that happens when the end of an ice age comes and sea level rises rapidly. 

It also coincides with the beginning of human civilized history. Ironically, it was that very global warming that allowed humans to live in large groups for the first time. Prior to that groups were restricted in size and had to carve out a substantial territory to survive well by migrating (most of the time) over that territory. It also coincides with the rise of religion as people had time and leisure to think...hmmm...wonder why all this is like this. We got smarter due to better diets with fatter animals around and all sort of good things.

So...one might suspect that periods of global warming are a net positive, right?

Umm..nope. Not anymore. Because we've changed the nature of the planet with a populations so much staggeringly larger, the opposite is occurring. The last warming period left the glaciers at the poles largely alone. They are stratified like uplifted land you can read when you drive your car through a pass cut through. From satellites you can see their lovely variations and in real life, they look like modern mad art with their colors and striations. Calving leaves defined scars that can be seen for millions of years so we know where and when things calved.

Calving has, in the past, been largely of smaller edges. Not huge chunks. This is new. And when calving occurs the albedo goes down and the adsorption goes up. Shortwave radiation can reach the surface in greater amounts sending back out longwave radiation which also serves to heat.

We are in an Ice House climate now. Did you know that? The last time was many hundreds of millions of years ago. Can you see the connection?

Ice House phases...like that previous one...gave rise to variation and wide spread life. Albeit only in oceans. Life has actually evolved on this planet...in its simplest and most primitive form...on multiple occasions only to die out. There are lovely fossil scars that bear no relation to life today. But the Ice house gave rise to Hadley cells, Walker circulation (or rather the last iteration of it) and, in essence, allowed heat distribution throughout the planet. 

By the time it went away life had taken hold and found niches and strength to weather it. But it was a slow and agonizing process that was helped simply by the land being where it was and a rocky shoreline just so. Very lucky.

Then we had more of the hell planet and nothing as cool as us or our quick thinking forebears evolved in that. Too hot.

Then we entered a new Ice House and life became wonderful and varied and spectacular. Now we're going out of it. The holocene is the last hurrah. You know, we can't survive hell planet. No, nor can any of those things that we rely on to live. Not grass, not trees not mammals of any kind. Not tomatoes or carrots. Not even the bacteria in our gut.

The quicker we leave the wiggle...which is what this Holocene is...a wiggle on the temperature chart between climates, the quicker we enter a new and very dark phase in existence. I, for one, want everyone to keep things as COOL as possible for as long as possible and give the Ice House a nudge towards the couch. Ask it to stay a while and have a beer.

It won't happen in your lifetime or mine or even our children's, but it will happen. We are lucky in that the planet core is slowing down some and producing less energy from inside. We are unlucky in that our sun get's a little brighter and stronger every day and our planet a little slower in rotation. Will it all balance out so that we never have the true hell planet again but only a little hell that maybe whatever we become can survive? Who knows. I do know this. Smart things don't develop or maintain the hot phases of our world. That is a given. Too much heat on the inside for that. So, whatever our childrens progeny become, they won't be aware of it.

I personally, grieve for the loss of the big glaciers.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Glaciers are constantly calving. Contrary to the concern, you're seeing basic physics in operation. A growing glacier constantly adds depth. The buildup in the weight of the ice forces the glacier to expand downhill to the sea and out onto the sea. As the ice continues to expand out from the shore it is subject to stress caused by rising and falling tides.

Compare it to a sledge hammer. Pick up a sledge hammer by the handle at the head. Keep the faces of the head straight up and down. Now move your hand back towards the end of the handle a little bit at a time. If you can hold the handle at the end and still keep the head straight up and down, then extend your arm. At some point most folks will let the head drop.

At some point once the ice extends far enough from the land the stress breaks it off from the main body of the glacier. Otherwise, do you think glaciers would grow forever? Physics says no. There you have it. It's Newtonian physics at work. One less thing to lose sleep over. 

If anything is a real threat to mankind, I'd vote for a super volcano. When, and it's only a matter of time, the next one blows, those of us above ground are in for a miserable time .... if we survive.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Darren said:


> Glaciers are constantly calving. Contrary to the concern, you're seeing basic physics in operation. A growing glacier constantly adds depth. The buildup in the weight of the ice forces the glacier to expand downhill to the sea and out onto the sea. As the ice continues to expand out from the shore it is subject to stress caused by rising and falling tides.
> 
> Compare it to a sledge hammer. Pick up a sledge hammer by the handle at the head. Keep the faces of the head straight up and down. Now move your hand back towards the end of the handle a little bit at a time. If you can hold the handle at the end and still keep the head straight up and down, then extend your arm. At some point most folks will let the head drop.
> 
> ...


That's a bit of an oversimplification. And yes, they do calve regularly. But they do it in a different manner. Scars from large calvings are rare in the past. The land beneath the south pole has been pushed down by the weight of the ice above also. And the extent of ice versus it's depth is another matter, as it its composition and the number of "rotten" spots it has. A whole host of factors play a role in what happens with ice.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Darren said:


> Glaciers are constantly calving. Contrary to the concern, you're seeing basic physics in operation. A growing glacier constantly adds depth. .


This may have been true while glaciers were growing but they aren't growing anymore now. They're receding and rotting and breaking up as they disintegrate. Glacial rot is occuring in mountains all around the world now. Like the one that broke apart in Pemberton last Friday.

.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

From over ten years ago, Rhode Island sized chunk of ice breaks off. And now we're worried about one the size of Manhattan? It's physics my Dear Watson. Simply physics. No more. No less.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/18/iceberg/


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Darren said:


> From over ten years ago, Rhode Island sized chunk of ice breaks off. And now we're worried about one the size of Manhattan? It's physics my Dear Watson. Simply physics. No more. No less.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/18/iceberg/


What's the similarity? It didn't break away from some ice shelf as you are trying to imply, it was a grounded berg that became ungrounded. How is a grounded berg that floats free after thousands of years of being grounded the same thing as a glacial shelf that rots and breaks off? What occurred to cause the grounded berg to float free? 

Could it be that it was because it was .... :shocked: melting!! :shocked:

:hrm:

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> This may have been true while glaciers were growing but they aren't growing anymore now. They're receding and rotting and breaking up as they disintegrate. Glacial rot is occuring in mountains all around the world now. Like the one that broke apart in Pemberton last Friday.
> 
> .


Here's a list of 1180 glaciers which are advancing and growing. Most of them are in Canada. 

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/AdvancingGlaciers.htm


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

You all know this is totally pointless.

Arguing with people who think dinosaur bones were left by god as a test of faith about the future of the planet is pointless. Arguing with people whose answer to destruction of resources is that their god will come and sweep them up to sing kumbaya flat on their faces for all eternity just before it all runs out is pointless. Arguing with people who can't imagine that pooping on their dinner plate isn't healthy is pointless. Arguing with people who, for the life of them, can't seem to get that abusing the planet (regardless of the outcome of that abuse) isn't actually that different from pooping on their plate is pointless.

If iron isn't made any more: then don't mine it all and leave some for the next.
If oil isn't being made as fast as it's taken out: don't take it all and find another way.
If fresh water resources are being used and not handled properly; handle it properly and leave it better than you found it.
If there's poison in the land, in the water, in the air; then don't buy from those that put it there.

Why is this so hard? Why is arguing over a single ice shelf somehow the hingepin on whether or not you should be an overuser with no consequences or conserver who cares about consequences?

Geez.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Here's a list of 1180 glaciers which are advancing and growing. Most of them are in Canada.
> 
> http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/AdvancingGlaciers.htm


And here is the information (plus graphs and pictures) about the many, many more glaciers that are retreating or have already retreated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

ChristyACB said:


> You all know this is totally pointless.
> 
> Arguing with people who think dinosaur bones were left by god as a test of faith about the future of the planet is pointless. Arguing with people whose answer to destruction of resources is that their god will come and sweep them up to sing kumbaya flat on their faces for all eternity just before it all runs out is pointless. Arguing with people who can't imagine that pooping on their dinner plate isn't healthy is pointless. Arguing with people who, for the life of them, can't seem to get that abusing the planet (regardless of the outcome of that abuse) isn't actually that different from pooping on their plate is pointless.
> 
> ...



That one got saved in a document.:thumb:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

ChristyACB said:


> You all know this is totally pointless.......
> 
> Why is arguing over a single ice shelf somehow the hingepin on whether or not you should be an overuser with no consequences or conserver who cares about consequences?
> 
> Geez.


I don't know why it got into people are arguing over an ice shelf. 

The topic was supposed to be about what individuals might plan to do for themselves and their homes and livestock on a personal level to adapt to changing climate and global warming.

It just seems like a lot of people don't want to think about accepting any responsibility for looking after themselves and would rather just argue pointlessly.

Maybe the heat is already addling people's heads. 

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> And here is the information (plus graphs and pictures) about the many, many more glaciers that are retreating or have already retreated.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
> 
> .


I wasn't referring to receding glaciers. Many of them are. But you have a knack for stating universal truths, and then I find exceptions, which prove the universal false. Here were your words:



> This may have been true while glaciers were growing but they aren't growing anymore now. They're receding and rotting and breaking up as they disintegrate.


