# Climate Reality is happening NOW!



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Here's a good place to get some facts on whether or not we are changing the climate. It's an ongoing 24 hour webcast.

http://climaterealityproject.org/


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

I believe the climate is changing, but there's nothing that man can do to change it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2011)

I've noticed changes myself!! For instance, its not as hot as it was a month ago. Not only that, its hotter at 4:00 in the afternoon than it is at 4:00 in the morning!


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

I notice that it's much windier than in years past.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I thought we were going into another ice age this summer.... until I realized Yvonne had the A/C set on "meat locker"!


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

It was interesting to watch them compare the tobacco industries strategy to the climate change deniers strategy.

They are identical and both will result in massive numbers of deaths.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fishhead said:


> It was interesting to watch them compare the tobacco industries strategy to the climate change deniers strategy.
> 
> They are identical and both will result in massive numbers of deaths.


Ummm, I have a feeling that neither case will result in a single death that would not have happened anyway. Death is an inevitable result of being alive.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

The earth has been going through change since the beginning of time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They are identical and both will result in massive numbers of deaths


*Life *results in massive numbers of death


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Seems to me that the changes in climate are due to both cyclical changes and human intervention. There may be a few things we can do to help temper things, but the earth also just goes through cycles that change the weather -- sometimes abruptly.


----------



## DavisHillFarm (Sep 12, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I thought we were going into another ice age this summer.... until I realized Yvonne had the A/C set on "meat locker"!


There's a joke in there someplace....but I better not go there! :happy2:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Win07_351 said:


> I believe the climate is changing, but there's nothing that man can do to change it.


Sure there is
Just triple tax the electric and put the coal industry out of work
Then all you have to do is send the rest of your money to Al Gore and the problem is solved.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Remember the Little Ice Age when all the pilgrims, Indians and buffalo were driving their SUVs all over and caused climate change?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Win07_351 said:


> I notice that it's much windier than in years past.


Well, it's been windier since about 2008


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Cornhusker said:


> Sure there is
> Just triple tax the electric and put the coal industry out of work
> Then all you have to do is send the rest of your money to Al Gore and the problem is solved.


Tricky looks like we could use a POTD right here.... where are you


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

I can't believe anyone is foolish enough to listen to al gore's BS


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ya, it's been getting warmer sinse the Ice Age.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I watched a little and I have to disagree about the "facts" portion. The speaker said that over 20 years ago, a secret conspiracy was formed to make sure global warming was seen as a theory in the public's eyes and not a fact. Pu-lease! With that kind of "out there" rhetoric I can't trust their statistics and graphs. 

The weather man still can't predict local weather accurately 48 hours in advance, yet these people expect me to believe that they have come to fully understand the PLANETARY weather system?


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

fishhead said:


> It was interesting to watch them compare the tobacco industries strategy to the climate change deniers strategy.
> 
> They are identical and both will result in massive numbers of deaths.


For a time, at Mount Vernon, one of George Washington's chief crops was tobacco. It was also one of his most troublesome because of variations in the climate and weather from year to year. 

Keep in mind, this was circa 1770


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> Well, it's been windier since about 2008


Yikes


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

It's getting dark earlier too. I guess it must be that carbon dioxide is collecting in the atmosphere late in the afternoon and blocking out the sun. I'm sure man is causing this to happen and there is no possible natural reason for it.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Is Climate "Reality" the next phase, since Global Woarming, Global Cooling, and Climate Change all bombed out?


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Life *results in massive numbers of death


Quote of the day!!! :smack


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

beccachow said:


> Is Climate "Reality" the next phase, since Global Woarming, Global Cooling, and Climate Change all bombed out?


They run on the theory that you can't hit a moving target.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Pfftt.

I can't make it past the pre-video Al Gore infomercial hawking his 24-hour 'reality' broadcast.

The man's losing it. It's sad to watch it happen, in slow motion.


