# Climate Change and Flying Boulders



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

James Hansen's at it again. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clas...bdf026-9384-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html



> ELEUTHERA, Bahamas â Standing atop a 60-foot cliff overlooking the Atlantic, James Hansen â the retired NASA scientist sometimes dubbed the âfather of global warmingâ â examines two small rocks through a magnifying glass. Towering above him is the source of one of the shards: a huge boulder from a pair locals call âthe Cow and the Bull,â the largest of which is estimated to weigh more than 1,000 tons.





> Hansen and Paul Hearty â a wiry, hammer-slinging geologist from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington who has joined him here as a guide â have a theory about these rocks. Itâs so provocative â and, frankly, terrifying â that some critics wonder whether the man who helped spawn the whole debate about the dangers of climate change has finally gone too far.


Naturally, there are skeptics within the scientific community, whose explanations sound much more feasible from a logical standpoint. It's also worth noting that man didn't cause the warming period during the era they're talking about. Go figure. :bored:


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

If you bother to read the story text, it's immediately clear the "flying" part of the title is from some silly headline writer who wanted to come up with something catchy. The debate is among the ideas 1) that the huge boulders are just what is left after very long-term erosion, 2) that they were deposited by tsunami flows from any of several sources including a localized meteorite impact, and 3) the hypothesis that Hansen supports, that they were moved while ocean levels were higher and intense superstorms occurring. Geologists' discussions look to me to conclude that some sort of wave-water action movement is a reasonable explanation, with details of what caused such water flows very uncertain.

There is a link leading to http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf , an online copy of a recent multi-author compilation by Hansen that is presently undergoing a general peer review process, apparently at present tallying one positive and one negative analysis by qualified experts.

I think it's worth noting that in his introductory remarks in that paper, Hansen *clearly* acknowledges that causes of past much warmer spans were very different than anything happening presently involving AGW, that his focus is simply to explore issues like ice sheet interactions with ocean currents and temperatures.


> Accurately known changes of Earth&#8217;s astronomical configuration altered the seasonal and geographical distribution of incoming radiation during the Eemian. Resulting global warming was due to feedbacks that amplified the orbital forcing. While the Eemian is not an analog of future warming, it is useful for investigating climate feedbacks, the response of polar ice sheets to polar warming, and the interplay between ocean circulation and ice sheet melt.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

DryHeat said:


> If you bother to read the story text, it's immediately clear the "flying" part of the title is from some silly headline writer who wanted to come up with something catchy. The debate is among the ideas 1) that the huge boulders are just what is left after very long-term erosion, 2) that they were deposited by tsunami flows from any of several sources including a localized meteorite impact, and 3) the hypothesis that Hansen supports, that they were moved while ocean levels were higher and intense superstorms occurring. Geologists' discussions look to me to conclude that some sort of wave-water action movement is a reasonable explanation, with details of what caused such water flows very uncertain.
> 
> There is a link leading to http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf , an online copy of a recent multi-author compilation by Hansen that is presently undergoing a general peer review process, apparently at present tallying one positive and one negative analysis by qualified experts.


I'm well aware of what the article says. What makes you think I didn't read the text? I would hope others read the text, that was the purpose of the thread.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> What makes you think I didn't read the text?


Nothing at all, my snark was using an "editorial" "you" to the general crew of AGW knee-jerk critics here who *do* seem to go by headlines without exploring the substance of things they read or even post. However, you might've commented yourself that the word "flying" was idiotic, or not used it in your thread title.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Michigan has an interesting geological history. It was once a huge salt ocean. The salt mines under Detroit support this. It was an ocean for a long time, limestone quarries support this. It was more recently covered in glacier ice. Boulders on the surface and huge beds of gravel support this. The elevation of Michigan is rising, rebounding,from the relief of the glacier's weight. The rich deep top soil in the Midwest was shoved down from Canada by glaciers. In geological terms, anything that changes within ten thousand years is a current event. 

We are pumping trillions of gallons of crude oil out of the ground, just a few miles beneath the surface. We are discharging trillions of pounds of carbon into the air. But in terms of what man does verses what nature does, that volcanic eruption in Mexico, today, will likely spew more pollutants into the atmosphere this week than all of mankind's contribution all year.
Climate change is real. Been happening since before we had an atmosphere, will continue no matter what we do or don't do and will continue to change after we cease to be. 
That the US, that takes up 1% of the earth's surface, should or could stop climate change, with economically devastating alterations is silly, IHMO.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*So much for global warming! As winter weather sweeps in, 'snow lover' reveals there's MORE of the white stuff left on Scottish mountains than there has been in 21 years*


> 'Normally we're looking at between six to 12 patches - last year was a good year with 21, but this has exceeded that.
> 'There was also a good covering of snow last year, but the average temperature *in May was two degrees lower than we would normally expect and the summer was cool, which is why there are so many left.*'
> Mr Cameron, a self-proclaimed 'chinophile' - the Greek term for 'snow lover' - said he believed an overcast spring and cool summer combined with heavy snowfall has led to the above-average findings.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cottish-mountains-21-years.html#ixzz3stY1NvOh


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Man-made climate change, is either a problem, or it isn't (depending on who you ask), But this type of spectacular speculation IMO, does not help the pro side at all.

Did he forget (or did not know), the theory, that at one time, there was a _whole bunch of water, _heading right at the Bahamas?



> These continual floodings (or Burps) of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico increased the water level of the Gulf. This overflow of water would surge through the narrower Florida/Cuba opening and is responsible for enlarging the Florida/Cuba Straits. This same overflow then washed down the lower laying Bahama Mega-Bank into the Islands left there today. The washed down areas were then covered by sea level rise at the close of the Ice Age.












http://www.sott.net/article/216660-Ice-Age-Megaflood-Shaped-Bahamas


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

DryHeat said:


> Nothing at all, my snark was using an "editorial" "you" to the general crew of AGW knee-jerk critics here who *do* seem to go by headlines without exploring the substance of things they read or even post. *However, you might've commented yourself that the word "flying" was idiotic, or not used it in your thread title*.


I assume people can make that distinction by themselves, when they read the article. If they don't read the article, my comments would be irrelevant anyway. But 'flying boulders' was in the article title, so why not use it in my thread title?

Perhaps a more appropriate word would have been 'floating' rather than 'flying'.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Man-made climate change, is either a problem, or it isn't (depending on who you ask), *But this type of spectacular speculation IMO, does not help the pro side at all.*


Exactly. There comes a point when one can cross over into the bizarre and call any previous claims into question.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I am not a geologist or scientist of any kind. I'm not uneducated either. But I don't see a thousand ton boulder being carried by water as in floating it miles to be deposited somewhere else. The shape that rock would cause it to sink. I have on the other hand seen storms as I used to be a "storm trooper" (rebuilding after storms) and have seen the devastation caused by storms. I think that rock could have been rolled over onto its new place by a wave. 

I also have seen many backhoes that dug up stuff that was odd. When you dig into a dirt pit you see weird things sometimes. Once I saw seashell two feet down from the topsoil and then 10 feet further down there was more. If I had to guess I would say there were ocean there twice instead of once. Many 100000's of years apart. That boulder could very well have been there forever and just have been sandwiched between two layers of limestone and the top has eroded away. 

Maybe I should get in on the money and report my findings too. I'm getting too old to swing a hammer anyway. Which side pays the most money? That's where I'll be.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> *So much for global warming! As winter weather sweeps in, 'snow lover' reveals there's MORE of the white stuff left on Scottish mountains than there has been in 21 years*


I think it's fair to ask, what if predictions of supercharged drought & storms, low-lying real estate becoming submerged, and plant & animal extinctions comes true at the 2 degree point?

Of course if those things happen it will spell economic devastation for millions. Are climate change deniers willing to take economic responsibility of they are mistaken? I think it's only fair that they put their money where their mouths are. After all, if they're profiting from not taking steps to curb climate change, they should be the ones to pay damages of it happens.

So do you believe in your position enough to back your theories with a financial guarantee?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I think it's fair to ask, what if predictions of supercharged drought & storms, low-lying real estate becoming submerged, and plant & animal extinctions comes true at the 2 degree point?
> 
> Of course if those things happen it will spell economic devastation for millions. Are climate change deniers willing to take economic responsibility of they are mistaken? I think it's only fair that they put their money where their mouths are. After all, if they're profiting from not taking steps to curb climate change, they should be the ones to pay damages of it happens.
> 
> So do you believe in your position enough to back your theories with a financial guarantee?


Do you? What if your wrong? What if humans have no part in it? All those billions spent so far and lost, are you willing to pay us back? Remember Solyndra? 

I think you should start paying us back now, how about, say 80% of your gross worth, and when you can prove unequivocally that humans are causing this "distruction", get back to us.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Do you? What if your wrong? What if humans have no part in it? All those billions spent so far and lost, are you willing to pay us back? Remember Solyndra?
> 
> I think you should start paying us back now, how about, say 80% of your gross worth, and when you can prove unequivocally that humans are causing this "distruction", get back to us.


So no, climate change deniers aren't willing to put their money where they're mouths are.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> I think it's fair to ask, what if predictions of supercharged drought & storms, low-lying real estate becoming submerged, and plant & animal extinctions comes true at the 2 degree point?
> 
> Of course if those things happen it will spell economic devastation for millions. Are climate change deniers willing to take economic responsibility of they are mistaken? I think it's only fair that they put their money where their mouths are. After all, if they're profiting from not taking steps to curb climate change, they should be the ones to pay damages of it happens.
> 
> So do you believe in your position enough to back your theories with a financial guarantee?


If those things happen then those people will most likely be dead and have no need for money. But anyway, your logic is flawed. Might as well say that Obama and congress owe us money back for our extra part in paying for the ACA. Oh yeah, you were for it too right? Send me a PM and I'll give you a PO box where you can send a check to me for my part.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

How about a nice conservative Idea ?
Keep your filth to yourself .
Don't put any more anything into the air than you filter back out. 
It's called no trespassing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So no, climate change deniers aren't willing to put their money where they're mouths are.


That whole premise is silly.
The climate is in a constant state of "change", and was doing it long before mankind came along.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And Obama is going to FAIL in this part as well. His legacy is nothing more then one failure after another, and now he is over there trying to push this bull and he is not going togged very far as so many have once again saw the fallacy of this world scam called global warming caused by mankind.~


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That whole premise is silly.
> The climate is in a constant state of "change", and was doing it long before mankind came along.


Yeah its like if I got mad because rain washed all my crops out this year and asked the weatherman for money.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So no, climate change deniers aren't willing to put their money where they're mouths are.


No, I'm not.
You didn't answer some of my questions......again. Why not?
Are you? If you are you need to start paying right now to cover the billions squandered so far....Solyndra anyone?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That whole premise is silly.
> The climate is in a constant state of "change", and was doing it long before mankind came along.