And I quickly found 1180 glaciers, all over the world, which are growing. Do we cast those glaciers and their growth aside because they don't fit into your agenda, or do we mention that some glaciers are receding, some are growing? 

You have your agenda of doom and gloom, I'm looking out the window at a beautiful slice of Idaho and enjoying my life.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

naturelover said:


> I don't know why it got into people are arguing over an ice shelf.
> 
> The topic was supposed to be about what individuals might plan to do for themselves and their homes and livestock on a personal level to adapt to changing climate and global warming.
> 
> ...


 Wait till they see what the end of the Ice House does to the brains of their descendants. That will be an interesting monkey show.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> I wasn't referring to receding glaciers. Many of them are. But you have a knack for stating universal truths, and then I find exceptions, which prove the universal false. Here were your words:
> 
> And I quickly found 1180 glaciers, all over the world, which are growing. Do we cast those glaciers and their growth aside because they don't fit into your agenda, or do we mention that some glaciers are receding, some are growing?
> 
> You have your agenda of doom and gloom, I'm looking out the window at a beautiful slice of Idaho and enjoying my life.


Good enough. Now does that same site have a list of retreating glaciers?

No, forget that. I don't really want to know more about glaciers anyway. I already know what's happening with them. Even on a personal level by looking out my window and seeing a beautiful slice of BC mountains with no more glaciers on them where they used to be 5 years ago. And that's okay. I'm not all gloomy and doomy about that. It's still beautiful and it will still be beautiful when I'm gone. 

What I would like to see discussed, and have said this repeatedly, is how are other people planning to adapt to warming according to their personal circumstances and locations?

Only a few people have given any consideration to the question. Why is this such a difficult question for other people to think about without arguing?

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

ChristyACB said:


> Wait till they see what the end of the Ice House does to the brains of their descendants. That will be an interesting monkey show.


No kidding, eh?

I think we are already starting to see the first act in the monkey show. Comprehension levels seem to be sinking rapidly. 

.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> What's the similarity? It didn't break away from some ice shelf as you are trying to imply, it was a grounded berg that became ungrounded. How is a grounded berg that floats free after thousands of years of being grounded the same thing as a glacial shelf that rots and breaks off? What occurred to cause the grounded berg to float free?


 Sorry Naturelover, you didnt do your research again. The link talked about an iceberg that broke off of the Thwaites Ice Tongue (an extension of an ice shelf) in Antarctica in 1992 and then later broke in two. just like 1964 isnt the beginning of recorded history, 1992 isnt thousands of years old and if you read any of the links below from NASA, NOAA or WISC EDU you will note that at best the ice is a couple hundred years old, it wasnt a "grounded iceberg thousands of years old" and according to NOAA and NASA its not linked to warming in the area...those fly by night operations say its a natural progression of advancing glaciers. But I am sure your not interested in substantive conversations or evaluating what may actually be going on.

There is plenty of evidence of climate change regardless of the cause but most of the evidence I see is so patently false its like mental high fructose corn syrup.

http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/icebergfaq.html#A

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Ninnis/

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases99/aug99/noaa99r319.html


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> It's still beautiful and it will still be beautiful when I'm gone.


exactly



> What I would like to see discussed, and have said this repeatedly, is how are other people planning to adapt to warming according to their personal circumstances and locations?
> 
> Only a few people have given any consideration to the question. Why is this such a difficult question for other people to think about without arguing?
> 
> .


We just came out of a long drought a few years ago. We did fine. That's how we'll deal with it. I really don't think it is that difficult. People in Saudi Arabia and the Kalihari Desert can deal with the heat and lack of moisture. There are various gradients of less heat and more moisture over the rest of the world, people deal with their conditions there. And sometimes, people move from a place with one weather pattern to another with vastly different conditions and quickly adapt. For goodness sake, it is summer now. In a few months, I'll be wearing a heavy coat every day and the wind will try to freeze my ears off. That has happened to me for decades and I still have my ears and I still remember to take off that heavy coat each spring. People are highly adaptable.

The monkey house doom and gloom scenario must be a comfort to you. Woe is us. Sky is falling.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

salmonslayer said:


> Sorry Naturelover, you didnt do your research again. The link talked about an iceberg that broke off of the Thwaites Ice Tongue (an extension of an ice shelf) in Antarctica in 1992 and then later broke in two. just like 1964 isnt the beginning of recorded history,.......


I read the link. It said it had been a grounded berg thousands of years old that would melt in 3 months when it floated free. I don't want to do any more research about icebergs and broken ice shelves. I don't care about that one from 1992 or the one that just broke off Greenland, and I don't care about the size of it. I said "_*that is not good news*_" when the information about the Greenland break was posted by somebody else. That was all I said about it. Then I said I think it should be getting harvested instead of being allowed to just melt away into the ocean.

Twice now you have made reference (apparently directed at me) about 1964 not being the beginning of recorded history. Why? Nowhere in this topic have I implied anything about 1964 being the beginning of recorded history so where are you getting that from and what is it in reference to?

.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

naturelover said:


> I don't know why it got into people are arguing over an ice shelf.
> 
> The topic was supposed to be about what individuals might plan to do for themselves and their homes and livestock on a personal level to adapt to changing climate and global warming.
> 
> ...


The thing is the climate isn't going to change enough to have to adapt in our lifetime even under the worst case scenario the IPCC has put forward.

As for the Ice, it's a natural cycle for the planet to warm until there is no ice in the arctic, it is going to happen whether we speed it up some or not.

Climate is an ever changing thing, a decade long severe drought like the one that caused the dust bowl in the 1930's could happen again, or not, and C02 emissions had nothing to do with that. Climate change is real, as it is always changing with or without us. Even if we inspire no change it will keep changing regardless.

As for pollution, C02 is not pollution, nor is it poison, it is required for life on earth. Better to worry about resource consumption, overpopulation and fresh water depletion, things that really do affect us now, and we can do something about.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Thank you for your post.


Ed Norman said:


> The monkey house doom and gloom scenario must be a comfort to you. Woe is us. Sky is falling.


The prospect of the future monkey house scenario is hilarious to me. I can just imagine the gods laughing themselves out of their ring side seats. 

No woe for me and I don't see the sky falling, however I would like to see some more rain falling because the smoke from the fires is covering the sun and making me cough. 

Wanna see some new pictures taken 2 days ago of what this city looks like now swathed in smoke drifted down from the interior? I'm wondering if any of that smoke has reached you in Idaho yet?

.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Twice now you have made reference (apparently directed at me) about 1964 not being the beginning of recorded history. Why? Nowhere in this topic have I implied anything about 1964 being the beginning of recorded history so where are you getting that from and what is it in reference to?


 Sorry, when the link was posted I took you as just accepting it at face value when it wasnt even what was being reported. Its just an example of people getting worked up over false information. As for the ice berg, it was a berg from 1992 off of an ice shelf just like Greenland and to me it is yet another example of something real being turned into what it is not.

Part of the problem with what your asking is that we all can only do something locally and incrementally. The doom and gloom scenarios are so incremental and the worst of them so far beyond our lifespan that its a hard question to answer without accepting absolute worse case scenarios. Looking out your window or reading todays thermometer is not a realistic measure of global climate change....its 90 degrees right now at 20:22 at my place...I know its hot but is that a measure of anything more than my local weather pattern right now?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> Part of the problem with what your asking is that we all *can only do something locally and incrementally*.


That is precisely my point. 

But I don't see why that is presenting as a problem for people when it could be something for individuals to be thinking and planning ahead for instead of arguing about how wrong everyone else is.

I noticed that somebody forward-thinking has posted a topic in S&EP about an idea to put in a catch-water containment system under the greenhouse they're building. The purpose is so that there will be water available to help keep the greenhouse warmer during winter and also provide un-frozen water for small livestock. It's just an idea in the making but to me that is somebody using their noodle and thinking ahead about future possibilities to make things easier for themself.

Then I see somebody else who's concerned about the health of a spouse who is dependent on air conditioning in the hot summer due to health reasons. And I think to myself -what happens to the spouse if the A/C is not available because of overload? Why not think about implementing an alternative now instead of waiting until it's too late? But they don't want to think ahead about anything they *can* personally as an individual do something about because of being too wrapped up in thinking about political affairs and conspiracies that they *cannot* personally as an individual do anything about. 

I think the person building the water containment system underground beneath their greenhouse will live longer and healthier than the persons who won't think about putting in an underground cooling center as an alternative to dependency on electric air conditioning in extreme heat.

I probably should have posted this topic in S&EP right from the outset.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Wanna see some new pictures taken 2 days ago of what this city looks like now swathed in smoke drifted down from the interior? I'm wondering if any of that smoke has reached you in Idaho yet?
> 
> .


No need for pictures. We have a fire training base at our little airport in town, with hotshot crews and helicopters ready to go. Most summers the state is choked in smoke. This year has been delightful with no local smoke. A few years ago smoke from Siberia came over and settled in thick for weeks. I guess there is a bit of smoke from some fires burning in the sagebrush farther away. But it's a normal summer event.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> But they don't want to think ahead about anything they can personally as an individual do something about because of being too wrapped up in thinking about political affairs and conspiracies that they cannot personally as an individual do anything about.