----------



## Farmerwilly2 (Oct 14, 2006)

P.T. Barnum warned us about those kind of folks. I don't have a problem with them being sucked into believing in it. Let's face it, some folks believe in aliens and the tooth fairie. I get concerned when they want to put their hands in my pockets to save me from an invasion of Gorlocks from planet x or from their climate change. Since I do not attend the church of global warming pap I do not want to be forced into dropping a love offering into the plate.

What I need is to find some "expert" to come up with a flaky graph that proves, once and for all, that abortion on demand causes global warming. At least that time table would fit.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I don't really concern myself with appointing blame. The climate is changing which makes it a personal threat. Man is certainly contributing to the change - you can't deforest 3/4 of a country without changing it - but it is also part of a natural cycle. The ice fields of the Himalayas are melting at an incredible rate and this water supplies one third of the world population. When they run out of water what are they going to do and where are they going to go to get it?


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

Farmerwilly2 said:


> P.
> What I need is to find some "expert" to come up with a flaky graph that proves, once and for all, that abortion on demand causes global warming. At least that time table would fit.


That is painfully ironic to me when I look at India and China.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> I don't really concern myself with appointing blame. The climate is changing which makes it a personal threat. Man is certainly contributing to the change - you can't deforest 3/4 of a country without changing it - but it is also part of a natural cycle. The ice fields of the Himalayas are melting at an incredible rate and this water supplies one third of the world population. When they run out of water what are they going to do and where are they going to go to get it?


Why is the ice melting?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

A few things.

One, the data from the past is not accurate enough to say the temps have increased by fractions of a degree. The old mercury in glass thermometers were very difficult to read accurately on top of not being all that accurate to begin with. It was not uncommon to find two which would show a 1/2 a degree difference when placed side by side in the same environment.

Two, the newer data is flawed because the micro-climate around the weather stations has changed dramatically. Stations which used to be located in open fields are now surrounded by buildings and paved parking lots.

Three, *NONE* of the computer models which show GW in the future work if you put in *known* data and run them in reverse. That is if you put in data for the last 5 years and ask it to tell you what the temps were 20 years ago then compare the results to the actual known temps there is no match.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

fishhead said:


> It was interesting to watch them compare the tobacco industries strategy to the climate change deniers strategy.
> 
> They are identical and both will result in massive numbers of deaths.


Oh bull pucky! They are trying to use any propaganda they can to keep opponents quiet or to discredit them because they know they have a point.

Quit with the "denier" thing already. It's old news.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I'm actually impressed anyone even watched it; its being widely panned by even the liberal media as a strange, boring, low quality death by power point and many are now speaking openly of ALGORE hurting the climate change agenda.


----------



## JuliaAnn (Dec 7, 2004)

He's patently nuts. Anyone with any sense of credibility should be dumping him like yesterday's garbage.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

watcher said:


> A few things.
> 
> One, the data from the past is not accurate enough to say the temps have increased by fractions of a degree. The old mercury in glass thermometers were very difficult to read accurately on top of not being all that accurate to begin with. It was not uncommon to find two which would show a 1/2 a degree difference when placed side by side in the same environment.
> 
> ...


 Don't forget to add that in cites that have airports THAT is where the weather station and temps are taken from.
A AIRPORT surrounded by HOT Tarmac, and no trees.~!!!!
Back in 1990 I lived in Phoenix. In June the temp reached a Record High for ANY American City go 122 degrees.
The next thing they did is MOVE the temperature station to a Different Location at the AIRPORT and Said it should NEVER get that HOT again in Phoenix~!
So YES they sure can manipulate data in many different ways.
If Phoenix had not moved that station I bet they would still be hot and maybe even hotter.
How many cities around this country have NOT moved the weather station at airports BUT have Added more runways, more hot tarmac areas. Which has created many cities a Large Heat Island~!
And with THAT happening, Some USE that altered data to say Temps have been getting Hotter.
Ya they Have but LOOK where the temps are being taken~!!!
Get the Weather stations away from the airports. ~!


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

My daughter tells me not to try to argue with people who bury their heads in the sand.
Ah, the wisdom of youth. Someday I'll be that reasonable!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Why is the ice melting?


Good question. Why are glaciers melting? Why is the permafrost thawing now?