The prediction is that the deterioration of conditions won't be linear. For example, we're observing a 3 mm/year rise in sea level, but at some point it may reach a rise of many times that per year. If problems like that start happening more quickly things could get bad fast.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The prediction is that the deterioration of conditions won't be linear. For example, we're observing a 3 mm/year rise in sea level, but at some point it may reach a rise of many times that per year. If problems like that start happening more quickly things could get bad fast.


It's been rising for centuries 

The Sahara Desert used to be lush and green, and the central US was once an ocean.

The lunacy is thinking it WON'T change


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

mreynolds said:


> If those things happen then those people will most likely be dead and have no need for money.


This has always been a problem in America.

If we do harm to the earth, negatively effecting others, even in later generations, who cares? 

We're gettin ours.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> This has always been a problem in America.
> 
> If we do harm to the earth, negatively effecting others, even in later generations, who cares?
> 
> We're gettin ours.


Well, they don't seem to care about us either! Their just jealous.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Bff, the issue isn't that past forces utterly unrelated to humans haven't caused global conditions extremely different from what we have today. The issue is that humans, with our rapid extraction and burning of carbon-based fossil fuels, have the ability to change various concentrations of chemicals over spans of decades or centuries that have changed historically over geological scales of millions of years. Put stored carbon back into atmospheric gasses 10,000X faster than it was fixed there by very slow processes and it's not at all logical to think there just cannot be drastic effects, and this time acting on the time scale on which we're making those changes, not the spans things happened in the past. Yes, things also can happen as in the past very quickly due to non-biological factors, the meteorite strike extinction event killing dinosaurs (which may well be correlated with very long-term transiting of the solar system back and forth across the galaxy's plane), and much earlier extreme volcanic activity or even recent rather rare extreme eruptions, for example. But, *none* of that logically matters to the issue of whether enough can be measured regarding our *present* situation to predict changes upcoming due to completely unprecedented effects.

Look, if you lived in a canyon downstream of a large reservoir on the banks of a river, would it make sense to look back over geological time and say, "Well, 200 million years ago this was just flat land here, and then after the channel here was cut by erosion, this river flooded up thirty feet above my house and fields ten times in the last million years. Things change and always have, *therefore* I don't care in the least that that government guy came to my door and told us to evacuate since huge cracks are opening in the upstream dam and it may fail anytime in the next week." ?? This IS a precise parallel to what your argument consists of, and looks to me to be utterly faulty logic. Say the changes are so gradual that nothing will likely happen in our lifetimes and "After us, the flood" like Marie Antoinette or whoever did, that you think we have a right to our present comforts without worrying about consequences over a century or two, if you like. That would be logical. Irresponsible and selfish, imo, but logical. 

I repeat, to name an issue here that I think just could snowball over even the next decade and that is NOT factored into most of the warming danger models, watch out for methane concentrations burping up out of permafrost and continental shelf sediments in the Arctic. Nevada, *that* sort of activity is about the only thing that would be on a time span to allow our generations to collect on any bets or penalties with the "denier" crowd. Everything else will be gradual enough that the moving feast of rationalizations that nothing's actually happening in a cause/effect sequence will just continue with corporate money continuing to buy off any real reforms.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The lunacy is thinking it WON'T change


It's not change that concerns me, it's abrupt change.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It's not change that concerns me, it's abrupt change.


And there's not a bloody thing anybody.......not even King Obama or the all powerful UN.....can do about that.

:nanner:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> And there's not a bloody thing anybody.......not even King Obama or the all powerful UN.....can do about that.


Scientists disagree.

Just think, there was a time when it was commonly believed that there was nothing that could be done to prevent small pox. Science can do terrific things, maybe even save the human race from extinction.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> And there's not a bloody thing anybody.......not even King Obama or the all powerful UN.....can do about that.
> 
> :nanner:


Not one person can do a thing about nor can the whole planet of people do a thing. And it is foolish to think so but lets just tax the bejeepers out of the people anyway and have a huge party because of the money rolling in


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Scientists disagree.
> 
> Just think, there was a time when it was commonly believed that there was nothing that could be done to prevent small pox. Science can do terrific things, maybe even save the human race from extinction.


Really? They can do something about abrupt climate change? Please, enlighten me because I wasn't aware of that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Really? They can do something about abrupt climate change? Please, enlighten me because I wasn't aware of that.


By reducing greenhouse emissions, of course.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Scientists disagree.
> 
> Just think, there was a time when it was commonly believed that there was nothing that could be done to prevent small pox. Science can do terrific things, maybe even save the human race from extinction.


What scientists?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> By reducing greenhouse emissions, of course.


How? Why don't you lead by example and go green, off the grid, stop using power. Do your part and I ......might start to believe your serious.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> How? Why don't you lead by example and go green, off the grid, stop using power. Do your part and I ......might start to believe your serious.


I maintain a very small carbon footprint.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I maintain a very small carbon footprint.


Not small enough. You are still a part of the problem. So, those solutions you mentioned, are?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> How? Why don't you lead by example and go green, off the grid, stop using power. Do your part and I ......might start to believe your serious.


Smashing dissent, are we? 

I heard somewhere, that we can use wind, the sun and even natural gas, to generate electricity.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Smashing dissent, are we?
> 
> I heard somewhere, that we can use wind, the sun and even natural gas, to generate electricity.


I heard that too. Ivanpah a good example, Solyndra maybe? I'm not against different forms of energy production, but renewable energy just isn't reliable enough. Don't subsudize any of it any more. We're being ripped off.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

plowjockey said:


> This has always been a problem in America.
> 
> If we do harm to the earth, negatively effecting others, even in later generations, who cares?
> 
> We're gettin ours.


Well I never said I didn't care. I don't think most of America feels that way either. I have been green before it was cool. I was even certified in green remodeling/building principles. I was one of three people that was the first to use a blower door here in Texas when they were first invented in Minneapolis. I have weatherized 100's of 1000's of sq. feet here in Texas on both single family homes as well as apartments. Business too if they wanted to pay me but most didn't as utilities are a right off for them anyway and improvements have to be depreciated. 

I know the industry inside and out. But I also don't just follow everything blindly from what either side says. We have been headed toward greener principles for years anyway. I just do what should be done and live as green as I can like was said earlier.

My reasoning is why not?


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> So, those solutions you mentioned, are?


Here're links to various proposals. Personally, I doubt much concrete will be done in time, but give me candidates for whom to vote who at least seem to have advisers capable of summarizing ideas like these to them so they can discuss things, and I'll be voting for them. Btw, I do have 8 kw in solar panels (grid-tied) on the roof, owned, at a cost around $18K after rebates and credits. It probably won't be economically justified for 15 years or more, but we're trying to do some walking instead of just talking.

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/comprehensive-plan-of-action.html

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/how-to-cool-arctic.html

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/methane-capture.html

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/decomposing-atmospheric-methane.html

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/position-paper-on-geo-engineering.html

http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2011/11/combining-policy-and-technology.html

http://geo-engineering.blogspot.com/2011/07/way-back-to-280-ppm.html


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

DryHeat said:


> Here're links to various proposals. Personally, I doubt much concrete will be done in time, but give me candidates for whom to vote who at least seem to have advisers capable of summarizing ideas like these to them so they can discuss things, and I'll be voting for them.
> 
> http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/comprehensive-plan-of-action.html
> 
> ...


Aside from the fact that those bloggers clearly have an agenda, the term "fees" turned me off. And no mention of the drop in the quality of life that will certainly happen if those ideas are implimented. I like the "adapt" suggestion. It's what we do best. 

I'm positive that we will have our existence expired by an asteroid or comit. Maybe a plaque or three, but not by pollution. Let's use what resources we have to live a happy, comfortable life!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I'm positive that we will have our existence expired by an asteroid or comit. Maybe a plaque or three, but not by pollution. Let's use what resources we have to live a happy, comfortable life!


I believe you'll live to see the day when the consequences of pumping too much horsepower into the atmosphere will really surprise you.

I'm headed back to California on a consulting job in the morning. Good night and good luck.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Nevada said:


> I maintain a very small carbon footprint.


What's a carbon footprint?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Nevada said:


> I believe you'll live to see the day when the consequences of pumping too much horsepower into the atmosphere will really surprise you.
> 
> *I'm headed back to California on a consulting job in the morning. Good night and good luck.*


Will you be using a horse and buggy or will you be walking?


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

"I am not a geologist or scientist of any kind. I'm not uneducated either. But I don't see a thousand ton boulder being carried by water as in floating it miles to be deposited somewhere else."

A group of pterosaurs could have carried it using lengths of creeper to grasp it.
(apologies to Monty Python)


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Smashing dissent, are we?
> 
> I heard somewhere, that we can use wind, the sun and even natural gas, to generate electricity.


Natural gas isn't a green fuel to hear those opposed to fracking and flaring. Remember, natural gas is mostly methane.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> This has always been a problem in America.
> 
> If we do harm to the earth, negatively effecting others, even in later generations, who cares?
> 
> We're gettin ours.


Our ancestors made a living, got theirs, and left us infrastructure which consists of not only utilities, highways, etc. which require repair but also businesses that savaging the consumer with AGW indirect taxes will provide less money to maintain the legacy infrastructure.

This country will be much poorer in many ways. Beggaring people for a scam will have profound effects we can't completely predict all because of a chicken little fear that, in part, started when the last ice age ended.

It's indisputable that sea levels have been rising since.

The transfer of wealth to third world countries will far exceed anything we disbursed through foreign aid in past. Tin pot dictators are in for a bonanza. 

All for a mistaken belief that mankind's puny contributions to the climate outweigh the contribution of the Sun. With that kind of insanity running rampant we don't deserve to survive as a species.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I think it's fair to ask, what if predictions of supercharged drought & storms, low-lying real estate becoming submerged, and plant & animal extinctions comes true at the 2 degree point?
> 
> Of course if those things happen it will spell economic devastation for millions. Are climate change deniers willing to take economic responsibility of they are mistaken? I think it's only fair that they put their money where their mouths are. After all, if they're profiting from not taking steps to curb climate change, they should be the ones to pay damages of it happens.
> 
> So do you believe in your position enough to back your theories with a financial guarantee?


Nevada , the low lying real estate part got me thinking. About 30 miles inland from Myrtle Beach S.C. my dad used to work tobacco for his uncle. This was in the 50's. He says he could dig down about a foot deep and dig up sea shells. That's climate change for you.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> He says he could dig down about a foot deep and dig up sea shells. That's climate change for you.