Or are they too wrapped up in finding sustainable employment and feeding their families in the here and now? When the headlines predict certain things or have misleading information on a regular basis and those predictions dont come true and the information is outed as false then it shouldnt come as a surprize that more and more people either discount your argument or just get a fatalistic view.

I saw a headline over the weekend about food shortages and the cost of food skyrocketing and it was blaming it mostly on global warming...so if I am just trying to lead my life and take care of my family...do I invest in rain barrels and a water collection system so that 50 years down the road I will have a way to water my crops or do I buy bulk items or salt some money away to pay the higher food bills. I mean if I buy into the global warming dogma that is so full of impending doom, my first thought is what am I going to do to protect my family, not what I am going to do as an individual in some insignificant way at the expense of my families immediate needs.

The global warming crowd blew it and like it or not probably set the environmental movement back a couple of decades.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You all know this is totally pointless.


I couldn't agree more


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Scars from large calvings are rare in the past.





> Calving leaves defined scars that can be seen for millions of years so we know where and when things calved.



If they can be seen for "millions of years" , it seems they would be about as common as craters on the Moon.

I'd love to see some sources for some of your theories


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

"The global warming crowd blew it and like it or not probably set the environmental movement back a couple of decades."

That is the sad part about the AGW hoax. It has taken away attention from the real environmental issues. CO2 is not pollution. Fortunately folks who haven't fallen for the chicken little scenario have road blocked cap and trade. 

I did a quick calc based on the costs of a power plant where a CO2 sequestration project is proposed. Based on that extrapolated to the gigawattage of the fossil power plants in the US, each household in the United States will have to pay close to $3,000 to cover the capital costs alone. Note that doesn't include the financial manipulation of the carbon credit markets that will obviously take place. All of that will be paid for by the consumer along with the recurring maintenance costs. Those costs will impose a hardship on many families.

Also note that the amount to be paid depends on the dependence on fossil fuels of your electrical utility. Only those folks served mostly by electrical energy from nuclear power plants will escape the financial pillage. Others may pay way more than the average I calculated. 

I've got two other subjects that put the lie of AGW to rest. One involves the changes in the Earth's orbit and the Sun's orbit which, to the extent of our knowledge, directly affect our climate. The other deals with the bogus claims of one way changes in the sea level.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I doubt many will read this, but this is one of the most interesting writings I have found on AGW. Consider it biased if you must but read it and really think and provide a counterpoint to some of its conclusions. It covers everything from false data, to scare tactics to what if its real and what do we do about it. I have slowly come to the conclusion through a constant assault of bad data, scare headlines, and unrealistic timetables that AGW is almost a total fraud...but then I have lived through the whole global cooling, acid rain, etc. era which also turned out to be bunk. Pick a subject and conclusions and prove its wrong.

http://www.globalwarminghype.com/upld-book403pdf_.pdf


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I don't know why it got into people are arguing over an ice shelf.
> 
> The topic was supposed to be about what individuals might plan to do for themselves and their homes and livestock on a personal level to adapt to changing climate and global warming.
> 
> ...


naturelover...i have not read this thread and i wont...but i will respond to your original question....

it is hotter here for sure..especially the last 2 years...soooo
i am looking at growing under shade cloth.also i am planting more fruit trees so i can manage them and create more shade and i am building rasied beds so they will get partial shade from fruit trees and looking at drip irrigation.

last spring i installed a 300 gallon catch tank for a underground spring i captured.i need mcuh more holding capacity to do more free irrigation from it.

the things i have planted in partial shade are doing much better.i nkow everything doesnt do as well in shade..but waht does i will be planting much more of.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Thanks for your post Elkhound, that's the kind of report on pro-active planning ahead that I was looking for. Good luck with developing your underground spring for irrigation. :thumb:

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

salmonslayer said:


> I doubt many will read this, but this is one of the most interesting writings I have found on AGW. Consider it biased if you must but read it and really think and provide a counterpoint to some of its conclusions. It covers everything from false data, to scare tactics to what if its real and what do we do about it. I have slowly come to the conclusion through a constant assault of bad data, scare headlines, and unrealistic timetables that AGW is almost a total fraud...but then I have lived through the whole global cooling, acid rain, etc. era which also turned out to be bunk. Pick a subject and conclusions and prove its wrong.
> 
> http://www.globalwarminghype.com/upld-book403pdf_.pdf


Thank you, I will read it. It's 48 pages long so I won't be getting through that tonight - I'm only to page 6 of it now but am calling it quits for the night.

.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they can be seen for "millions of years" , it seems they would be about as common as craters on the Moon.
> 
> I'd love to see some sources for some of your theories


LOL...You're sooo funny.

Here is one of my published papers, actually a Master's Thesis for my degree in Physical Meteorology on the fluxes of solar shortwave and longwave radiation....at the POLES. 

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA397342

http://bprc.osu.edu/rsl/radarsat/radarsat.html This one gives good examples of radar reflectivity tracking old changes, like former melts or breaks.

That was just the first hit in a long list of hits. I'm not going to spend time finding basic education for you every time you disagree about some basic thing. 

Next you'll be asking me to prove Raleigh scatter because you deny the sky is blue. Really, what is your issue?


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Next you'll be asking me to prove Raleigh scatter because you deny the sky is blue. Really, what is your issue?
__________________
:hijacked:
Now you talking about something i can relate too :happy: I was loading my pipe with some that there Sir Walter Raleigh and a puff of wind hit it ,and boy did it ever scatter :grumble:


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

ChristyACB said:


> That's a bit of an oversimplification. And yes, they do calve regularly. But they do it in a different manner. Scars from large calvings are rare in the past. The land beneath the south pole has been pushed down by the weight of the ice above also. And the extent of ice versus it's depth is another matter, as it its composition and the number of "rotten" spots it has. A whole host of factors play a role in what happens with ice.


Hmm...

The land under the great lakes is still rising today from the weight of glaciers that retreated thousands of years ago from it.

Glaciers today have been retreating since that time, many will likely disappear only to reappear thousands of years from now and press right on down to cover much of N America and Europe again. Scientists say if we double current c02 levels we may delay the next glacial advance by 20k years, but it'll happen regardless.

It normal for the arctic ice to totally disappear between glacial cycles, this is hardly going to be the first time it has happened. It is not a question of if, but only a question of when. We may be helping it to happen earlier than it would have, but it's inevitable either way.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Txrider said:


> Hmm...
> 
> The land under the great lakes is still rising today from the weight of glaciers that retreated thousands of years ago from it.
> 
> ...


Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. That is provably true. It is merely the speed with which it is happening that is of concern to me. Here is a quick pictorial for those who might care. Very well done work.

Present: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/presentmoll.jpg
Pleistocene (50 ka) http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/Pleistmoll.jpg
Miocene (20 Ma): http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/20moll.jpg

And just for fun, late Proterozoic (560 Ma) http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/560moll.jpg (If you can't find the US, it is because it is still just the basic continent around the Cratons. The added bits are not there. Try to guess... If you give up the answer is below:


The largest of the 3 seperated continents is US! Alaska is at the top and right of that mass while what we associate with the eastern half (of what existed then) is to the south, near the pole. It was turned to the right and downward.

To address the quoted person though...note the difference in all the projections and that is that nothing like us or our environment developed in all the Ga without ice at the poles. The advance of the last Ice House time is what allowed all that we have now to develop. All of human recorded history doesn't even reach back to the first of the images before present. We are still a short term phenom and changes should be viewed with caution.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm astonished by those who believe in the predictions of AGW when we can't even forecast the weather beyond a few days.

I'm also amazed by the individuals that don't believe the Sun is the biggest factor affecting our climate. The IPCC report conveniently left out the Medieval Warm Period in which it was much warmer than today. That's when *Green*land got it's name. That alone should be enough to convince the discerning that CO2 induced warming is a hoax. 

The Earth's tilt and orbit around the Sun slightly changes over time. At least one of the cycles has a known effect on climate. Besides the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the Sun's orbit around the galactic center may also affect our climate.

The Sun's orbit around the Galaxy is expected to be roughly elliptical with the addition of perturbations due to the galactic spiral arms and non-uniform mass distributions. In addition, the Sun oscillates up and down relative to the galactic plane approximately 2.7 times per orbit. This is very similar to how a simple harmonic oscillator works with no drag force (damping) term. These oscillations were until recently thought to coincide with mass extinction periods on Earth.[47] However, a reanalysis of the effects of the Sun's transit through the spiral structure based on CO data has failed to find these correlations.[48]

It takes the Solar System about 225&#8211;250 million years to complete one orbit of the galaxy (a galactic year),[49] so it is thought to have completed 20&#8211;25 orbits during the lifetime of the Sun and *1/1250 of a revolution since the origin of humans.* The orbital speed of the Solar System about the center of the Galaxy is approximately 220 km/s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

There are several factors that we know affect our climate and others that may that we have yet to discover related to the movement of the planet and the Sun. Fortunately man-made CO2 isn't one of them. Misnaming CO2 a greenhouse gas (greenhouses work on a different principle) and then tying it to environmental issues effectively created a popular marketing approach that many can't figure out for themselves. 