It's not just the Himalayan glaciers that are receding. Most of the glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana are gone now too as well as several others around the world that supply fresh water. Here's some photographic documentation of glaciers that have receded in the past few decades. http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

I'm figuring on still being alive and kicking in another 20 years from now. It should be very interesting to see _then_ what everyone is going to do for fresh drinking water and irrigation water when all the glaciers and aquifers are gone and lakes and rivers dried up. Maybe there will still be people saying it's not happening.

We are living in interesting times.

.


----------



## Energy Rebel (Jan 22, 2011)

Funny thing about glaciers and ice caps melting........by the time you figure out what's happening and why......cuz you know, it's more important to be right than to pay attention..............it'll probably be too late to actually do anything.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Don't forget to add that in cites that have airports THAT is where the weather station and temps are taken from.
> A AIRPORT surrounded by HOT Tarmac, and no trees.~!!!!
> Back in 1990 I lived in Phoenix. In June the temp reached a Record High for ANY American City go 122 degrees.
> The next thing they did is MOVE the temperature station to a Different Location at the AIRPORT and Said it should NEVER get that HOT again in Phoenix~!
> ...


Here is the old site that kept up with weather station placement. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/



naturelover said:


> Good question. Why are glaciers melting? Why is the permafrost thawing now?


They melt because they are in places that are above freezing a good part of the year. Really, that is the reason.



> I'm figuring on still being alive and kicking in another 20 years from now. It should be very interesting to see _then_ what everyone is going to do for fresh drinking water and irrigation water when all the glaciers and aquifers are gone and lakes and rivers dried up. Maybe there will still be people saying it's not happening.
> 
> We are living in interesting times.
> 
> .


If the glaciers did not melt, there would have never been water available from them.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

It's surprising that with 97 or 98% of climate scientists saying that we are changing the climate so many deniers cling to the opinion of the other 2-3% climatologists.

One comparison that highlights the foolishness of the deniers is the one where the patient goes to 100 heart docs. Of the 100 docs 98 tell him to lose weight and exercise and 2 tell him to keep eating fat burgers and watching TV so he goes with the latter.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

fishhead said:


> One comparison that highlights the foolishness of the deniers is the one where the patient goes to 100 heart docs. Of the 100 docs 98 tell him to lose weight and exercise and 2 tell him to keep eating fat burgers and watching TV so he goes with the latter.


Nice comparison. But as always, follow the money.








http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jX9QklC3G4E/S***mc2EK1I/AAAAAAAAB4g/qh3jxvHYqQk/s1600/Lucky+Strike+cigarette+ad.jpg


----------



## OkieDavid (Jan 15, 2007)

Also important to remember that in ALL sciences, you also have the bottom 10% of the class and they find work too........


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Nice comparison. But as always, follow the money.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Same strategy with same results.

Internal memos from the oil industry highlight the intent to create controversy and doubt. Then frame the science as just theory.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> It's surprising that with 97 or 98% of climate scientists saying that we are changing the climate so many deniers cling to the opinion of the other 2-3% climatologists.


Do you know that a while back 90 something percent of all geologist said the world was flat? Did you know that not that long ago a large percentage of scientist said we were heading for global cooling?




fishhead said:


> One comparison that highlights the foolishness of the deniers is the one where the patient goes to 100 heart docs. Of the 100 docs 98 tell him to lose weight and exercise and 2 tell him to keep eating fat burgers and watching TV so he goes with the latter.


Ok show me a scientist who has a computer model which I can put in the recorded temperatures for the last 10 years and have it output what the temperatures actually were 20 years before that. 50 years. Before you start looking I'll save you some time, there are NONE, zero, not a single one works.

Look at it this way. Say someone told you they had a computer program which predicts the future value of a stock. They tell you if you pay them they will put in a company's data and tell you how much the stock will be worth in 5 years thereby allowing you to make MILLIONS of dollars. You ask them to show how well it works by giving them a company's data and have the program tell you what the stock was worth 5 years ago. When they do that the value is WAY off. Would you trust anything that person told you about the future value of any stock?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Maybe there will still be people saying it's not happening.