That's the sort of distance movement of smaller items that could happen at the same time a 100' wave event was moving a 1000-ton boulder a much shorter distance, I'd think. The controversy is more whether such a sloshing could be due to a more intense cyclone/ hurricane than anything we've seen in historical times (and made that intense by temperatures a degree or two higher than right now) rather than by an earthquake tsunami or a meteorite impact. Note the "megatsunami" discussions ongoing presently, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami . In the Atlantic region, there looks to be some real risk:


> La Palma is currently the most volcanically active island in the Canary Islands Archipelago. It is likely that several eruptions would be required before failure would occur on Cumbre Vieja.[21][22] However, the western half of the volcano has an approximate volume of 500 cubic kilometres (120 cu mi) and an estimated mass of 1.5 trillion metric tons (1.7Ã1012 short tons). If it were to catastrophically slide into the ocean, it could generate a wave with an initial height of about 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) at the island, and a likely height of around 50 metres (164 ft) at the Caribbean and the Eastern North American seaboard when it runs ashore eight or more hours later. Tens of millions of lives could be lost in the cities and/or towns of St. John's, Boston, Halifax, New York, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Miami, Havana and the rest of the Eastern Coasts of the United States and Canada, as well many other cities on the Atlantic coast in Europe, South America and Africa.[21][22] The likelihood of this happening is a matter of vigorous debate.[


My personal gut feel is that something like this event in the geologic past is more likely the explanation for the movement of those boulders in question than is Hansen's cyclonic storm hypothesis, and if so there wouldn't be any relevance right there to global warming issues.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami#cite_note-Pararas-Carayannis-24


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

TripleD said:


> Nevada , the low lying real estate part got me thinking. About 30 miles inland from Myrtle Beach S.C. my dad used to work tobacco for his uncle. This was in the 50's. He says he could dig down about a foot deep and dig up sea shells. That's climate change for you.


 Yep, climate changes, landmasses rise and fall, the sea ebbs and flows. Generally, those events transpire over thousands, or millions of years. Still has nothing to do with whether or not humankind, in all our billions, is changing the chemical properties of the atmosphere by burning 100+MILLION years worth of buried hydrocarbons in a few generations time.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> the term "fees" turned me off


Well, to get to use nonrenewable fossil fuels for often frivolous purposes like heating a house to 80F if you like rather than 65F or 70F, driving around hundreds of miles in a V8 auto doing little but showing off your supposed affluence, not to mention growing crops like corn to feed to cattle and pigs for human consumption despite the 90% energy loss by so doing, *without* damage abatement charges included in the pricing, is what *I* call a *subsidy* for a profligate lifestyle. Subsidies turn *me* off, especially stretching back a couple of centuries. Time to pay that piper, one way or another, or perhaps in several ways, none of them much fun.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

DryHeat said:


> Well, to get to use nonrenewable fossil fuels for often frivolous purposes like heating a house to 80F if you like rather than 65F or 70F, driving around hundreds of miles in a V8 auto doing little but showing off your supposed affluence, not to mention growing crops like corn to feed to cattle and pigs for human consumption despite the 90% energy loss by so doing, *without* damage abatement charges included in the pricing, is what *I* call a *subsidy* for a profligate lifestyle. Subsidies turn *me* off, especially stretching back a couple of centuries. Time to pay that piper, one way or another, or perhaps in several ways, none of them much fun.


Question: will those lifestyle changes and sacrifices be mandated for the elites as well? Or just the peasants that they control?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh for pity that those folks give up their private jets and McMansions Heaven Forbid.
Just us peons and minions do THAT and get taxed out of their minds in the meantime. Plants close laying off 1K's as this country is moving fast into a 3rd world country and Obama has the key and the country is slipping on banana peelings into the mess head first.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> will those lifestyle changes and sacrifices be mandated for the elites as well?


They would if I had my way. I've already suggested steps like going back to 70% (even 90% for extreme brackets is fine) income tax levels, serious taxes on inheritances beyond a $million or so, and, well, why not graduated sales taxes, too, like 40% on any items or services over $100K? Same for property tax. Then plow those proceeds back into infrastructure... bridges, rail lines, distributed solar panels, and especially, more funding to state universities and schools in general, including much lower tuition. Then stick the earplugs in and ignore the yowling ads on Fox and so forth that half you guys presently seem to have been programmed by. Oh, and make sure you fund shorter election campaigns directly so those elites don't just simply buy that many more Reps and Senators than they already have. Oh, don't forget to eliminate property tax exemptions for churches, too! And get rid of that "Corporations are people, my friend!" nonsense, though that's now likely to need a constitutional amendment after the Citizens United decision. Yep, let's get to work, progressives! Where's Teddy Roosevelt now that we need an effective reformer?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

DryHeat said:


> They would if I had my way. I've already suggested steps like going back to 70% (even 90% for extreme brackets is fine) income tax levels, serious taxes on inheritances beyond a $million or so, and, well, why not graduated sales taxes, too, like 40% on any items or services over $100K? Same for property tax. Then plow those proceeds back into infrastructure... bridges, rail lines, distributed solar panels, and especially, more funding to state universities and schools in general, including much lower tuition. Then stick the earplugs in and ignore the yowling ads on Fox and so forth that half you guys presently seem to have been programmed by. Oh, and make sure you fund shorter election campaigns directly so those elites don't just simply buy that many more Reps and Senators than they already have. Oh, don't forget to eliminate property tax exemptions for churches, too! And get rid of that "Corporations are people, my friend!" nonsense, though that's now likely to need a constitutional amendment after the Citizens United decision. Yep, let's get to work, progressives! Where's Teddy Roosevelt now that we need an effective reformer?


There is so much wrong there I don't even know where to start..........


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

MO_cows said:


> There is so much wrong there I don't even know where to start..........


Hmmm....Sales tax on any purchase or service over 100k? That means when I build some lower middle class man a house for a nominal 100k he will then pay 140k. It is a service provided after all. And the sales tax will be in addition to his down payment as it is a sales tax and can not be financed. 

Curious? How does a business pay 70% tax when the gross profit may only be 30%? That's 40% out of his pocket that he didn't have.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

DryHeat said:


> They would if I had my way. I've already suggested steps like going back to 70% (even 90% for extreme brackets is fine) income tax levels, serious taxes on inheritances beyond a $million or so, and, well, why not graduated sales taxes, too, like 40% on any items or services over $100K? Same for property tax. Then plow those proceeds back into infrastructure... bridges, rail lines, distributed solar panels, and especially, more funding to state universities and schools in general, including much lower tuition. Then stick the earplugs in and ignore the yowling ads on Fox and so forth that half you guys presently seem to have been programmed by. Oh, and make sure you fund shorter election campaigns directly so those elites don't just simply buy that many more Reps and Senators than they already have. Oh, don't forget to eliminate property tax exemptions for churches, too! And get rid of that "Corporations are people, my friend!" nonsense, though that's now likely to need a constitutional amendment after the Citizens United decision. Yep, let's get to work, progressives! Where's Teddy Roosevelt now that we need an effective reformer?



That will have a severe and immediate Laffers curve effect. People would go out of business. There would be no contractors to build those roads and solar panels. No companies = no taxes. 

Laffers Curve at its finest.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> That will have a severe and immediate Laffers curve effect. People would go out of business. There would be no contractors to build those roads and solar panels. No companies = no taxes.
> 
> Laffers Curve at its finest.


LOL, considering the origins of that phrase (not even a hypothesis), I doubt it would cut much ice with many economists. Comports with the stupid notions of "trickle down" economics and nothing else -- and "trickle down" has never worked. I'm surprised anyone still buys into this way of thinking.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> There is so much wrong there I don't even know where to start.....


Yea! See, we have reached a point of agreement. I didn't know where to start with so much wrong, either, but that query about whether elites would have to feel the pain, too, crystallized it all. Problem remains, though, the Arctic Circle may well open up a vast ring of vent holes, like a giant calliope being played from 1000'-long cows buried head-first under each of them, belching methane flatulence endlessly out over Siberia and Alaska and Canada. The ones already seen are being called "dragons' mouths" ( https://www.google.com/search?q=sib...bWtLnJAhUFKogKHdFvDL4QsAQIIQ&biw=1600&bih=741) but I *do* think calling them perhaps "cows' butts" would be so much more accurate and evocative, don't you? Would match your icon, too! That process getting going would maybe outpace our ability to extract funds from those elites, though, so we'd not really be able to do much with the tax receipts but sock them away at .001% interest like grammy and gramps have to do right now anyway. Well. I suppose a bunch of those .01%-ers like whacko-ozzie Mel Gibson have bought islands to hide out on (http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/private-island-retreats-rich-famous/story?id=14475812#5) and will get their comeuppances when the Greenland glaciers flush into the North Atlantic and that extra 10' ocean depth starts lapping around their ankles at their dinner tables! That'll be a bit of a lifestyle change anyway! Dunno if Gore's La Jolla mansion is quite that close to mean high tide, but we can hope, right?


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Txsteader said:


> Question: will those lifestyle changes and sacrifices be mandated for the elites as well? Or just the peasants that they control?


Well no but we wont be able to afford to turn on a light bulb or buy a gallon o f gas .

At the big meeting today climate summit they decided that the rich countries should pay for the poorer countries to go green. I am so sick and tired of the USA using our tax dollars for anything other than for the USA !!!!!!! So what do you think will happen to all that money .....it gos in the pockets of the dictators :hair


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> LOL, considering the origins of that phrase (not even a hypothesis), I doubt it would cut much ice with many economists. Comports with the stupid notions of "trickle down" economics and nothing else -- and "trickle down" has never worked. I'm surprised anyone still buys into this way of thinking.


Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it doesn't work that way. I was raised up around many smokers and knew a great deal of them. They were going to make money on the higher taxes but lots and lots juts quit instead. Less tax. So they raised it again and again and more and more quit either out of affordability or just plain rebellion. 

When gas went to 5 a gallon, how much more did you buy? With gas at 2 a gallon now lets put a 3 dollar a gallon tax on it and see how much more people buy. I bet they buy less. That's my hypothesis. You do know what a hypothesis is right? 


hyÂ·pothÂ·eÂ·sis.


[h&#299;&#712;pÃ¤TH&#601;s&#601;s]






NOUN



1.a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation: 
"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"

synonyms: theory Â· theorem Â· thesis Â· conjecture Â· supposition Â· 
[more]



â¢
philosophy

a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Woolieface said:


> What's a carbon footprint?


Don't know as everyone's foot is made of carbon anyway.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

In fact, lets not stop there. Lets just charge 20 bucks a gallon for gas. That way we can use the extra tax money to build solar and repair our bad highways. 