Mankind's existence is a flash in the pan when seen against cosmic events. We attach a self-importance to our existence that ignores our short time here and the possibilty of future extinction from natural catastrophic events. We came close to being killed off once. If we're lucky we'll only come close in the future before we get off the planet. Personally I believe we won't fare any better than the dinosaurs. 

Gaia always has the final say. For all of our supposed intelligence, we're really stupid. Proposing to waste trillions of dollars on AGW shows just how stupid we are. We know there were mass extinctions in the past. There will be again in the future. We need to get off the planet. That is something I'd agree that the nations of the Earth need to spend trillions of dollars to accomplish.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Well, you know, I don't think enough people believe Global Warming, not even during this extreme heat. Around here, people don't even talk about GW. So, we'll just keep guzzling gas, and wrecking the planet until there's nothing left to wreck. What I'm saying is that, GW might not be the reason why we should reduce gas consumption, but the pollution caused by it (oil spills, CO, CO3, and everything else).


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Darren said:


> I'm astonished by those who believe in the predictions of AGW when we can't even forecast the weather beyond a few days.
> 
> I'm also amazed by the individuals that don't believe the Sun is the biggest factor affecting our climate. The IPCC report conveniently left out the Medieval Warm Period in which it was much warmer than today. That's when *Green*land got it's name. That alone should be enough to convince the discerning that CO2 induced warming is a hoax.
> 
> ...



Okay..how did this become an issue of 

A) If you think you should conserve, not be wasteful and show even the tiniest modicum of concern for the evironment then you are obviously licking Al Gore's navel?

B) Rejecting Al Gorish means one has zero culpability in any matter relating to their environment and one should immediately show disdain for any event in the world that may or may not be related to a change in climate?

Seriously. Can't people separate the issue of Man Made from Okay It's Normal from the words Climate Change and simply behave reasonably?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Really, what is your issue?


The thing I've found is that many will* m*ake claims, but sources don't *verify* those claims



> The ice stream is about 450 km long from the grounding line to the upstream area that seems to be characterized by several long scars. The scars are probably shear margins but *it is not possible to deduce whether they are recently initiated or relict ice stream flow*.


Your claim was "calving scars last millions of years" and your source talks about ( and is even titled) how glaciers change and move.

Neither of your sources even mention that at all


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

"We know there were mass extinctions in the past. There will be again in the future. We need to get off the planet. That is something I'd agree that the nations of the Earth need to spend trillions of dollars to accomplish." Darren

Now that I can totally get on board with. Let's get humanity off this rock and out into the great big wide galaxy.

Seeder Ships Away!!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Seriously. Can't people separate the issue of Man Made from Okay It's Normal from the words Climate Change and simply *behave reasonably*?



The part most took issue with was the *false* claims about "largest ever" and "hottest ever".

Resaonable people stick to facts without trying to embellish.

Reasonable people don't have fantastic ideas about moving icebergs around to "conserve water".


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The thing I've found is that many will* m*ake claims, but sources don't *verify* those claims
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OMG...you're a troll. 

If you want a graduate education, go spend the money and get one. But simply requiring everyone who comments on anything you couldn't get up to your 6th grade adventure in school and requiring it to be fully annotated and with adequate PDE's to prove the concept is ridiculous.

The link was specifically for you to get an idea of what even basic radar can show in terms of differences for various events including streamlets, melts and everything else. It's just a link. I'm not writing you a thesis!

And the other was a thesis...if you've got the goods, buy it and tell me what you think of my math. I'm sure we'll take it out of the global model equations if it doesn't meet your needs.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Okay..how did this become an issue of

*A) If you think you should conserve, not be wasteful and show even the tiniest modicum of concern for the evironment then you are obviously licking Al Gore's navel?*

I don't see that the connection is absolute. One can believe and practice conservation and engage in legitimate environmental concerns without believing Al Gores AGW hype. I do believe legitimate environmental causes have lost ground due to the preoccupation of the media with AGW. Doomsday scenarios have always been fascinating as is science fiction.

*B) Rejecting Al Gorish means one has zero culpability in any matter relating to their environment and one should immediately show disdain for any event in the world that may or may not be related to a change in climate?*

That's an extremely limited viewpoint. I believe someone who is concerned about the environment and works on water quality issues or other issues does not have to believe in AGW. Likewise disbelieving AGW does not necessarily lead to ignoring legitimate man-made pollution which does harm the environment.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

naturelover said:


> It's the same thing BK.
> 
> .


Then that would be US....Yeah we win....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> OMG...you're a troll.
> 
> If you want a graduate education, go spend the money and get one. But simply requiring everyone who comments on anything you couldn't get up to your 6th grade adventure in school and requiring it to be fully annotated and with adequate PDE's to prove the concept is ridiculous.


LOL

So the end result is you have *nothing* to back your claim that "calving scars last millions of years"

You've just got name calling. What happend to "acting reasonable"?



> The link was specifically for you to get an idea of what even basic radar can show in terms of differences for various events including streamlets, melts and everything else. *It's just a link*. I'm not writing you a thesis!


A link is *all* I asked for. Unfortunately, the one you provided has nothing to do with what I asked about.


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

What GW comes down to for me is this: 

Shouldn't we all do what we can for the environment? Shouldn't keeping our planet clean because it's the RIGHT thing to do be enough?

GW was created to scare people into doing the right thing. It verges on biblical to me: follow the ten commandments or you are going to H E double hockey sticks. 

We shouldn't have to be scared into it, but that is what 'they' are trying to do.

Maybe we need it. But I resent being lied to in their efforts to change my behavior.

You don't have to believe in global warming to believe in recycling. You don't have to believe in GW to conserve. You don't have to believe in GW to want to change to a better source of electricity that doesn't involve fossil fuels.

And I completely agree with the poster on another page who mentioned that we are all just struggling right now to keep our families fed. I don't have much energy to be clever when I'm trying to find a job. I don't have much time to consider the End Of Life As We Know It when I'm working hard to get a degree so that we can lift ourselves to a more comfortable income.

I watched the series on Discovery about what the world would look like a degree warmer. It wasn't doom and gloom for many. There was an INCREASE in food supply. More co2 would feed more plants.. more oxygen.. more water... 

So to the OP- I apologize if my earlier serious reply to your question seemed.. flippant. It really wasn't. I just don't think that I need to be planning for a catastrophe of tiny magnitude that really won't change much at all... if it even happens.

This has been a really interesting thread- and leaving out the pathetic name calling and mud slinging :viking: has been informative as well.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

"You don't have to believe in global warming to believe in recycling. You don't have to believe in GW to conserve. You don't have to believe in GW to want to change to a better source of electricity that doesn't involve fossil fuels."

I couldn't agree more.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> So the end result is you have *nothing* to back your claim that "calving scars last millions of years"
> 
> ...


And why can't you google?

You say you just want a link. Let's consider that, shall we?

If I already understand the derivation of the vorticity equation and how that works in the development and rotation of say, tropical cyclones and I say so.

You say...PROVE IT.

So I find you a link that says that they rotate and vorticity is a signature looked at to estimate tropical cyclone development.

You say...that doesn't say ANYTHING about it...give me a link!

So I then, have to search for a link that explains in baby steps the entire process that I learned over a series of years and degrees. From the concept of rotation within mesoscale level bodies to coriolis to conservation of angular momentum...yada yada. And then I have to search and find you the mid-level stuff that doesn't use too much calculus. And then I have to search and find the development of the series of equations that eventually resulted in the Vorticity equation of today and then find all the ways in which it is used in tropical cyclones.

Phew..Some link.

When you ask a question about a subject that is complicated, then be prepared to do some research on your own. Otherwise, don't assume that everything can be broken down into a column that fits on the side of your cereal box.

I gave you a link that shows how radar is used to find old evidence of many things in ice. You want to know more and how, you should look.

Now, otherwise you need to pay up $100 an hour research fee...

Just to be sweet; Ice cores show many layers. Ice cores taken at a distance often show other layers. If a layer is missing from a planetwide event, say a volcanic deposition layer, then you can take more cores in a pattern. From there you can find the location that an old ice sheet that should be there isn't. Then you can use other tools to look for the line or event or the series of fractures. Then you can even core and get a good picture of the type of fracture. It is complicated and far too long for a post. You can look it up. And that is just one way. Microwave imagery, IR imagery for some types...ad infinitum.

The oldest ice found in modern earth is approx 8 Ma and was found in one of the dry valleys of Antarctica. 2 Ma has been found even recently from an uplifted boulder ice. 1.2 Ma exists in good quantity and that is without a bunch of digging. Because the ice is so conservative and doesn't experience many of the impacts we see in areas where stuff grows, you can get it buried and it stays, just like it was, forever until it breaks off and melts or gets uncovered and melts or what have you. I believe that the dormant cells in the 8 Ma ice were actually brought back to life for a brief period even. Amazing stuff, ice. Edited because I found a nice fully encapsulated link on the 8 Ma ice. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/33/13455 And no, I won't pay the fee so you can have the full article.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

QoTL said:


> What GW comes down to for me is this:
> 
> Shouldn't we all do what we can for the environment? Shouldn't keeping our planet clean because it's the RIGHT thing to do be enough?
> 
> ...


I must step aside from my Spew Alerts to issue a Post of the Day Award. 