LOL

No one says the climate isn''t changing.

It's always in a constant flux, and always will be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's surprising that with *97 or 98%* of climate scientists saying that we are changing the climate so many deniers cling to the opinion of the other 2-3% climatologists.


LOL

You always use "statistics" but never back them up with any* proof*.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> You always use "statistics" but never back them up with any* proof*.


Can't do that because those figures are so out of proportion to what Really is the truth. there is no site, Well Maybe Al Gore's site will put out such unbelievable high number that believe man is causing something to happen.
~!. LOL
When the earth is always in a state of change. Always was and always will be.
Just because man is on the earth now makes no difference at all. Mother Earth will always be changing.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> Why is the ice melting?


The climate is changing.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

watcher said:


> A few things.
> 
> One, the data from the past is not accurate enough to say the temps have increased by fractions of a degree. The old mercury in glass thermometers were very difficult to read accurately on top of not being all that accurate to begin with. It was not uncommon to find two which would show a 1/2 a degree difference when placed side by side in the same environment.
> 
> ...


The assumption you are making is that the weather stations are determining scientific data about climate change. They are weather stations monitoring the weather. Climate is different. The history of climate is not written in note books recording mercury thermometer readings. It comes from core analysis - soil, ice, permafrost, seabed etc. and from analysis of living organisms such as trees. Scientists are interested in what has happened and they are also recording what is happening. Adding the two together is what they are studying.

As I wrote I don't concern myself with appointing blame but to live in denial is always dangerous. Rain patterns have already changed dramatically in Africa and part of North America. Perma frost is melting in the Arctic and core samples that my husband was involved in retrieving have led to the discovery of antibiotic resistant bacteria that is 30,000 years old and going to be released when the perma frost melts to that level. What else is hidden there? - we don't know.

Sure mistakes are made. It is all new. There was a huge fuss about huge masses of "orange eggs" covering harbours in Alaska and moving up the Yukon River. My husband sent samples to his lab. Not eggs. Spruce rust. A fungus that attacks trees in the north. A natural occurance but never in quantities such as these. How did Alaskan scientists make such a big mistake in identifying this? Simply a mistake or incomplete analysis. That is why we need to keep learning about what is happening.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/

&#8220;We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence&#8221; of human-induced climate change &#8220;vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians,&#8221; Mr. Anderegg and the other authors write in their paper.

"The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world&#8217;s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it."


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And I love some of the comments also that go along with that "Green" NY Slimes article.


> * When Stephen McIntyre proved mathematically that the Hockey Stick theory was factually incorrect Nature repeatedly refused to publish, though they did publish numerous purely personal attacks on him. Therefore the fact that still virtually all published climate scientists are warming alarmists suggests only that this censorship is continuing.*


 And being a activist published article is not really what a person would call a non biased one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> http://[B]green.blogs[/B].nytimes.com/2010/...limate-change/
> 
> &#8220;We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence&#8221; of human-induced climate change &#8220;vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians,&#8221; Mr. Anderegg and the other authors write in their paper.
> 
> "The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world&#8217;s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it."


More *opinions *from a biased source


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Would you care to dispute the study or would like to dwell on the messenger?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I remember reading an article about the man who started Greenpeace. Seems he quit when after the Soviet Union went toes up all the marxist started joining his group. I don't doubt the "climate" is changing just like it has since time began (hint, the sun might have something to do with it). The AGW bunch aren't about saving the world, they're about destroying capitalism. You'll note the same posters here that hate the rich on other threads are the same ones that are true believers of AGW.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

fishhead said:


> It's surprising that with 97 or 98% of climate scientists saying that we are changing the climate so many deniers cling to the opinion of the other 2-3% climatologists.
> 
> One comparison that highlights the foolishness of the deniers is the one where the patient goes to 100 heart docs. Of the 100 docs 98 tell him to lose weight and exercise and 2 tell him to keep eating fat burgers and watching TV so he goes with the latter.