Oh wait, Asphalt is made of oil.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

you hit it. I dont get a raise when the gas prices rise, so if my budget has a $30 limit on gas for the month thats what I have to spend same money less gallons I can buy. I dont buy packaged cigs, I started to roll my own in 08 when the tax hit. so same money spent but more self rolled cigs. When the cost of milk was $5 a gallon we stopped drinking milk. I cant tell you the last time I bought pork, cant afford it. So when the electric costs go up I have to try and use less, follow the kids around and turn stuff off and turn other services off, like cable or phone. People only have so much to spend. So like Obama said in 08 the costs of gas and electric will have to go up so people will use less. He really meant that people of less income will do without so the rich who can afford the higher cost have the privilege of using what they want, since the poor cant use it anyway. I know people that had to quit jobs because they could not afford the gas to get to work.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This is a scam of Epic Proportions this manmade global warming bs. The liberals once and for all should go and put a dunce cap on they are so out of touch and brain washed.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it doesn't work that way. I was raised up around many smokers and knew a great deal of them. They were going to make money on the higher taxes but lots and lots juts quit instead. Less tax. So they raised it again and again and more and more quit either out of affordability or just plain rebellion.
> 
> When gas went to 5 a gallon, how much more did you buy? With gas at 2 a gallon now lets put a 3 dollar a gallon tax on it and see how much more people buy. I bet they buy less. That's my hypothesis. You do know what a hypothesis is right?
> 
> ...


Except that *actual evidence* from the 50s, 60s and 70s, when tax rates were much higher than they are today, proved that tax burdens borne by the wealthy doesn't kill the economy, as the Laffer Curve proposes they will.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf

Please note the differing tax rates from the 50s and 60s through 2013. I don't remember a massive economic slowdown from workers or business when tax rates were that high, do you? And remember -- this accounts only for *earned* income. This data does not include the much higher Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax rates that were also in effect at that time. 

So... what evidence do you have that supports your "hypothesis?" 

And no need to condescend to me about definitions of terms. I know them well. 

The Laffer Curve is highly disputed and far from proven. Using it as a basis to say high taxation is always counterproductive is an opinion, nothing more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> I was raised up around many smokers and knew a great deal of them. They were going to make money on the higher taxes but lots and lots juts quit instead. Less tax.


My daddy was one of those, he put away over two packs of Camels a day. Called them coughing whales, but I was never sure why. Tried to quit a bunch of times but would just start back up, taxes or no, but he eventually fooled those feds by having a bunch of strokes and kicking off before he'd even gotten to draw much in Medicare benefits. Wasn't gonna let LBJ point to THAT program as being of benefit to anyone, no sir. Only trickle down I saw around him, though, was out of the side of his mouth after maybe that second stroke. He tried, though. Kept saying the cig taxes were all a big plot to save the gummint from payin' for hospital care for hearts and lungs and arteries and such by tricking folks into not smoking.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> Except that *actual evidence* from the 50s, 60s and 70s, when tax rates were much higher than they are today, proved that tax burdens borne by the wealthy doesn't kill the economy, as the Laffer Curve proposes they will.
> 
> http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf
> 
> ...


Well my point was that hypothesis according to the definition is unproven supposition. You keep saying its unproven and not a hypothesis and I just thought it was funny. 

As far as the high tax, you are looking at only one side of the coin. Yes taxes were high. But they didn't bring in any more than they do now when the GDP is used as a benchmark. The federal government has collected between 15 and 20% in taxes as a % of the GDP. No matter what the tax rate was. The GDP grows every year so even in the Reagan years they still collected about the same according to the GDP. So the government is essentially getting same as they always have. 

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/total-tax-revenue.png

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/

Whereas Spending according to the GDP has steadily increased since that same time 

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2011/02/gov-expenditures-gdp-fraction.png

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2011/02/gov-expenditures-gdp-fraction/

Sorry but until spending comes into play I will not vote for them to spend more of my money.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> Except that *actual evidence* from the 50s, 60s and 70s, when tax rates were much higher than they are today, proved that tax burdens borne by the wealthy doesn't kill the economy, as the Laffer Curve proposes they will.
> 
> http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf
> 
> ...


You really don't understand Laffer Curve at all. Its not about taxes on the wealthy. Its not against higher taxes at all. It just says that _*IF*_ you tax beyond a certain point it becomes counter productive. Much like my description of the 3 dollar gas tax. That's all it is. It wasn't thought out to be a mean nasty republican conspiracy. If that's what is now to some people that's fine with me but you have to use all the tools in the toolbox to get the job done and not just the shiny ones. Its not the only supposition in economics either.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

DryHeat said:


> My daddy was one of those, he put away over two packs of Camels a day. Called them coughing whales, but I was never sure why. Tried to quit a bunch of times but would just start back up, taxes or no, but he eventually fooled those feds by having a bunch of strokes and kicking off before he'd even gotten to draw much in Medicare benefits. Wasn't gonna let LBJ point to THAT program as being of benefit to anyone, no sir. Only trickle down I saw around him, though, was out of the side of his mouth after maybe that second stroke. He tried, though. Kept saying the cig taxes were all a big plot to save the gummint from payin' for hospital care for hearts and lungs and arteries and such by tricking folks into not smoking.


You do know that trickle down or supply side economics is a totally different supposition than laffer curve right?

Sorry about your dad too.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> You really don't understand Laffer Curve at all. Its not about taxes on the wealthy. Its not against higher taxes at all. It just says that _*IF*_ you tax beyond a certain point it becomes counter productive. Much like my description of the 3 dollar gas tax. That's all it is. It wasn't thought out to be a mean nasty republican conspiracy. If that's what is now to some people that's fine with me but you have to use all the tools in the toolbox to get the job done and not just the shiny ones. Its not the only supposition in economics either.


No, I DO get that. But the difference is, the wealthy bore more of that burden in times past. I would agree the Laffer Curve is relevant to the extent that *if* you continue to tax the middle and lower income folks more but the wealthy less, they have less incentive to work and earn. You don't need a curve to tell you that. 

It's the disproportionality of the rates of taxation that matter here. You're talking about letting the wealthy continue to bear less of the burden, and I'm talking about shifting the burden to a more fair distribution with the wealthy bearing a larger percentage of the static amount. I think that's what *Dry Heat* is saying, too. 

So I don't really get where the Laffer Curve figures into the discussion at all -- unless you're defending wealthy people paying a lot less in taxes and middle to lower income people paying more. Is that what you're advocating?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> No, I DO get that. But the difference is, the wealthy bore more of that burden in times past. I would agree the Laffer Curve is relevant to the extent that *if* you continue to tax the middle and lower income folks more but the wealthy less, they have less incentive to work and earn. You don't need a curve to tell you that.
> 
> It's the disproportionality of the rates of taxation that matter here. You're talking about letting the wealthy continue to bear less of the burden, and I'm talking about shifting the burden to a more fair distribution with the wealthy bearing a larger percentage of the static amount. I think that's what *Dry Heat* is saying, too.
> 
> So I don't really get where the Laffer Curve figures into the discussion at all -- unless you're defending wealthy people paying a lot less in taxes and middle to lower income people paying more. Is that what you're advocating?


Not at all. I am upset that in fact we are paying more than we used to. Corporations are paying less. There was one chart I found that I have closed out that showed how much more we (middle class) pay more in social tax by almost twice and corporations pay less by almost twice. But 90% is not the right number. There will be jobs lost. We have had tax raises in the last ten years in MC and SS on our paystubs. Seems Obama is a fan of trickle down as well as Bush and Reagan trickling us all the way to the poor house. 

But nothing is solved without spending in check first.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Raeven said:


> No, I DO get that. But the difference is, the wealthy bore more of that burden in times past. I would agree the Laffer Curve is relevant to the extent that *if* you continue to tax the middle and lower income folks more but the wealthy less, they have less incentive to work and earn. You don't need a curve to tell you that.
> 
> It's the disproportionality of the rates of taxation that matter here. You're talking about letting the wealthy continue to bear less of the burden, and I'm talking about shifting the burden to a more fair distribution with the wealthy bearing a larger percentage of the static amount. I think that's what *Dry Heat* is saying, too.
> 
> So I don't really get where the Laffer Curve figures into the discussion at all -- unless you're defending wealthy people paying a lot less in taxes and middle to lower income people paying more. Is that what you're advocating?


And before I get accused (by anyone else) of Obama bashing, you do know of the new tax break available to the 1% as of 2015? It allows REI to now take a full deduction on 2500 dollars instead of just the 500 it was last year. What this means is that now if a subcontractor works on a house for a real estate investor and the amount is 2500 or less that whole amount is now totally deductible instead of depreciating it for years. So all a Investor has to do is divide up all contracts into 2500 dollar increments and right the whole thing off. This year. It was harder to do when it was set at 500 bucks as a max. 

It happens very often too. 

You can keep his change.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Not at all. I am upset that in fact we are paying more than we used to. Corporations are paying less. There was one chart I found that I have closed out that showed how much more we (middle class) pay more in social tax by almost twice and corporations pay less by almost twice. But 90% is not the right number. There will be jobs lost. We have had tax raises in the last ten years in MC and SS on our paystubs. Seems Obama is a fan of trickle down as well as Bush and Reagan trickling us all the way to the poor house.
> 
> But nothing is solved without spending in check first.


We are more in agreement than you probably realize. But you haven't seen me advocate for a 90% tax rate for anyone -- not even corporations. I agree with you completely that corporations are paying less. Even with a 35% rate of taxation, that's very misleading -- because with their various tax breaks, most pay an *effective* tax rate of 12% or less. That's far less than the average wage earner bears.

This is why we've got to start with getting corporate interests out of politics. This is why I agree with *Dry Heat* that Citizens United must be overturned, even if by a Constitutional Amendment. Both political parties are owned by special interests now. Politicians can't work against them even if they want to.

As for checking spending, no argument there, but social safety net programs are the least of it. Did you know that $0.27 of every tax dollar you pay goes to defense spending? That's mind-boggling to me.

I would add, too, that the Federal deficit under Obama has decreased by a substantial amount, and while we may argue the extent of that reduction, the fact remains that it has. It was just one more thing he had to tackle, on top of ending two wars that cost us 3 TRILLION dollars in Iraq alone, with ongoing costs far into the future for same, avoiding a global depression, bringing down unemployment and a few other little things on his plate.

The national debt is another matter, but as a percentage of GDP, it's not as bad as some would have you believe. I agree it needs to be brought down, but in a considered way.

Lastly, I would agree with you more about checking our spending if there had not been such an obscene transfer of wealth in this country into the pockets of the top 0.1% of Americans over the past 25 years. We'd have far more available for our spending needs if everyone was paying a fair share of taxes. Instead, they can't stuff it into their pockets fast enough. Again, when working folks are paying 35-40%, and the very wealthy are paying nothing... there is something wrong with that picture. We should all work to change it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Over the past 50 years that I've been watching the water levels of the Great Lakes, I've seen a lot of changes. For awhile, the waves were licking the siding on a lot of cottages. Then we had a while that lake levels dropped. Some places the water receded a quarter of a mile. Folks were sure that the climate warming was reducing snowfall and the lakes weren't getting replenished. Others were sure the dredging of the St. Claire River was letting too much water out, draining the lakes. Recently, the lake levels have rebounded, faster than we've ever seen. Up and down. I can pedal my bike to work, I can buy an electric car, but the lakes are just going to do what they have always done.