There is not ONE of us who do not believe that we are deterimental to our earth in some fashion or the other. Overpopulation is sapping our food supply, pollution is damaging our waterways and wildlife, not to mention our own health. Overpopulation is destroying our wildlife as we encroach into forests to build our homes and shopping malls; how many drives can you take and not see deer smashed on the side of the road, racoons, possums, whatever...they have no where to go, and while they used to be hidden and safe, they are forced to try to co-exist wih us. When bear, cougar, coyote and all otherwise solitary predators are inour back yards, it is because we have forced them into a position of having to vie with us for their very existance. The rainforest, I don't really believe we are killing 180,000,000 acres a second or whatever, but I DO believe we are destroying what we will never get back. I do NOT believe "Global Warming" is anything more than a political ploy designed to give more money back to the People in Power, but I DO believe we need to change our ways before this earth is nothing but concrete and asphalt.

SImple solution: how do we stop damaging the earth? Stop breeding.

This is an awful thing to say, and I KNOW I will be flamed, but hey, I've been kind of good for quite a while, so here it goes.

People starving in Ethiopia? This is nature saying, cut it out. Too many people+not enough land=not enough food=starvation. Death equals relief in this case. I know, our hearts break to see those people dying...but if we save them, then what? That land will NEVER sustain them. Truth is, in times past, a natural event like what happened in Haiti would weed out large amounts of people. The plague...over crowding, poor living conditions made the peoples of the time vulnerable to a disease carried by rats...and it wiped out a huge population of people. Nature has a way of dealing with overpopulation her own time. It has only been in recent times that we have been able to interfere and allow overpopulation to continue to tax the earth. I know, oh those poor starving people...and yes, I WOULD be unable to bear it if it was my child starving to death, I am not making myself superior in any way on those lines, I am just sayin'. 

Is there a way to balance our out of control population and still save the eart? THAT is what recycling, etc is all about. Do we need to educate? HECK NO, there isn't a person on the earth that doesn't see what is happening...and no amount of new taxes under any guise of Global Warming is going to MAKE them care, much less all the "Green" carp we are throwing at them. My answer to all this? Let nature take it's course and do what she has been donig for a kazillion years, and that is, keep what is necessary, kill the rest.

Meanwhile, we should all be doing our part, as we can and what we can. But I do not need a "bill" to demand more money from me in some form or another; I can make my own changes.

If congress would stop writing 2000 page bills, we could probably save a rainfoest or two, especially since the paper is wasted with no one reading them anyhow.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Reasonable people don't have fantastic ideas about moving icebergs around to "conserve water".


Oh, really? Where have you been hiding man, you need to keep up with the times. People have been implementing ways to transport and harvest icebergs since the 70's. There are already people that harvest icebergs because it is such pure quality potable water with no 20th century chemicals and other pollutants in it.

Here are just some of the enterprising people in Canada that make a living from harvesting icebergs as a trade and selling it to local and international businesses and as bottled water to the Middle East. There are other people in other countries starting to harvest icebergs, not only in Canada.

http://www.bergwater.ca/berg-news/harvesting.aspx



> Newfoundland and Labrador sailors have been working around icebergs for centuries, but it is until recent years that the quality of iceberg water as a natural source of potable water has turned harvesting into a specialized trade.
> 
> Icebergs are calved off the ice-shelf of Greenland into the Labrador currents. They arrive in Newfoundland waters during the spring and early summer, and can be harvested until late September. Icebergs vary in size, shape and location.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7019474994



> Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada (AHN) - ​
> Global warming is taking its toll on businesses in a town in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The absence of icebergs has Twilingate businesses harvest ice from Southern Labrador as an alternative to keep their enterprises going. Twillingate bills itself as the ice capital of the world.​
> Icebergs from Southern Labrador are barged into Twillingate and chipped into smaller pieces for serving in bars and restaurants. Twillingate also melts the icebergs and sells it as expensive bottled water in the Middle East. *One iceberg is enough to supply demand for a year*.​Climate change is likely the reason behind the disappearance of floating icebergs in Newfoundlandâs iceberg alley, which has become the key tourist attraction of the area.
> In 1912 over 1,000 icebergs were recorded floating in the North Atlantic shipping lane, which includes the alley. Recently, only an average of 12 to 15 icebergs was spotted.
> ...


 
There's lots more information about iceberg harvesting efforts available on internet, just do a search on it.​ 
http://www.finewaters.com/Bottled_Water/Canada/Berg.asp​ 
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Hy-La/Ice-at-Sea.html​ 


> Unlike sea ice, which contains some salt, icebergs are composed entirely of fresh water. Since the 1990s, the commercial harvesting of icebergs has evolved from a novelty to a potential growth industry. Although towing Antarctic icebergs to provide fresh water to arid regions was a topic of discussion in the 1970s (and was first demonstrated in 1971 in Newfoundland, Canada), such proposals were dismissed as impractical. Yet iceberg deflection now is practiced, when necessary, in managing icebergs to protect the offshore oil industry and international shipping. ​
> Read more: Ice at Sea - oceans, temperature, largest, salt, plants, wave, source, effect, marine, human http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Hy-La/Ice-at-Sea.html#ixzz0w91MGZyw​


A bit more from the same waterencyclopedia site:



> iceberg harvesting also are expanding ventures. Major tour companies as well as smaller "ecotourism" operations offer patrons up-close encounters with icebergs. An Alaskan company harvested icebergs floating in Alaskan waters and sold the ice to a firm in Japan as a novelty. A private company based in Newfoundland has been extracting ice from ice caps and grounded icebergs since the mid-1990s. ​
> If markets evolve, the extractive industry could become a more widely recognized use of these natural fresh-water sources. Grapples, augers, saws, and other excavation equipment extract large pieces of ice, which are crushed, stored, and transported to an onshore processing plant (although floating offshore plants are possible in the future). Ice is used for ice cubes; meltwater is filtered and bottled for drinking water, beer, and vodka. ​
> Like the bottled water industry, the iceberg industry relies on marketing to help drive consumer demand. Marketing programs rely on the pristine and emotive images of icebergs, and appeal to niche markets at the premium end of the price and quality spectrum. ​
> Moreover, the physical qualities of iceberg ice make it attractive to consumers seeking a novelty. As the ice melts, carbon dioxide gas bubbles long trapped under pressure within the crystal lattice are released. The escaping bubbles create a natural "fizz" similar to naturally carbonated groundwater that is brought to the surface by wells or springs.
> ...


.​


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

ChristyACB said:


> Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. That is provably true. It is merely the speed with which it is happening that is of concern to me.


The speed by which it is happening is of concern with me as well.

But I am also concerned by science that doesn't really acknowledge the margins of error being larger than a predicted trend.

Much if not most of the climate measurement was taken from system that were never meant to be used for global climate comparison, data is adjusted and massaged, some data purposely excluded, proxies used without full understanding, margins of error multiplying margins of error. It's only fairly recently we have put in place the science to be fairly accurate about what is happening.

And we still don't know why, nor do we know what the earths systems will do in response...

I figure science may have a better handle on it by the time I'm in the grave.

Our use of fossil fuels will start declining soon enough anyway as it becomes less abundant and more costly, and alternative means of energy then become cost effective in comparison or cheaper.

I believe humanity will move to the cheapest sources of energy, and as soon as the cost of fossil fuel become more expensive then alternatives the alternatives will take over, and likely not until then.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> People have been implementing ways to transport and harvest icebergs since the 70's. There are already people that harvest icebergs because it is such pure quality potable water with no 20th century chemicals and other pollutants in it.


LOL What they are harvesting is "ice CUBES" compared to the size of this recent one.



> Twillingate also melts the icebergs and sells it as *expensive bottled water *in the Middle East. One iceberg is enough to supply demand for a year



Some high priced *bottled water *isn't on the same scale as what you were talking about. The "demand" they are talking about is those foolish enough to pay their price

Your source *refutes* your premise>



> Although towing Antarctic icebergs *to provide fresh water to arid regions *was a topic of discussion in the 1970s (and was first demonstrated in 1971 in Newfoundland, Canada), *such proposals were dismissed as impractical*.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL What they are harvesting is "ice CUBES" compared to the size of this recent one.
> 
> Some high priced *bottled water *isn't on the same scale as what you were talking about. The "demand" they are talking about is those foolish enough to pay their price
> 
> Your source *refutes* your premise>


From my above post:



> the volume of water they could provide dwarfs existing supplies from rivers, lakes, and aquifers. For example, in 1987, an iceberg with an area of 6,350 square kilometers broke off from Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf. With a mass of about 1.4 trillion metric tons, this single iceberg theoretically could have supplied everyone in the world with 240 metric tons of drinking water.


Do a bit more research about it yourself instead of YOU refuting it as a feasible plan for the future.

Your petty squabbling is getting boring. :bored:

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Quote:
> the volume of water they could provide dwarfs existing supplies from rivers, lakes, and aquifers. For example, in 1987, an iceberg with an area of 6,350 square kilometers broke off from Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf. With a mass of about 1.4 trillion metric tons, this single iceberg theoretically could have supplied everyone in the world with 240 metric tons of drinking water





> Do a bit more research about it yourself instead of *YOU refuting it *as a feasible plan for the future.