Kinda like to see a source for that stat please


----------



## Terminus (Aug 23, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> Kinda like to see a source for that stat please


I don't want to put words into fishheads mouth, but a generally accepted source for the 97% figure is from 

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Of course once you read through the article it comes down to just 79 actual climate scientists, and of that 75 of them agree with AGW. The headlines don't mention that 10257 earth scientists were invited to opine on the subject and 7111 of them didn't bother to take the survey. The survey was very vulnerable to bias.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Win07_351 said:


> I notice that it's much windier than in years past.


***********************
seems to be occurring in the in the immediate vicinity of AL Gore (and those who expouse his 
views on global warming).....sometimes it's hard to determine exactly which end, all that hot air is escaping from.


If we could simply solve that 'problem'.....maybe we wouldn't have to concern ourselves with the climate doomsayers any longer.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

emdeengee said:


> I don't really concern myself with appointing blame. The climate is changing which makes it a personal threat. Man is certainly contributing to the change - you can't deforest 3/4 of a country without changing it - but it is also part of a natural cycle. The ice fields of the Himalayas are melting at an incredible rate and this water supplies one third of the world population. When they run out of water what are they going to do and where are they going to go to get it?


What isn't being reported is that many glaciers are growing. That, of course, doesn't support the global warming scam.

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


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> Perma frost is melting in the Arctic and core samples that my husband was involved in retrieving have led to the discovery of antibiotic resistant bacteria that is 30,000 years old and going to be released when the perma frost melts to that level. What else is hidden there? - we don't know.


Oh, I was reading about that just a few days ago, very interesting news. They took samples of the bacteria from only 20 feet depth at a site near an old lake bed at Bear Creek in the Yukon. 20 feet really isn't very deep at all when you think about it. Seeing as how the permafrost in some parts of the Arctic has already thawed to depths of 10 feet just in the past few years at this rate it won't be much longer before it's thawed to the 20 and 30 foot mark. Who knows what kinds of ancient and deadly bacterias might be released at that time?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Darren said:


> What isn't being reported is that many glaciers are growing. That, of course, doesn't support the global warming scam.
> 
> http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/AdvancingGlaciers.htm


What they don't mention on that link is that those that are advancing are doing so much more slowly than those that are receding and there are more of them receding than there are advancing. So there is no balance happening. 

If you take a look at that chart you will see that nearly all of them are advancing at rate 4 - a miniscule rate, so slow it makes no difference, it's like they're just sitting there doing nothing. It takes hundreds and thousands of years for glaciers to grow just a little bit unless there's an ice age, which there is not.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Terminus said:


> I don't want to put words into fishheads mouth, but a generally accepted source for the 97% figure is from
> 
> http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
> 
> Of course once you read through the article it comes down to just 79 actual climate scientists, and of that 75 of them agree with AGW. The headlines don't mention that 10257 earth scientists were invited to opine on the subject and 7111 of them didn't bother to take the survey. The survey was very vulnerable to bias.


More than a few scientists that stopped their involvement with the IPCC. There's a recent news item that won't make the New York Times. The media isn't reporting the dissent. Fortunately most of the general public, as shown by polls, isn't buying the scam. 

"Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the groupâs promotion of man-made global warming fears."

According to the atmospheric scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen:

"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Paumon said:


> What they don't mention on that link is that those that are advancing are doing so much more slowly than those that are receding and there are more of them receding than there are advancing. So there is no balance happening.
> 
> If you take a look at that chart you will see that nearly all of them are advancing at rate 4 - a miniscule rate, so slow it makes no difference, it's like they're just sitting there doing nothing. It takes hundreds and thousands of years for glaciers to grow just a little bit unless there's an ice age, which there is not.


One study indicated that wind shifts like the one that created the Sahara Desert is what caused glacial melt. Of course glaciers left most of the United States including New York City well before the Industrial Age. 

Looking at something that's started long before man moved out of caves and claiming man caused it is beyond lunacy unless you take into account the money to be made on the scam. If P.T. Barnum was alive today he'd try to adopt Al Gore.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Darren said:


> One study indicated that wind shifts like the one that created the Sahara Desert is what caused glacial melt. Of course glaciers left most of the United States including New York City well before the Industrial Age.
> 
> Looking at something that's started long before man moved out of caves and claiming man caused it is beyond lunacy unless you take into account the money to be made on the scam. If P.T. Barnum was alive today he'd try to adopt Al Gore.