Recently, I heard that the algae bloom on Lake Erie was due to global warming. Warmer water is better for algae, so we have a problem on Lake Erie. Funny, I recall when due to pollution, Lake Erie caught fire. 50 years ago it was a sewer. Algae wouldn't grow in it. Now it is far cleaner, except the phosphorous run off from suburban yards, that algae grows well. But somehow that is caused by climate change.

The ice core samples, bored 2 miles into the arctic ice, show 50,000 years of earth's history. Strangely, without mankind, higher CO2 levels came after the earth warmed. That seems to indicate global warming brought on higher CO2, not that CO2 brought on global warming as some would speculate. 

The sad part is that right now, we have terrorists all over the world, undermining civilization, causing the world to spend ourselves into an economic hole we cannot get out of, as our leader, in the very city of a recent massive terrorist attack, wants to talk about the developed countries (us) funding pollution control for the rest of the under-developed nations. You just can't make this stuff up.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Over the past 50 years that I've been watching the water levels of the Great Lakes, I've seen a lot of changes. For awhile, the waves were licking the siding on a lot of cottages. Then we had a while that lake levels dropped. Some places the water receded a quarter of a mile. Folks were sure that the climate warming was reducing snowfall and the lakes weren't getting replenished. Others were sure the dredging of the St. Claire River was letting too much water out, draining the lakes. Recently, the lake levels have rebounded, faster than we've ever seen. Up and down. I can pedal my bike to work, I can buy an electric car, but the lakes are just going to do what they have always done.
> 
> Recently, I heard that the algae bloom on Lake Erie was due to global warming. Warmer water is better for algae, so we have a problem on Lake Erie. Funny, I recall when due to pollution, Lake Erie caught fire. 50 years ago it was a sewer. Algae wouldn't grow in it. Now it is far cleaner, except the phosphorous run off from suburban yards, that algae grows well. But somehow that is caused by climate change.
> 
> ...


What you have not yet grasped is, the changes to CO2 levels in the past, as measured by ice core samples among other things, occurred over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. What is happening today is happening in *decades*. No species is going to be able to adapt, let alone evolve, to compensate for the changes that are coming to our environment.

So it's a matter of priorities. If we create an environment on the planet that our species cannot survive, then the rest of it matters very little.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It is not about the climate or climate change or global warming to what every the NEW catch phrase is, it is however about *money and control* and this idiotic progressive movement that is taking hold of not only this country but now the world at large.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> Don't know as everyone's foot is made of carbon anyway.


Yeah...that's what I'm saying..... maybe they invented the term for the future when humans and AI become one.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

haypoint said:


> The ice core samples, bored 2 miles into the arctic ice, show 50,000 years of earth's history. Strangely, without mankind, higher CO2 levels came after the earth warmed. That seems to indicate global warming brought on higher CO2, not that CO2 brought on global warming as some would speculate.
> .



Whether CO2 has historically lagged or led temperature increase is irrelevant to the present situation, where CO2 is clearly leading. The data shows CO2 and temp have a positive correlation, when one goes up, the other goes up. In general, past climate changes occurred because of changes in the earths orbit, and occasionally because of massive outgassing of CO2 from volcanic events. Now the 'outgassing' is from mankind and our digging up and burning of long sequestered carbon. Think about how long it took all those little plants to die and turn into coal and oil... how many hundreds of millions of years worth of buried sunlight that represents. Now we are putting them back into the atmosphere. That is indeed causing a warming trend, despite what the coal, oil and gas industry would have you believe.
Now I don't think its neccesarily a catastrophe like some extremists would have us believe, but it IS occurring.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> It is not about the climate or climate change or global warming to what every the NEW catch phrase is, it is however about *money and control* and this idiotic progressive movement that is taking hold of not only this country but now the world at large.


You say stuff like this all the time, but you offer nothing to support your beliefs. You'll have no credibility with me of any kind until you do.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Just Follow the MONEY that is all you have to do~! Geessah


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> Just Follow the MONEY that is all you have to do~! Geessah


I have, and the money behind fossil fuels dwarfs the money behind renewables until recently. One reasonable interpretation about why more money is finally flowing into renewables is because the climate situation has become so much more obviously dire to those who are willing to look at the actual science.

Since you're the one continually spouting it's about world domination, some actual evidence of this would be useful. I've looked for it and don't find anything to support that notion.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Raeven said:


> Since you're the one continually spouting it's about world domination, some *actual evidence of this would be useful.* I've looked for it and don't find anything to support that notion.


 You've been on this forum long enough to know that isn't going to happen. Most reasonable folks stay out of arguments when they are ignorant of the subject matter, Arabian Knight doesn't follow that philosophy.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Raeven said:


> What you have not yet grasped is, the changes to CO2 levels in the past, as measured by ice core samples among other things, occurred over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. What is happening today is happening in *decades*. No species is going to be able to adapt, let alone evolve, to compensate for the changes that are coming to our environment.
> 
> So it's a matter of priorities. If we create an environment on the planet that our species cannot survive, then the rest of it matters very little.


CO2 lags. Historically it lagged temperature rises.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CO2 has jumped from 280 to 400 in just a hundred years. Gee, that sounds exciting!

But the levels, without humans reckless abandon, have varied here on earth from 180 to 7000.

But just what does that 400 represent? 400 is .004% of the atmosphere. Up from .0028%. 

Us humans and all the other animals and plants are DEPENDENT on CO2. We all die without it. We exhale it. plants absorb it and give off O, that we need. Without CO2, all vegetation dies.
If the CO2 levels had dropped from 400 to 280, we'd be freaking out. If the levels start dropping we are headed to extinction! 
When it was estimated to be at a lower level, 180, most of the earth was covered in glaciers.
In the earth's highest level of CO2, Cambrian Period, saw CO2 levels rocket to 7000 (.07%) and there were still polar (both north and south) ice caps.

Vineyards have been discovered in Greenland, under glaciers. Based on that, I'm going to assume the earth was warmer a couple thousand years ago.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> CO2 lags. Historically it lagged temperature rises.


 Again, that doesn't matter in regards to the present situation, when CO2 is leading. 
So are you FINALLY admitting there is a positive correlation between CO2 and temp?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Vineyards have been discovered in Greenland, under glaciers. Based on that, I'm going to assume the earth was warmer a couple thousand years ago.


 Why would you assume earth was warmer, based on second-hand information from one locality? 
And don't worry, we're not going to 'run out of CO2'.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Why would you assume earth was warmer, based on second-hand information from one locality?
> And don't worry, we're not going to 'run out of CO2'.


There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in that CO2 does not have a demonstrable effect on temperature.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature in that CO2 does not have a demonstrable effect on temperature.


 Absolutely false. You are either willfully ignoring the science, observations and data, or coming to your own, erroneous conclusions.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Absolutely false. You are either willfully ignoring the science, observations and data, or coming to your own, erroneous conclusions.


We agree that the earth's CO2 levels have varied widely. Right? We agree that the earth's temperature has also varied widely. Right?

When scientists studied the ice core samples, they saw that temperature and CO2 levels shadowed each other. But, what isn't get much press is that it was the temperatures that went up, FOLLOWED by an increase in CO2. Not the other way as you may have falsely assumed. I think it is that point that we part company.

Wasn't too many years ago that ozone was the big concern. We might have had a thinning of the ozone layer a few times. But now nothing. Then it was methane levels were going to kill us. BTW, horses fart, cattle belch. Now it is carbon that is the evil chemical. Then, the ice caps were going to melt and flood New York and Florida. But we had ice caps way back when the CO2 levels were hundreds of times higher. Solar flares once were responsible for earth's temperature changes.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

haypoint said:


> Wasn't too many years ago that ozone was the big concern. We might have had a thinning of the ozone layer a few times. But now nothing. Then it was methane levels were going to kill us. BTW, horses fart, cattle belch. Now it is carbon that is the evil chemical. Then, the ice caps were going to melt and flood New York and Florida. But we had ice caps way back when the CO2 levels were hundreds of times higher. Solar flares once were responsible for earth's temperature changes.


Didn't the world remove nearly every chemical that was purported to destroy the ozone layer?

Maybe that has something to do with the "nothing" today.




> Stratospheric ozone depletion, an environ
> 
> 
> mental crisis in the 1980s, can now be considered an environmental triumph thanks to global cooperation in combating it.
> The latest Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, published by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, reports the ozone layer will become restored over the next few decades.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...to-recover-by-around-2050-major-report-finds/

Methane and CO are greenhouse gasses and raising cattle is beleived to put out a huge amount of both.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

haypoint said:


> We agree that the earth's CO2 levels have varied widely. Right? We agree that the earth's temperature has also varied widely. Right?
> 
> When scientists studied the ice core samples, they saw that temperature and CO2 levels shadowed each other. But, what isn't get much press is that it was the temperatures that went up, FOLLOWED by an increase in CO2. Not the other way as you may have falsely assumed. I think it is that point that we part company.
> 
> Wasn't too many years ago that ozone was the big concern. We might have had a thinning of the ozone layer a few times. But now nothing. Then it was methane levels were going to kill us. BTW, horses fart, cattle belch. Now it is carbon that is the evil chemical. Then, the ice caps were going to melt and flood New York and Florida. But we had ice caps way back when the CO2 levels were hundreds of times higher. Solar flares once were responsible for earth's temperature changes.


 Quite a bit wrong with your assertations there haypoint. First off, the fact that CO2 has historically LAGGED the temperature increases, by a very small margin (anywhere from 200-1000 years) is not relevant to the current sitation, where CO2 is LEADING. 
And no, the CO2 levels were not 'hundreds of times higher with ice-caps'. Better do a little more reading up on that one. 
And no, 'solar flares' don't appreciably change the temperature of the earth. 


> Although solar flares, and associated coronal mass ejections, can bombard Earthâs outermost atmosphere with tremendous amounts of energy, most of that energy is reflected back into space by the Earthâs magnetic field.* Because the energy does not reach our planetâs surface, it has no measurable influence on surface temperature*.


 The sun is the most important driver of climate, but it has NOT changed enough in the recent past to account for the increase in temps.


> Although the sun is the main source of heat for Earth, the researchers note that solar variability may have more of a regional effect than a global one. As such, solar variability is not the cause of the global warming seen in recent times.
> "*While the sun is by far the dominant energy source powering our climate system, do not assume that it is causing much of recent climate changes. It's pretty stable*," Kopp said. "Think of it as an 800-pound gorilla in climate â it has the weight to cause enormous changes, but luckily for us, it's pretty placidly lazy. *While solar changes have historically caused climate changes, the sun is mostly likely responsible for less than 15 percent of the global temperature increases we've seen over the last century, during which human-caused changes such as increased greenhouse gases caused the majority of warming."*


 https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/do-solar-storms-cause-heat-waves-earth
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This ALL boils down to the UN Fleecing Americans to Transport Wealth to these poor countries without going to Congress like The Constitution Mandates.
And now Obozo is Daring anyone and everyone to Just TRY to Impeach HIM.~!
*Just Follow The Money*
AND because Americans Do Not Care about This GW carp.
Is exsatly why Obama is Full Speed Ahead in pushing this carp because he KNOWS with nobody watching him there will not be ANY interference.~!!!!!!!!!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Why would you assume earth was warmer, based on second-hand information from one locality?
> And don't worry, we're not going to 'run out of CO2'.