I didn't refute it at all. Your own source did with a few carefully placed words.
It doesn't change the fact that it's not PRACTICAL to move that much water over long distances.
You're still confusing idealistic theories with logistical realities

Desalinization would be jsut as cheap and a LOT more doable


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

ChristyACB said:


> You all know this is totally pointless.
> 
> Arguing with people who think dinosaur bones were left by god as a test of faith about the future of the planet is pointless. Arguing with people whose answer to destruction of resources is that their god will come and sweep them up to sing kumbaya flat on their faces for all eternity just before it all runs out is pointless. Arguing with people who can't imagine that pooping on their dinner plate isn't healthy is pointless. Arguing with people who, for the life of them, can't seem to get that abusing the planet (regardless of the outcome of that abuse) isn't actually that different from pooping on their plate is pointless.
> 
> ...


The problem is that its not that we dont want to be good stewards we dont want the lying and politics that come with it...Most of us that Homestead are conservative by the very nature of being homesteaders....but to try to politisize it and to get caught lying in the data is what has doomed this movement from the start....the greenies couldnt just do the research and let it stand for what it is they had to try to manipulate the conversation with half truths and now no one that is not a devout ecologist is demonized and labeled...this is the main issue we see the earth as warming and cooling independent of whatever we do and therefore no action taken on our part will resolve said warming and cooling as they represent the normal climate patterns of the earth....because of that beleif backed by our own bunch of scientist and the data they discover we represent a danger to the political branch of the Global warming movement which intends to make profit of panicking people under false pretense and manipulated data...this is the sum of the whole issue...1 you beleive in Global warming in an anthropogenic sense or 2. you beleive warming is a natural cycle to this earths climatology. there is no other global warming that is not AGW thats disengenuous at best and is probably flat out propaganda....


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I'm rubber and you're glue!


NANNER NANNER NANNER!


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Bigkat80 said:


> NL again the data is skewed and until the data is pure and unmanipulated the entire theory is bunk...science doesnt give leeway to cherry pick if its good science...tell me why the medevial warming trend and the little Ice age data was taken out of the data stream to come up with the averages and trends...for example(simplistic example follows)
> if I take 11,22,433,44,35 and get and avg its = 109 but if i drop 2 and 4 its = 159.66 you either have to include all the data or none....its simple math and simple science to say if I drop those warm and Cool periods out randomly I can significantly change the average...you cannot say GW exist simple due to a decade...The earth Cycles app every 13-1500 years....you have to get about two or more of these cycles to see the effective average....think Keff(=>)1 super crtical temp averages in a reactor its a life span formula and it requires all the data....to see if the earth is significantly warming or cooling more than normal you must include all the data from the beginning...it simply is an impossible project...more over to suggest that a single decade can help determine that is complete and utter hogwash....such a small sample is at best insignificant and in reality will most certainly result in warming trends due to the small nature of the sample less numbers to affect the average meeans more significant and dramatic swings...when placed against the history scale and the reall data its insignificant at best...similiar to caalculatting lifetime batting average as oppsoed to game Batting average for a ball player...the more at bats lessent the impact of each at bat ....this is disengenuous and a blantant attempt at another way to skin a cat for the AGW people in short this is the new ploy since the last one was completely and utterly debunked by the fact of the emails...so the new PR for AGW is we wont call it AGW we will just say GW and scare folks with half baked science till they buy it...Laughable....


Thank you!


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Bret4207 said:


> Also remember most of the measurements are in Celsius not Fahrenheit. Yes, it can mean a lot. It can also mean nothing. Depends on who's doing the measuring and what they want it to mean.
> 
> What to do to prepare? For what? Hotter or colder? Wetter or drier? Massive storms or Biblical proportion or balmy spring days in Feb? Sorry, but that's kind of like asking how to prepare to live. Your best best is to remain flexible and observant.


They manipulate the raw data so much that no one knows what it was to begin with, then they average it. If they don't like some of the numbers, they average the ones they do, substitute that one, then take an average.

It really is a scam.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I smell the imminent threat of thread lockage, so I'll weigh in quickly.

I'll grant global warming is real.

I'll dispute vociferously whether there's anything that man can do to stop it, especially by cap and trade, and other taxing schemes.

Shy of a global pandemic, which eliminates 99% of the population, nothing is going to reduce the source of the problems (if you believe in AGW, where people are the problem and the source, you must remove the source of the problem, for their to be a cure.)

Everybody wants to go to heaven (solve global warming) but nobody wants to die.

If civilization were to disappear overnight, and most folks perished, the earth would continue to warm for probably decades... 

Of course, if certain things happened (disrupt the Gulf Stream's northern flow) Europe would be plunged into a new ice age.


Anyone got an ideas on how to turn global warming around??? Global warming IS not the end of the world (as far as humans are concerned). Let's turn it around, hard, fast, and swift, and get us some good ol fashioned Global Cooling!!! Global Cooling would be a civilization killer. Possibly an ELE (extinction level event). I daresay a good amount of hearty humans would survive an ice age... but the population of humans would be measured in the low millions, not billions. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

texican said:


> I smell the imminent threat of thread lockage, so I'll weigh in quickly.
> 
> I'll grant global warming is real.
> 
> ...


We did establish earlier in the topic that global warming / climate change is real, and that there's nothing man can do to stop it, and there was even some concession that although it may not be caused by man that man has contributed something to it.

*The intent of the topic was not about how to stop it or turn it around, or to talk about who is scamming who. The intent of the topic was to be a discussion about what individual homesteaders could or would each do to help themselves prepare ahead and adapt to climate changes on a personal level - for themselves, their close family, their livestock and agricultural plans.*

Unfortunately, a lot of people have jumped in and responded without seeming to have read the original question or through the whole topic and seen that that was what the topic is supposed to be about.

It does look as though it could be on the verge of being locked and I regret now not having posted the topic directly to the S&EP forum where I think more people would have given *the question itself* some serious consideration rather than simply refuting the topic. 

I can only conclude that a lot of people don't want to think about what they will do for themselves. Perhaps it's too much for most homesteaders to deal with and plan ahead for. That is disappointing for me because I think some people could have offered some innovative ideas for other people to use.

:shrug:

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Perhaps it's too much for most homesteaders to deal with and plan ahead for.
> .


Because we are simple, stupid folks, right?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Because we are simple, stupid folks, right?


Is that your take on it?

One of the reasons I've spent 4 years on this Homesteading Today forum on such a regular basis is because some of the most intelligent, self-sufficient and capable, problem solving people I've ever encountered on internet are right here on this forum. There's a lot of valuable knowledge and experience all packed together in one place with all the knowledgeable people gathered here. I don't consider myself a simple or stupid person and I wouldn't have wasted 4 years of my time here if I thought the people here are simple and stupid. I wouldn't have brought up this topic and posted it in Homesteading Questions forum if I thought people here were stupid. It wasn't my choice that it got moved from HQ to GC to be picked apart and ridiculed by people who only want to fight. My biggest mistake was in not posting the question in S&EP where people like to solve problems and come up with innovative solutions of a survivalist nature.

If you think the people on Homesteading Today forum are simple or stupid, well that's your take on it, not mine and I didn't say it - you did.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Do a bit more research about it yourself *instead of YOU refuting it as a feasible plan for the future



The first "iceberg" mentioned in the thread and touted as "the biggest in recorded history" by some:



> The so-called "ice island" covers a hundred square miles (260 square kilometers) and holds enough water to keep U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days, according to Andreas Muenchow, a physical ocean scientist and engineer at the University of Delaware.


An example from NL trying to prove it's feasable to move icebergs all over the world:



> the volume of water they could provide dwarfs existing supplies from rivers, lakes, and aquifers. For example, in 1987, an iceberg with an area of 6,350 square kilometers broke off from Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf. With a mass of about 1.4 trillion metric tons, this single iceberg theoretically could have supplied everyone in the world with 240 metric tons of drinking water


THIS is why I ask for* links*. 

That's how we find the truth rather than just the HYPE that so many love to parrot without thinking

Without the* links *we would have never known recorded history began in 1987


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yes. The links for those quotes were all provided before posting the quotes and the quotes you have shown above were quotes that were taken from those links. What is your point? Why haven't you provided the links for them in your above post to show where the quotes came from? And what was your point in using those particular quotes from the websites provided? And who said _anything_ about recorded history beginning in 1987 

What in heavens name are you questioning?

Oh never mind. Don't bother answering the question if you don't wish. I'm not going to be reading it.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why haven't you provided the links for them in your above post to show where the quotes came from?


I STATED where they came from, and the quotes and links had already been posted once.



> And who said anything about recorded history beginning in 1987


The news story about the iceberg called it "the largest in recorded history", and that was also discussed in other posts. I probably should have included that part to clarify though:

Page 5, Post 126:


> Originally Posted by Cindy in KY
> Don't know if any of you saw this or not, reported yesterday. Not so good news I guess.
> *biggest glacier collapse in recorded history *


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...gest-science/?source=link_fb08072010iceisland



> What in heavens name are you questioning?
> Oh never mind. Don't bother answering the question if you don't wish.* I'm not going to be reading it*.