I'm not interested in Al Gore nor interested in claims of anthropogenic climate change. That means nothing to me. It is incomprehensible to me that so many people with tunnel vision are hung up and obsessed with their money and with discrediting or disproving Al Gore for the sake of money when it's as plain as the nose on your face that that isn't the issue.

What I am interested in is the fact that the climate IS changing (by whatever cause is no longer relevant, it's of no consequence) climate change is the issue and there are many things need to be done immediately to change our lifestyles and to conserve what hasn't already been lost before it's too late to save anything.

When there's no more fresh water left there will still be people with tunnel vision and with their heads in the sand feeling personally vindicated in saying "Well, I might be dying of thirst now but I still insist that it wasn't caused by man and that's all that's important, it's not important that I didn't do anything to conserve what we once had."


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes the climate maybe indeed changing, there are not many that dispute that. But man not only is not causing it nor can man stop it, man isn't even powerful enough to slow it up, very much if at all.
The earth has and will continue to change with or without man, that is a fact that the earth has lived through for over 4.2 billon years.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

So do you think man should just carry on as usual as if nothing is happening without doing anything to adapt to changing climate, without doing anything of a conservational nature?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

fishhead said:


> It was interesting to watch them compare the tobacco industries strategy to the climate change deniers strategy.
> 
> They are identical and both will result in massive numbers of deaths.


Yes, except that we didn't have vast hordes of Smoking Deniers, did we? But, just as with tobacco, eventually the science won, as it almost always does. I hope that this is what happens with climate change denialism, otherwise we must plan for the worst and hope for the best.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Darren said:


> More than a few scientists that stopped their involvement with the IPCC. There's a recent news item that won't make the New York Times. The media isn't reporting the dissent. Fortunately most of the general public, as shown by polls, isn't buying the scam.
> 
> "Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the groupâs promotion of man-made global warming fears."
> 
> ...


Er... Are you attempting to show that something randomly stated 38 years ago proves something now? I hope I am wrong...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Er... Are you attempting to show that something randomly stated 38 years ago proves something now? I hope I am wrong...


I am not sure what you are talking about. There has been an effort via the media to convince people that the consensus among scientists is that AGW is incontrovertible. On the contrary, that is not the case.

The study at CERN is one of the recent efforts that has produced evidence supporting the fact that the Sun plays such a major role in climate that man's contribution is insignificant.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Er... Are you attempting to show that something randomly stated* 38 years ago *proves something now? I hope I am wrong...


Just what is it *you* think happened 38 years ago?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Paumon said:


> So do you think man should just carry on as usual as if nothing is happening without doing anything to adapt to changing climate, without doing anything of a conservational nature?


In what ways are we not adapting? Carbon emissions have been dramatically reduced in the last 40 years. Homes are more energy efficient. Appliances are more energy efficient. 

Speaking of appliances, I read today that because China has nationalized production of rare earth metals (causing a shortage), the cost of CFL bulbs is skyrocketing. And, oh!, we've banned the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs. 

:run::run::run::run:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> The assumption you are making is that the weather stations are determining scientific data about climate change. They are weather stations monitoring the weather. Climate is different. The history of climate is not written in note books recording mercury thermometer readings. It comes from core analysis - soil, ice, permafrost, seabed etc. and from analysis of living organisms such as trees. Scientists are interested in what has happened and they are also recording what is happening. Adding the two together is what they are studying.


You don't get temp readings from core samples, you get it from weather stations. Its the 'spike' in the years of temperature data which being used to "show" global warming. That spike comes from the microclimates around the stations. Ever see the Gilligan's Island episode where they thought the island was sinking? The Professor had data showing that the water in the lagoon was getting deeper and deeper and doing so quickly. Therefore according to the data the island would be underwater in either a few weeks or months. Well after quite a panic it was discovered the stick the Professor was using to track the depth was being used by Gilligan to anchor his traps and he was moving his traps into deeper water to have a better catch. Same thing here, the data is there but it is faulty.