The establishment of a vineyard, with a known requirement of at least 136 days from last frost to first frost, in an area now covered by a glacier seems as clear of an indicator of warmer climate then and colder climate now as I think you can possibly get. So the Vikings had vineyards in Greenland. Siberia has Woolly Mammoths frozen solid for a thousand years, far from pastures. Perhaps the Woolly Mammoths were on an exploration and got lost? 

The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg. But now, every time a chunk of arctic ice drops into the ocean, all the Polar Bears are going to die.

Oh, I'm not worried about running out of CO2. But I'm not going to worry about CO2 levels spirally upwards from 0.004% to 0.0045% either.

Humans, over the past two hundred years have chopped wood, mined coal, dug peat, pumped oil and produced crazy high temperatures with nuclear reactors. That's a lot of BTUs. All that extra heat and we can't say for sure if the earth has warmed a degree? Yet the heat at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, totally out of our control, can give us an El Nino mild winter. When Mt. St. Helen erupted 20 years ago, we had the coldest summer in 100 years. Seems like the earth is making more climate change than any human actions. 

The US, covering 1% of the earth's surface, up to our eyeballs in debt should willingly add a tax on ourselves and send money to under developed countries, while India and China scrap out oil tankers on the shore and burn the plastic off millions of old television sets, out in an open field, to harvest the copper?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

haypoint said:


> The establishment of a vineyard, with a known requirement of at least 136 days from last frost to first frost, in an area now covered by a glacier seems as clear of an indicator of warmer climate then and colder climate now as I think you can possibly get. So the Vikings had vineyards in Greenland. Siberia has Woolly Mammoths frozen solid for a thousand years, far from pastures. Perhaps the Woolly Mammoths were on an exploration and got lost?
> 
> The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg. But now, every time a chunk of arctic ice drops into the ocean, all the Polar Bears are going to die.
> 
> ...


You just made me think of something I read years ago. It was a journal of a Spaniard explorer. I think somewhere in the early 1700's. It stated that the Caddo Indians were harvesting corn. They lived on my latitude. The entry was dated mid April ish. Wonder if that in on the net anywhere where I can find it. Never thought about it until now.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

We aren't even CLOSE to historical CO2 levels, those That predated MAN.
And yet this new religion followers and their GW hype that spews all kinds of baloney how we can change this trajectory.
This is why so many mock the GW folks.
This climate will change, with or without man, and you can't handle the fact that we all are but a tiny tiny flyspeck in the Universe, along for the ride, not controlling a dog gone thing.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> The establishment of a vineyard, with a known requirement of at least 136 days from last frost to first frost, in an area now covered by a glacier seems as clear of an indicator of warmer climate then and colder climate now as I think you can possibly get. So the Vikings had vineyards in Greenland. Siberia has Woolly Mammoths frozen solid for a thousand years, far from pastures. Perhaps the Woolly Mammoths were on an exploration and got lost?
> 
> The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg. But now, every time a chunk of arctic ice drops into the ocean, all the Polar Bears are going to die.
> 
> ...


You're the one who trusts GMO science and genetic engineering. GE and climate science come up regularly in the scientific community. How do you decide which science is suspect, and which isn't?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> We aren't even CLOSE to historical CO2 levels, those That predated MAN.
> And yet this new religion followers and their GW hype that spews all kinds of baloney how we can change this trajectory.
> This is why so many mock the GW folks.
> This climate will change, with or without man, and you can't handle the fact that we all are but a tiny tiny flyspeck in the Universe, along for the ride, not controlling a dog gone thing.












Nothing here, move along.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

Lots of interesting facts and a few graphs worth studying.


In reference to the Cambrian era, there were ice caps while the CO2 levels grew to 16 times what we have now. Check this out, go down to CLIMATE, that is what we are discussing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian
"The Earth was generally cold during the early Cambrian, probably due to the ancient continent of Gondwana covering the South Pole and cutting off polar ocean currents. *There were likely polar ice caps and a series of glaciations*, as the planet was still recovering from an earlier Snowball Earth. It became warmer towards the end of the period; the glaciers receded and eventually disappeared, and sea levels rose dramatically


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You what they say Hay. You put Garbage IN and you get Garbage OUT. And that i why so many of these charts the GW folks stick on the net have been garbaged up by Inaccurate and messed around data to MAKE them look like and print out they way they WANT them to look~! And they have been Caught at it too many times~!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Oh, I'm not worried about running out of CO2. But I'm not going to worry about CO2 levels spirally upwards from 0.004% to 0.0045% either.


 Once again, your numbers are off by a factor of ten. Actual CO2 is closer to .04% by volume, while the MAIN greenhouse gas, water vapor, is around .4% over the entire atmosphere. Seems like an insignificant amount, until you realize 99% of the entire atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen.
Now you can probably admit WATER VAPOR is an important greenhouse gas... so why would you think raising CO2 by 40% would have no effect? Has not temperature and CO2 risen and fallen in tandem many many times throughout history? Why would that suddenly stop being the case? Humans are NOT immune to the consequences of our actions. 
It appears your erroneous arguments are based on cherry-picked, misunderstood data and partisan politics, not on the scientific facts of the matter.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

haypoint said:


> http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
> 
> Lots of interesting facts and a few graphs worth studying.
> 
> ...


 Only '16 times higher'?? Just yesterday you said those CO2 levels were 'hundreds of times higher'. Got any other wildly innaccurate 'facts' to share with us?? Lol
Inferring CO2 levels from 500 MILLION years ago isn't an exact science, the current methods have time-steps of a MILLION years. So no one can know precisely the CO2 level when Cambrian glaciers occurred. Given that most ice ages last less than a million years...who can say. There is also the fact that main-sequence stars, such as our sun, would have been a few percent dimmer 500 MYA, so glaciation with high CO2 isn't that outlandish of a notion.
Comparing the Cambrian Era to todays earth is laughable though. The earth was quite a different place then... with super-continents rifting, massive volcanic eruptions, completely different ocean circulation, etc. If you're trying to rationalize how raising CO2 has no effect, nothing you've said helps your cause.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
> 
> Lots of interesting facts and a few graphs worth studying.
> 
> ...


Initially, I was willing to take the graphs seriously. I'd love it if someone managed to disprove climate change. I really want it to be a hoax, because then I could drive an Escalade with impunity.
Unfortunately, this study holds no water. One way to tell is how badly labeled the graphs are (no information on the y-axis). And we don't really care what the climate was like 4-3 billion years ago - life, theoretically, didn't exist back then.

An exercise in how Climate Denial works



> Further a profile of the author Nasif Nahle on Wikipedia (apparently self penned) reveals his principle expertise to be in the field of herbal medicineâ¦.not climate physics! *Furthermore he appears to be a (self-appointed) âProfessorâ of a small back alley lab (view their own profile here), one without any official backing, i.e. not a university, etc.* Another blogger did a similar review of the author and also found Mr Nahle lacking in credibilityâ¦to say the least! So we have a paper that is going out of its way to try to appear to be from a reputable source, when in fact it is nothing of the sort.


(emphasis changed)

also

Nasif S. Nahle... Google "Scholar"... and atmospheric CO2 cooling

The same author apparently claimed this:



> "In 2001, the United Nationâs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing the earth to warm and developed computer models to predict how much the earth would warm in the future. Does any empirical scientific evidence exist to support this premise of the IPCC? The answer is no, in fact it is just the opposite, CO2 has a cooling effect."


This is blatantly false. Under no science definition will you find CO2 acting as a cooling agent. Please don't try to argue with that, lest I show videos where kindergarteners show how the greenhouse effect works. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Geologic-Time-and-Climate-Change-Sciencertf.html

In other words, we only really care about the last 500 million years or so. We have plenty (relatively) of evidence for this period, and anything beyond that gets real sketchy. I'm willing to admit that, because it's quite reasonable.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

As usual, once the scientific facts start being discussed, the original posters just kind of lose interest and fade away. I guess its no fun for them discussing the actual science, when they'd rather be ranting about AlGore and Obama. 
This same thread has played itself out dozens of times over the years I've been on this forum, and it always ends up the same.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> As usual, once the scientific facts start being discussed, the original posters just kind of lose interest and fade away. I guess its no fun for them discussing the actual science, when they'd rather be ranting about AlGore and Obama.
> This same thread has played itself out dozens of times over the years I've been on this forum, and it always ends up the same.


I know; it is a rather unfortunate scenario. However, this is likely because the vast majority of the science sways towards proving the AGW theory. While science is not perfect, the actual arguments made by the scientists can only be thrown aside if one casts all the reputable scientists into a disreputable light.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

My personal favorite is when they rely on the science to wearily point out that climate change has occurred many times over millions and millions of years -- relying entirely on the science that shows them that -- but suddenly, the same science is terribly questionable when it demonstrates that in this instance, the change is due to human activity. 

All the scientists everywhere in the world over dozens of disciplines are in league to pull the wool over Americans' eyes. So they can all get rich and drive Lamborghinis on their lavish grant money. 

You bet.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Ok, lets imagine: Poof, a vast majority of the American people now agree that AGW is not only real, but, a real danger to us all. What can be done to fix it? Just for kicks, keep potential solutions within the confines of the Constitution.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Ok, lets imagine: Poof, a vast majority of the American people now agree that AGW is not only real, but, a real danger to us all. What can be done to fix it? Just for kicks, keep potential solutions within the confines of the Constitution.


It doesn't do much good for us to act without also China and India acting as well. However, Indias economy is such that it is likely they will continue to burn lots and lots of cheap energy. The US can, however, serve as a great example to the other countries in leadership of green energy. Uktimateky, a green economy will help us in the long run because our natural resources will be in even better condition. 
There are a wide variety of possible solutions. Some of them include sponsoring technology that will help make green technology more feasible and affordable. I'm not entirely sure how to keep these suggestions within the Constitution, as it's very flexible and Congress has the authority to do much of this.
We will continue to tax coal and fossil fuels. This will provide an incentive to switch to green energy. Wind energy is now the same cost as coal powered energy. Wind and solar in conjunction with either batteries that haven't been invented yet, or a backup coal plant, will provide all the nations power at the same or slightly higher orcs it currently is. We will continue to push greener vehicles with denser, greener, and more efficient batteries with technology and innovation. 
The ultimate goal will be little to no emissions, a reliable a cheap energy grid, a healthy economy, and silent, non smelling vehicles.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Ok, lets imagine: Poof, a vast majority of the American people now agree that AGW is not only real, but, a real danger to us all. What can be done to fix it? Just for kicks, keep potential solutions within the confines of the Constitution.