I didn't "question" anything. I'm pointing out that the quotes contradict each other.

LOL It doesn't appear you've been reading them anyway.

The fact is there is NOTHING we need to "do " to prepare for global warming, since it's happened throughout Earth's history, and will continue to do so until the Earth ceases to exist.

People have already survived through Ice Ages and warming periods, and hopefully will survive a few more.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)




----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Amen!


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Okay I have been Gone for a couple Days ...Now I am ready to answer your unanswerable Question.

1. I do not Beleive that GW as defined by you or the Gloab Warming Movement is true.
2. I beleive that the earth has been warming and Cooling for billions of years with or with out us having to do anything.
2. It is a 1-1.5 degree change I have no intentions on crop rotation or animal husbandry changes based on that. for one animals and plants tend to adapt over time to longer and shorter seasons of growth and producing.
3. We have no more consequence on the earth than a flea. BUt if the nature of the discussion was about being more ecologically friendly then the answer is Nothing I do affects the earth. No amount of fossil fuels I use will have an effect. Until other forms of energy are deveolped that can be as cheap as fossil fuels then I am not interested in it.
4. The fresh water argument is ridiculous. The earth replenishes the water supply on a regular basis. Dont try to scare folks with Carp water is not running out nor will it ever Ground water tables have reamined consistent with use and population growth. Now if in the fantasy world we should start running low on water Desalinization of the oceans would be significantly cheaper than harnessing Icebergs and more sustainable as well the oceans are right where they have been since the last continent drift.
Now in the spirit of the OP...
I am gonna kill all my rabbits and start raising Iguanas for meat....I will replace my tomatoes with Cactus fruit...and Finally once the swamp drains I will plant heat resistant zyosa grass for the herd of iguana's to free range on....As for water i am bottling rain water in the days prior to the years when water runs out due to loss of those icebergs. I am planning on investing in polar bear fur Recovery operations once they all die...they are easier to get them once they die than while they are still alive which should drive the cost down seems like a good investment...Thats My big plan well that and watching LSU football this fall...Geaux Tigers....


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> I am gonna kill all my rabbits and start raising Iguanas for meat....I will replace my tomatoes with Cactus fruit...and Finally once the swamp drains I will plant heat resistant zyosa grass for the herd of iguana's to free range on....As for water i am bottling rain water in the days prior to the years when water runs out due to loss of those icebergs. I am planning on investing in polar bear fur Recovery operations once they all die...they are easier to get them once they die than while they are still alive which should drive the cost down seems like a good investment...Thats My big plan well that and watching LSU football this fall...Geaux Tigers....


 Go Chief!!


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

What if we're wrong about climate change and we spend all that money and effort?

http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Editorial-Cartoons/G373,S81137


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

naturelover said:


> I can only conclude that a lot of people don't want to think about what they will do for themselves. Perhaps it's too much for most homesteaders to deal with and plan ahead for. That is disappointing for me because I think some people could have offered some innovative ideas for other people to use.
> 
> :shrug:
> 
> .


Not at all.. Only that most realistically have drawn the conclusion that not much will happen to need any planing for in our lifetime..

And that if there was the predictions are so all over the map as to not be able to plan for anyway..

If it gets warmer, you act just as if you would if you moved to a little warmer climate... Like a couple hardiness zones south..

If it gets drier you act just as you would if you moved and set up in a drier climate..

I very seriously doubt I'll see enough change to even be really sure it has changed at all before they plant me in a box... even according to the most dire predictions of the most extreme predictors.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

fishhead said:


> What if we're wrong about climate change and we spend all that money and effort?
> 
> http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Editorial-Cartoons/G373,S81137


Thats the point in a nutshell Fishhead...all those things listed on his slide are bogus 1. Green jobs is a myth no jobs will be created out of the green movement that will replace the jobs lost in the coal and oil industry...its not even close more and more jobs will be lost the greener we become....

2. the idea of ecological greenness is unsustainable it will be costed out of existence before it gets good and strated...A green economy is not now nor can it ever be afforable and we will not survive the transistion finacially. I know you greenies think utopia and we all live in food combines and sing Kumbuya but no it will devastate the worlds economies back to the stoneage...we will be lucky to be able to eat much less thrive...

3. I took your cartoon in the tongue and cheek manner it was intended but in reality truth in jest tells me you see folks that are against the green movement just like the cartoon depicts the poor guy you think we object to something that you beleive is inherrently good on the basis of ignorance but we have studied this issue and we do not conclude as you do that we are all doomed and we are not willing to forsake free children for what your cartoon refers to healthy children.(a point that i contend the lefties have steadily degraded the health of our children over other PC causes for decades) they have been taught that everybody wins and everyone should get an A for effort and therefore they are woefully unprepared for the world when they get out of mommies basement...most cant make it in the real world and will forever flip burgers thanks to that mentality.....we simply do not see the problem as you do and we resent the fact that you wish to imply we sare stupid....


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

There's GREAT org out there: 51percent.org
LOL, outrageous. Not to mention, the correct number is around 1/4 of GHG. ALl the evil homesteaders, you! Polluting like that! :hysterical:
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/f...l-warming-problem-vegetarianism-solution.html


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Txrider said:


> Not at all.. Only that *most* realistically have drawn the conclusion that not much will happen to need any planing for in our lifetime..
> 
> And that if there was the predictions are so all over the map as to not be able to plan for anyway..


When you say most, do you mean just most people here on this board, or most people in America, or most nations or people in the world? And that most people everywhere feel nothing can be planned for?

See I have my doubts about that if my own country is anything to go by. Last week at the annual Premier's conference all the Premiers signed into effect a new charter, the Canada-wide Water Conservation Charter which goes into effect immediately. This is approved of and backed up by the whole nation, 33 million people who have always believed that conservation and protection of our water is something that needs to be planned for and implemented. Canada started developing and implementing water conservation technologies back in the 50's - planning ahead you see - and as a consequence is also now making a bundle of money that provides jobs and profits the nation by teaching and selling its' technologies to other nations. We don't export any of our water in bulk to any nation and we never will in the future now that this charter has been signed, but we do export the technologies to nations that need it.

Now Alaska exports fresh water in bulk to other nations, most especially to China that needs pure water for the computer wafer industry, but it's my understanding that those exports only profits Alaska, not the rest of the states. When the Oglala aquifer which serves the American mid to south west, (and which is now being depleted 8 times faster than it's being replenished), has become depleted will Alaska have to cease exporting fresh water to other nations for profit and instead transport it to the lower states for the sake of American citizens survival? Will Alaska still profit by sending water to the lower states? If that happens, and it looks like it will since America's fresh water supplies are being depleted, wouldn't it have been better if America had planned ahead of time to conserve water and better to start conserving now?

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Oh, and while I think of it. For the few individuals, like BK for example, who's answer to a situation like that is to say "oh, well US has the greatest military power so we'll just go to war against Canada and take all the water we want" ...... that's not a reasonable option because declaring war against Canada for its' water is basically like declaring war against the rest of the world all at the same time. So there has to be other more advantageous and peaceful options for conserving and managing water.

Think about it.

.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Oh, and while I think of it. For the few individuals, like BK for example, who's answer to a situation like that is to say "oh, well US has the greatest military power so we'll just go to war against Canada and take all the water we want" ...... that's not a reasonable option because declaring war against Canada for its' water is basically like declaring war against the rest of the world all at the same time. So there has to be other more advantageous and peaceful options for conserving and managing water.


 Huh? You know Naturelover I think Canadians have an over inflated sense of themselves sometimes. We applaud your water conservation efforts and your technologies so keep busy with what your doing up there and I personally am mighty impressed that you managed to get all 33 million people to support it...we down here cant agree on anything right now.

I do have it on good authority though that we really dont have any plans to invade Canada anytime soon.

You want to know what we all are doing but as has been pointed out to you, nothing we do on our homesteads will impact climate change and the serious impacts of climate change will happen long after we are off of this earth..all we can do is be good stewards of our land and continue to promote good practices, adapt as necessary and be skeptical of the fear mongers.

Canada is a great country but your population is very small and what your doing may be good for Canada but the notion that your having an impact on global climate change is quaint at best.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Salmonslayer, you keep on misunderstanding me. It's not about what people can do to have an impact on climate change. It's about what people can do to have an impact on ourselves.

And yes I know your country doesn't have any plans to invade Canada. Why is it though that some people seem to think that's the ulitmate option?

.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> Why is it though that some people seem to think that's the ulitmate option?