I really do have to get some work done today. But I will answer your question when I am able. It's an important one.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> It doesn't do much good for us to act without also China and India acting as well. However, Indias economy is such that it is likely they will continue to burn lots and lots of cheap energy. The US can, however, serve as a great example to the other countries in leadership of green energy. Uktimateky, a green economy will help us in the long run because our natural resources will be in even better condition.
> There are a wide variety of possible solutions. Some of them include sponsoring technology that will help make green technology more feasible and affordable. I'm not entirely sure how to keep these suggestions within the Constitution, as it's very flexible and Congress has the authority to do much of this.
> We will continue to tax coal and fossil fuels. This will provide an incentive to switch to green energy. Wind energy is now the same cost as coal powered energy. Wind and solar in conjunction with either batteries that haven't been invented yet, or a backup coal plant, will provide all the nations power at the same or slightly higher orcs it currently is. We will continue to push greener vehicles with denser, greener, and more efficient batteries with technology and innovation.
> The ultimate goal will be little to no emissions, a reliable a cheap energy grid, a healthy economy, and silent, non smelling vehicles.



I am off grid totally, with a combination of wind and solar. Not because of the environment but due to the fragile electric grid, unless some major upgrades are done IMHO we are in major trouble. Our economy is in bad shape, people are not financially able to make major expenditures. 

As to the electric vehicles, nice for metropolitan areas not so much for rural. For most in my area they would be useless. 

I think sometime in the next 50 years or so we might have the technology needed to start a realistic, step toward a more green energy. IMHO


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Please help me!
I want to believe in climate change, I want to be popular, I want to be one of the inilghtened people, but I can make myself believe, that raising the co2 content of the atmosphere, one hundredth of one percent, is going to harm the planet. I just have a problem with blind faith, and computer models.
Please help me to be a good progressive, being a climate skeptic is killing me.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

no really said:


> I am off grid totally, with a combination of wind and solar. Not because of the environment but due to the fragile electric grid, unless some major upgrades are done IMHO we are in major trouble. Our economy is in bad shape, people are not financially able to make major expenditures.
> 
> As to the electric vehicles, nice for metropolitan areas not so much for rural. For most in my area they would be useless.
> 
> I think sometime in the next 50 years or so we might have the technology needed to start a realistic, step toward a more green energy. IMHO


Ah yes. However, many people in the city have public transport, which is generally quite eco friendly. Electric cars, unless you buy a $70k Tesla, have a rather short range, making it hard to use them for country use. I would drain a Leaf just by driving into town and back. However, it looks like in the very immediate future we will have cars only slightly more money than gassers that have 200 mile range.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ah yes. However, many people in the city have public transport, which is generally quite eco friendly. Electric cars, unless you buy a $70k Tesla, have a rather short range, making it hard to use them for country use. I would drain a Leaf just by driving into town and back. However, it looks like in the very immediate future we will have cars only slightly more money than gassers that have 200 mile range.


The range would be a problem I drive 120 miles one way for supplies. Usually pulling a small trailer for feed and larger items. Also need a 4 wheel drive to get to my house. Than there are the times I will haul live stock. Also when I go to town their are sometimes 4 others riding along, we try to go in groups to save fuel. The older folks prefer not driving.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

There are a few electric semis out there, but I highly doubt they're practical. There is yet to be work done on the working family that needs a truck in terms of electric. The powers not a problem; electric motors are very strong. But transporting enough energy to power the motor is.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

OffGridCooker said:


> Please help me!
> I want to believe in climate change, I want to be popular, I want to be one of the inilghtened people, but I can make myself believe, that raising the co2 content of the atmosphere, one hundredth of one percent, is going to harm the planet.


 You could start by understanding the science, not concentrating on the partisan political rhetoric. Your feelings about 'AlGore' and 'the progressives' doesn't change the science one bit.
And we're not raising CO2 by 'one hudredth of one percent', we're raising it by 40% over pre-industrial levels.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

no really said:


> The range would be a problem I drive 120 miles one way for supplies. Usually pulling a small trailer for feed and larger items. Also need a 4 wheel drive to get to my house. Than there are the times I will haul live stock. Also when I go to town their are sometimes 4 others riding along, we try to go in groups to save fuel. The older folks prefer not driving.


LMAO, a lot of folks would think you were lying with that statement. Maybe thirty years ago I may have thought the same even though I am a fellow Texan. But I am here to tell ya, that aint no joke. When I went to Freer to work (well somewhere between Freer and San Diego) it took me an hour just to get to town to get the smallest thing. If I needed supplies I had to go either to Corpus or Laredo which was a toss up. They were both an hour and a half away. But Laredo I didn't miss as I worked in that town when it boomed back ten years or so ago. I usually went to Corpus. Two hours just for a big mac or olive garden or whatever. 

Most times we went once a month and that was all. And they say Texans aren't green....

Oh and the 4x4 is a must. So I guess that counts as points off lol.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

OffGridCooker said:


> Please help me!
> I want to believe in climate change, I want to be popular, I want to be one of the inilghtened people, but I can make myself believe, that raising the co2 content of the atmosphere, one hundredth of one percent, is going to harm the planet. I just have a problem with blind faith, and computer models.
> Please help me to be a good progressive, being a climate skeptic is killing me.


There, there...its ok...I'm starting a support group. We're serving free kool-aid.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

no really said:


> The range would be a problem I drive 120 miles one way for supplies. Usually pulling a small trailer for feed and larger items. Also need a 4 wheel drive to get to my house. Than there are the times I will haul live stock. Also when I go to town their are sometimes 4 others riding along, we try to go in groups to save fuel. The older folks prefer not driving.


 Perhaps a kind of "battery swap" station would be in order once the tech improves some?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mreynolds said:


> LMAO, a lot of folks would think you were lying with that statement. Maybe thirty years ago I may have thought the same even though I am a fellow Texan. But I am here to tell ya, that aint no joke. When I went to Freer to work (well somewhere between Freer and San Diego) it took me an hour just to get to town to get the smallest thing. If I needed supplies I had to go either to Corpus or Laredo which was a toss up. They were both an hour and a half away. But Laredo I didn't miss as I worked in that town when it boomed back ten years or so ago. I usually went to Corpus. Two hours just for a big mac or olive garden or whatever.
> 
> Most times we went once a month and that was all. And they say Texans aren't green....
> 
> Oh and the 4x4 is a must. So I guess that counts as points off lol.


I'm not that far from Big Bend, my land borders the Rio Grande. Yep, kinda far from civilization. :grin:


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

greg273 said:


> You could start by understanding the science, not concentrating on the partisan political rhetoric. Your feelings about 'AlGore' and 'the progressives' doesn't change the science one bit.
> And we're not raising CO2 by 'one hudredth of one percent', we're raising it by 40% over pre-industrial levels.


If the percent goes from 3 hundredths of one percent to 4 hundredths of one percent that is that not one hundredth of one percent?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

OffGridCooker said:


> If the percent goes from 3 hundredths of one percent to 4 hundredths of one percent that is that not one hundredth of one percent?


That was the amount. But, get rid of all the zeros. We don't need them. We went from 3 to 4, basically. That's a 33.33% increase.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Nothing here, move along.


The chart has a graph on the right side that goes to 400 PPM
You are being sarcastic, and I love it, but you are actually speaking the truth, because. Nothing to see without binoculars.
This chart gives a false impression of the actual co2 in the atmosphere.
The graph shows 400 ppm on the right side.
How tall will the right side graph need be to represent just 1%
Check my math 10,000 ppm is 1 %
Divide 10,000 by 400 on the chart and you get 25
So the graph on the right side would have to be 25 times taller to even reach 1%
And 250 times higher to be 100%
And right side chart would read 100,000,000 parts per million at the top and 0 ppm at the bottom. 
So To get a true perspective Instead of the top of the chart reading 400 ppm it needs to be 100000000 ppm.
If you blew up the real chart, and put it on the wall, and stood back 10 feet, you would need binoculars to see the bump.

This chart gives a false impression of the actual co2 in the atmosphere. It is like using a microscope to view the co2, and presenting the microscopic view as actual size.

Like I said I want to believe in climate change so I can dwell in the higher moral an intellectual plain of climate science, with you, but I have to be intellectually honest with myself.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

OffGridCooker said:


> If the percent goes from 3 hundredths of one percent to 4 hundredths of one percent that is that not one hundredth of one percent?


 You're possibly talking about total CO2 as a percentage of atmosphere, which is basically irrelevant to the discussion. 99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen, which are essentially transparent to both light and thermal radiation. What keeps the planet warm is the presence of greenhouse gasses, those wonerful little molecules that let light in, but are more opaque to upward directed, thermal longwave radiation. And yes, they are less than 1% of the atmosphere. But they are responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect. (and yes, WATER VAPOR is by far the most important). Second in importance, accounting for about 20% of the total greenhouse effect, is CO2.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Nothing here, move along.





OffGridCooker said:


> The chart has a graph on the right side that goes to 400 PPM
> You are being sarcastic, and I love it, but you are actually speaking the truth, because. Nothing to see without binoculars.
> This chart gives a false impression of the actual co2 in the atmosphere.
> The graph shows 400 ppm on the right side.
> ...


Oops there is an error in previous post, but instead of editing, I will let a climate scientist correct it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

OffGridCooker said:


> This chart gives a false impression of the actual co2 in the atmosphere. It is like using a microscope to view the co2, and presenting the microscopic view as actual size.


 Nothing wrong with the chart, the right side is clearly marked PPMV, parts per million by volume. 
Yes, its a tiny percentage of the total atmosphere, but it is a significant percentage of the total greenhouse effect.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Nothing wrong with the chart, the right side is clearly marked PPMV, parts per million by volume.
> Yes, its a tiny percentage of the total atmosphere, but it is a significant percentage of the total greenhouse effect.


Maybe the extra co2 is areal problem.
but would a truth teller scientist not show both charts.
You only show the prespective that argues your point, if you are an advocate, like a lawyer, a lobbiest, or a paid spokesman, an advocate ignores the perspectives that harms the position.
It is getting more difficult for the average guy to tell the difference between advocacy and the truth.
And thank you for the civil discussion!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

OffGridCooker said:


> Maybe the extra co2 is areal problem.
> but would a truth teller scientist not show both charts.
> !


 What 'both charts' would that be? The one posted was clearly marked CO2 parts per million by volume. 
'A truth teller scientist' would be fine with it, as it shows what it purports to show.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

OffGridCooker said:


> Maybe the extra co2 is areal problem.
> but would a truth teller scientist not show both charts.
> You only show the prespective that argues your point, if you are an advocate, like a lawyer, a lobbiest, or a paid spokesman, an advocate ignores the perspectives that harms the position.
> It is getting more difficult for the average guy to tell the difference between advocacy and the truth.
> And thank you for the civil discussion!


 And when yo9u take into consideration that the accuracy between then and now. + or - there is so little difference and i bet if those that are now believing in this new religion would finally step up to the plate and say that from then to now is INSIGNIFICANT amount because of the calibrations issues and accuracy of ANY testing equipment and instruments.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

OffGridCooker said:


> The chart has a graph on the right side that goes to 400 PPM
> You are being sarcastic, and I love it, but you are actually speaking the truth, because. Nothing to see without binoculars.
> This chart gives a false impression of the actual co2 in the atmosphere.
> The graph shows 400 ppm on the right side.
> ...


I'm not sure if this last statement is facetious or not, so I'll leave it alone. 
What exactly is this real chart? Do you mean a chart showing CO2 relative to the total atmospheric volume instead of CO2 relative to itself? Because, while I can follow your math just fine, aside from the part where you didn't understand percents versus components, it's unclear what you're trying to point out.

Most of the gasses in the atmosphere, as Greg has already pointed out, do not reflect solar radiance back to the earth. CO2 and other greenhouses gasses (GHGs) do. Visible light travels to the earth, and the earth then emits infrared radiation, and then CO2 bounces it back. Boing, bounce, ouch. Here's a pretty chart:









That's a simple version. Here's a better explanation:









Why am I doing your Wikipedia-ing for you?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> And when yo9u take into consideration that the accuracy between then and now. + or - there is so little difference and i bet if those that are now believing in this new religion would finally step up to the plate and say that from then to now is INSIGNIFICANT amount because of the calibrations issues and accuracy of ANY testing equipment and instruments.


Sometimes we park a bunch of Teslas in a field, bowing to them and dancing around in circles smoking weed and eating 100% USDA Organic Applesauce.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I think it's laughable that even though scientists have been documenting and harping on greenhouse gasses for 25 years, they are only called out as liars, during Democrat Administrations.

Even George Bush had the current crop deniers agenda, figured out - money.



> In March 2001, the Bush Administration announced that it would not implement the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan that would require nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, claiming that ratifying the treaty would create economic setbacks in the U.S. and does not put enough pressure to limit emissions from developing nations.[1]* In February 2002, Bush announced his alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, by bringing forth a plan to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gasses by 18 percent over 10 years. *The intensity of greenhouse gasses specifically is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions and economic output, meaning that under this plan, emissions would still continue to grow, but at a slower pace. Bush stated that this plan would prevent the release of 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, which is about the equivalent of 70 million cars from the road. This target would achieve this goal by providing tax credits to businesses that use renewable energy sources.[2]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#cite_note-2


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> I think it's laughable that even though scientists have been documenting and harping on greenhouse gasses for 25 years, they are only called out as liars, during Democrat Administrations.
> 
> Even George Bush had the current crop deniers agenda, figured out - money.
> 
> ...


I called them liers through both Bushes! They were then, they still are now, no difference. If the climate scientists that promote global warming were so convinced that they are right, why do they lie so often? Why do none of their awesome computer models work forwards AND backwards? We will be taken care of by an asteroid or comit, so let's enjoy what the earth has to offer to make our lives better and more comfortable. 

I didn't see water vapor shown on that chart, why not?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> *I called them liers through both Bushes! They were then, they still are now, no difference.* If the climate scientists that promote global warming were so convinced that they are right, why do they lie so often? Why do none of their awesome computer models work forwards AND backwards? We will be taken care of by an asteroid or comit, so let's enjoy what the earth has to offer to make our lives better and more comfortable.
> 
> I didn't see water vapor shown on that chart, why not?


 So did I, it was a scam then, as it is a scam NOW, as it has been a SCAM from the beginning as well, and continues to be one.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm not sure if this last statement is facetious or not, so I'll leave it alone.
> What exactly is this real chart? Do you mean a chart showing CO2 relative to the total atmospheric volume instead of CO2 relative to itself? Because, while I can follow your math just fine, aside from the part where you didn't understand percents versus components, it's unclear what you're trying to point out.
> 
> Most of the gasses in the atmosphere, as Greg has already pointed out, do not reflect solar radiance back to the earth. CO2 and other greenhouses gasses (GHGs) do. Visible light travels to the earth, and the earth then emits infrared radiation, and then CO2 bounces it back. Boing, bounce, ouch. Here's a pretty chart:
> ...


So you agree that the co2 has only increased 1 hundredth of one percent.
I know the difference between inclusive and exclusive and I know the difference between "increasing in percentage" and "increasing by percent"
When it is said, that co2 has "increased by 30%" a lot of people don't realize that the co2 is actually only "increased 1 hundredth of one percent."
If you are trying to comunicate the truth, why only say 30 %? That leaves a false impression?


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

greg273 said:


> What 'both charts' would that be? The one posted was clearly marked CO2 parts per million by volume.
> 'A truth teller scientist' would be fine with it, as it shows what it purports to show.


My point is the chart is misleading to the average person.
The right side is chopped off at 400 ppm and it makes the data look large.
The full char would have a scale of 1,000,000 on the right side which would make the 400 ppm look very small.
Using the size of image on my iPad the 400 ppm chart is 2.75"
If the whole chart was shown the right side would be 57 feet tall and the increase of co2 would look a lot smaller. 
Did I make my point?


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Sometimes we park a bunch of Teslas in a field, bowing to them and dancing around in circles smoking weed and eating 100% USDA Organic Applesauce.


Wow you climate believers are such fun! Invite me next time and I will convert!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

OffGridCooker said:


> So you agree that the co2 has only increased 1 hundredth of one percent.
> I know the difference between inclusive and exclusive and I know the difference between "increasing in percentage" and "increasing by percent"
> When it is said, that co2 has "increased by 30%" a lot of people don't realize that the co2 is actually only "increased 1 hundredth of one percent."
> If you are trying to comunicate the truth, why only say 30 %? That leaves a false impression?


CO2 increased by a fraction of a percent relative to the entire atmosphere. CO2 relative to itself increased by 30 - 40 %. Take a look at the sky next time you'e outside. "Sky high," "higher than a skyscraper," "a big as the sky." All these common phrases refer to the immensity of the atmosphere.



OffGridCooker said:


> My point is the chart is misleading to the average person.
> The right side is chopped off at 400 ppm and it makes the data look large.
> The full char would have a scale of 1,000,000 on the right side which would make the 400 ppm look very small.
> Using the size of image on my iPad the 400 ppm chart is 2.75"
> ...


Your statement is a red herring because it is trying to draw away from the main argument by focusing on small, relatively meaningless details. The only reason the graph you propose would look huge and have insignificant changes is because you're comparing CO2 to the entire atmosphere. CO2 is a tiny percentage of the atmosphere. You main point is therefore that CO2 cannot be affecting climate because it's too small, which is a erroneous statement.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> I called them liers through both Bushes! They were then, they still are now, no difference. If the climate scientists that promote global warming were so convinced that they are right, why do they lie so often? Why do none of their awesome computer models work forwards AND backwards? We will be taken care of by an asteroid or comit,* so let's enjoy what the earth has to offer to make our lives better and more comfortable*.
> 
> I didn't see water vapor shown on that chart, why not?


Practically every country does their own scientific studies, with similar results. Everybody, but the Right Wing are liars.

I love my children (and maybe someday grandchildren) too much, to make it just about me. To each their own. Guess we can count on an asteroid, sooner or later.

It was a CO chart, not a water vapor chart. NASA says water vapor is increasing too, perhaps from the increase in CO.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> We will be taken care of by an asteroid or comit, so let's enjoy what the earth has to offer to make our lives better and more comfortable.
> ?


 Heres a novel concept, lets save some of that fossil fuel for the future generations. I realize you burn gas for fun, but theres nothing wrong with conserving resources for the future.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> CO2 increased by a fraction of a percent relative to the entire atmosphere. CO2 relative to itself increased by 30 - 40 %. Take a look at the sky next time you'e outside. "Sky high," "higher than a skyscraper," "a big as the sky." All these common phrases refer to the immensity of the atmosphere.
> 
> would you agree that this statement gives a better perspective of the data?
> CO2 increased by one hundredth of a percent relative to the entire atmosphere. CO2 relative to itself increased by 30 - 40 %.
> ...


MY point is the chart is misleading because It does not give a true spence of scale. I bet you were even surprised that the right side scale is 57 ft tall. I am just looking for data that I can ger my brains around so I can make the best "temporary" opinion about this complicated issue. 
Some opinions are going to change before this issue is resolved!
.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I've been trying to find a chart that shows co2 relative to the rest of the atmosphere, but I've been unsuccessful. According to current science, co2 levels have been under about 350 ppm for 600000 years. As a result, even if I do find this 57 foot tall graph, if you draw a straight line on it, you'd still be able to see the tiny, but sharp increase at the right.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I've been trying to find a chart that shows co2 relative to the rest of the atmosphere, but I've been unsuccessful. According to current science, co2 levels have been under about 350 ppm for 600000 years. As a result, even if I do find this 57 foot tall graph, if you draw a straight line on it, you'd still be able to see the tiny, but sharp increase at the right.


http://sciexplorer.blogspot.com/2012/01/earths-atmosphere-part-2-composition.html


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

haypoint said:


> http://sciexplorer.blogspot.com/2012/01/earths-atmosphere-part-2-composition.html


Yes, I knew the composition of the atmosphere. I have taken meteorology and earth science courses on several occasions. However, what we're looking for is that pie chart graphed over the same period of time that we've been talking about. Which basically wouldn't do any good, it's merely a red herring by offgridcooker. Such a graph would serve no informative purpose that I can see.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, I knew the composition of the atmosphere. I have taken meteorology and earth science courses on several occasions. However, what we're looking for is that pie chart graphed over the same period of time that we've been talking about. Which basically wouldn't do any good, it's merely a red herring by offgridcooker. Such a graph would serve no informative purpose that I can see.


Oh, I see. Like a pie chart from 100 million years ago to compare to today. Seems like that would be "do-able" If they can measure the CO2 levels from the ice cores, all of the other gasses would be in there, too.
I think we can make a few educated guesses. Prior to green plants, ocean seaweed and the like, O levels would be less and without plants to absorb CO2, those levels would be higher. Doubt the lesser elements would vary much.

What amount of CO2 is expelled during a major volcanic eruption? When an under ocean volcano erupts, is CO2 expelled or is it converted to carbolic acid?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

haypoint said:


> What amount of CO2 is expelled during a major volcanic eruption? ?


 How about you tell us haypoint. And then tell us how much human activity puts into the air on a yearly basis.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> How about you tell us haypoint. And then tell us how much human activity puts into the air on a yearly basis.


Indeed. Volcanic activity is negligible, and does not currently affect climate very much.


----------