 I dont think people in this country seriously think that and our military interventions are fairly focused on those who seek to do us harm or they focus on providing humanitarian relief. Canada and the US have the longest unprotected border in the world because neither feels a military threat from the other. Half my family is Canadian and I am frequently amused by their perceptions of the US as a gun toting violent society where pollution is rampant and no one can afford healthcare. Do we have some of those issues in places? Yes, but its certainly not the norm and its no different than those who point out a person who died for lack of medical care as proof that the Canadian model is a failure. Every medical care system has some failures and every country struggles with various environmental issues but we tend to pick the sensationalised cases to idict each other. For instance, Canadian logging and mining practices in parts of BC, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are not exactly models of evironmental enlightenment but they are hardly indicative of Canada's overall commitment to conservation and environmental issues. In the same token, only about 16% of the US population doesnt already have some form of health insurance and of those, a significant percentage choose to not have health insurance (unwise in my opinion but their choice) and the rest cant afford it. However, no one is denied emergent medical care. So the sensationalism with that issue as well as issues like the Ogallala aquifer tend to by hyped for a particular agenda. Are their issues with both that need to be addressed? Of course but just like AGW, you have to weed through the hype to find that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I think the global warming zealots are just as dangerous and disingenuous as the people who dont believe man could ever have an effect on the environment. If the anti AGW crowd kept making predictions that didnt come true, if they kept being caught trying to cover up contrary research and evidence, if they constantly stated the debate is over and anyone who believe that there may be climate change happening isnt really a scientist and is a denier, and if they chose as their media Icon Dan Quayle......how much credibility would you give them?

Thats where a lot of us are with the Al Gore led AGW issue; they have no credibility and they let their passions cloud their science to the point where we are now farther behind understanding what is happening than we were 2 decades ago. Al Gore should be tried for crimes against humanity in my opinion for his single handed destruction of the environmental movement in this and other countries.


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

naturelover said:


> And yes I know your country doesn't have any plans to invade Canada. Why is it though that some people seem to think that's the ulitmate option?
> 
> .



For the record, the only one I saw mention the US invading Canada was you. 

I don't think we have any issues with Canada, I have NEVER heard anyone say we should invade.. ever. I'm not saying people haven't on this board, maybe they have, but in my 'real life' (off HT), I don't hear a peep of complaint about Canada or Canadians. 


I'm not sure who thinks that's the 'ultimate option'?


----------



## QoTL (Jun 5, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> There's GREAT org out there: 51percent.org
> LOL, outrageous. Not to mention, the correct number is around 1/4 of GHG. ALl the evil homesteaders, you! Polluting like that! :hysterical:
> http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/f...l-warming-problem-vegetarianism-solution.html



I find that interesting...

I had heard that mass deforestation for crop planting was the problem, and that going vegetarian was irresponsible :stars:

Ah.. so much conflicting 'proof', so little time...


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

naturelover said:


> Oh, and while I think of it. For the few individuals, like BK for example, who's answer to a situation like that is to say "oh, well US has the greatest military power so we'll just go to war against Canada and take all the water we want" ...... that's not a reasonable option because declaring war against Canada for its' water is basically like declaring war against the rest of the world all at the same time. So there has to be other more advantageous and peaceful options for conserving and managing water.
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> .


That is an oversimplification of what i said. In reality if Canada trys to become the worlds water nazi's and control the world by use of water embargoes then the Us has the military power to effect equitable solutions to that Problem...Personally canad doesnt have control of the worlds water supply so no need of concern that we will take from you what we need when we need it any time soon....But should the resource wars eventually happen you can bet canada cannot and will not hold out on the US...its not in their best interest they need our protection.....


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

naturelover said:


> When you say most, do you mean just most people here on this board, or most people in America, or most nations or people in the world? And that most people everywhere feel nothing can be planned for?


You seem to misunderstand... I did not say nothing -can- be planned for, only that nothing will change enough to -need- to plan for at least in my lifetime or most middle aged Americans lifetime.



> See I have my doubts about that if my own country is anything to go by. Last week at the annual Premier's conference all the Premiers signed into effect a new charter, the Canada-wide Water Conservation Charter which goes into effect immediately. This is approved of and backed up by the whole nation, 33 million people who have always believed that conservation and protection of our water is something that needs to be planned for and implemented. Canada started developing and implementing water conservation technologies back in the 50's - planning ahead you see - and as a consequence is also now making a bundle of money that provides jobs and profits the nation by teaching and selling its' technologies to other nations. We don't export any of our water in bulk to any nation and we never will in the future now that this charter has been signed, but we do export the technologies to nations that need it.
> 
> Now Alaska exports fresh water in bulk to other nations, most especially to China that needs pure water for the computer wafer industry, but it's my understanding that those exports only profits Alaska, not the rest of the states. When the Oglala aquifer which serves the American mid to south west, (and which is now being depleted 8 times faster than it's being replenished), has become depleted will Alaska have to cease exporting fresh water to other nations for profit and instead transport it to the lower states for the sake of American citizens survival? Will Alaska still profit by sending water to the lower states? If that happens, and it looks like it will since America's fresh water supplies are being depleted, wouldn't it have been better if America had planned ahead of time to conserve water and better to start conserving now?
> 
> .


Water conservation is not global warming. It is usage and pollution situation. We have been working on water conservation in Texas for a very long time.

Most cities have moved from draining aquifers to using collected surface water by creating reservoirs, though in the desert of far west Texas it's a bit of a different situation. this has been planned and worked on for 50-60 years. Our problem is just as often too much water (flooding) as too little.

In fact my little city has been under a water conservation plan, and water usage laws, for over a decade, and ground water laws have been in place in places like around the Houston metroplex for 20 years. These are powers that are granted to states and in turn to localities in our form of government.

Much of the misunderstanding about the U.S. by people in other countries is a very basic lack of understanding of our system of government. The states were set up to be almost totally distinct countries.. With very limited powers granted to the federal government, intended to only deal with interstate issues like defense, currency, etc.

Compare it to the european union. Our federal government was set up more like the european union, with our states comparing to the individual countries of europe.

This is fading as our federal government endlessly expands it's powers, usurping states rights and powers, and becoming a monstrous monolithic and extremely inefficient centralized sinkhole.

As for the nation, Alaska will never need to send water south with exception of possibly the desert southwest. The only real water shortages in the U.S. are where massive populations have decided to try to inhabit deserts with no water. The great lakes (20% of the worlds fresh water) and rivers of the U.S. can provide ample water. The Mississippi alone is almost a million cubic feet per second of fresh water discharge, and the fifth largest watershed in the world as far as water discharge.

But more to the original point.. My well isn't likely to go dry in the next 50 years, my climate is not predicted to warm more than about a tenth of a degree in the next 50 years, and my rainfall is not predicted to change in the next 50 years, what exactly should I attempt to plan for?


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> And yes I know your country doesn't have any plans to invade Canada.
> .


ummmmm...



> A 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada
> 
> The following is a full-text reproduction of the 1935
> plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army
> ...


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-9586.html


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> ummmmm...
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...


 Ed, that was a plan we had to invade Canada to force them to agree to take Detroit back which they so peevishly returned to us after the War of 1812. Recently they sent one of their deep undercover agents to the US to become the Governor of Michigan to make sure we dont just gift them Detroit.

Canadians can be very diabolical.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Sometimes even if you win, you still lose.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bigkat80 said:


> That is an oversimplification of what i said. In reality if Canada trys to become the worlds water nazi's and control the world by use of water embargoes then the Us has the military power to effect equitable solutions to that Problem...Personally canad doesnt have control of the worlds water supply so no need of concern that we will take from you what we need when we need it any time soon....But should the resource wars eventually happen you can bet canada cannot and will not hold out on the US...its not in their best interest they need our protection.....


I don't believe Canada wants to become the world's water nazis or to control the world through water embargoes. Why ever would it want to? I think Canada just wants to conserve and keep its' own water for itself and set a good example to other nations and teach them the technologies so the other nations can conserve their own water for themselves.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> ummmmm...
> 
> http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-9586.html


Very interesting.



> In February 1935, the War Department arranged a
> Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to
> build three border air bases for the purposes of
> pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The
> ...


:huh:

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was the last declassified plan the guy found. Rest assured we have a brand new, up to date plan on invading you with modern methods. I'm sure we also have a plan for invading Tahiti and Switzerland and India and everywhere else, too. 

So do you want Detroit or not?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bigkat80 said:


> Okay I have been Gone for a couple Days ...Now I am ready to answer your unanswerable Question.
> 
> 1. I do not Beleive that GW as defined by you or the Gloab Warming Movement is true.
> 2. I beleive that the earth has been warming and Cooling for billions of years with or with out us having to do anything.
> ...


Terrific post!!! I'm looking forward to grilling iguana. Like they say, when life gives you lemons ...


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Darren said:


> Terrific post!!! I'm looking forward to grilling iguana. Like they say, when life gives you lemons ...


I hear they taste like Rabbits which taste like chicken as does everything else...LOL


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bigkat80 said:


> I hear they taste like Rabbits which taste like chicken as does everything else...LOL


What kind of chicken, then? Slithery eel chicken??


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> That was the last declassified plan the guy found. Rest assured we have a brand new, up to date plan on invading you with modern methods. I'm sure we also have a plan for invading Tahiti and Switzerland and India and everywhere else, too.
> 
> *So do you want Detroit or not?*


Heh. If it was up to me, I would be happy to take everything north of the 35th Latitude. Anyone south of the 35th would be welcome to keep it for themselves. 

Ducking and running now - :lookout:

.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Personally I'd prefer all of what's north of the 40th parallel. Everything south of that is way too hot.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Heh. If it was up to me, I would be happy to take everything north of the 35th Latitude. Anyone south of the 35th would be welcome to keep it for themselves.
> 
> Ducking and running now - :lookout:
> 
> .


As they used to say, "44'40" or Fight!"

ROTFL!


----------