On core samples et al. I have a question for you regarding CO2. If it is true that there is a relation between higher CO2 levels and higher temps what is that relation and can you show any studies to prove it? IOW, is there higher temps because of more CO2 or is there more CO2 because of higher temps? AFAIK, there is no data nor studies showing which is the cause and which is the effect.




emdeengee said:


> As I wrote I don't concern myself with appointing blame but to live in denial is always dangerous. Rain patterns have already changed dramatically in Africa and part of North America. Perma frost is melting in the Arctic and core samples that my husband was involved in retrieving have led to the discovery of antibiotic resistant bacteria that is 30,000 years old and going to be released when the perma frost melts to that level. What else is hidden there? - we don't know.


I'll ask you another question, if humans are causing this warming what did humans do to cause the warming which ended the last ice age? For extra points what could they have done to prevent said warming?




emdeengee said:


> Sure mistakes are made. It is all new. There was a huge fuss about huge masses of "orange eggs" covering harbours in Alaska and moving up the Yukon River. My husband sent samples to his lab. Not eggs. Spruce rust. A fungus that attacks trees in the north. A natural occurance but never in quantities such as these. How did Alaskan scientists make such a big mistake in identifying this? Simply a mistake or incomplete analysis. That is why we need to keep learning about what is happening.


What is happening is the same thing that has happened on earth throughout time, things are changing. We are going through a warm cycle, how warm will it get? I don't know. How long will it last? I don't know. But I do know at some point it will stop and another cooling cycle will start.

Again I ask you to show me any model which shows GW which works in reverse. Think about it this way, if someone said they had a new way to do long division and they used it to solve an equation with really big numbers but when you 'reversed' it by multiplication you didn't get the original number would you trust their new system?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/
> 
> âWe show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidenceâ of human-induced climate change âvastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians,â Mr. Anderegg and the other authors write in their paper.
> 
> "The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the worldâs active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it."


And yet none of these great scientist can come up with a working formula which works.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Has anyone had frost yet? .... We had temps in the high thirtys but now is warming up. Back in the seventies we had a killing frost about August 30 and some of the corn was still in the milk stage (or was it the dough stage?) .... anyway the ears had not developed enough. I can remember years when the first frost was late October .... which proves climate change is real !!!

BTW my ninety year old uncle, back when he was a child, recalls a July frost and the farmers had to replant the fields in buckwheat to have enough grain for the winter !

..... more proof climate is changing !


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, except that we didn't have vast hordes of Smoking Deniers, did we? But, just as with tobacco, eventually the science won, as it almost always does. I hope that this is what happens with climate change denialism, otherwise we must plan for the worst and hope for the best.


 Again its kind of sad that you have to resort to calling skeptical science "Deniers". Science by definition should be full of skeptics and I think I would be a lot more worried about any science where there is no debate, no testing of theories, no one challenging conventional wisdom. Is that really what you call science? Seriously?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> Would you care to dispute the study or would like to dwell on the messenger?


I do both with ease.

1) Show me the studies that prove that the increase in CO2 levels are a cause and not an effect of higher temperatures. 

2) Show me a computer model which works in reverse.

3) Show me a study which shows the human cause of the global warming which ended the last ice age.

4) Show me a study which shows the human cause of the "little ice age", after all if we can warm the earth we must surely be able to cool it.

5) Show me a study which shows what humans did to warm the earth to end the "little ice age".

If you can do even 2 of those 5 I'd be impressed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Paumon said:


> So do you think man should just carry on as usual as if nothing is happening without doing anything to adapt to changing climate, without doing anything of a conservational nature?


We humans have adapted to change for a long time and will do so for much longer. Its not like the temperatures are going to shoot up an average of 50 degrees in a year.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Er... Are you attempting to show that something randomly stated 38 years ago proves something now? I hope I am wrong...


The good Nobel prize winning doc's statements weren't uttered 38 years ago, they were written last week.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> In what ways are we not adapting? Carbon emissions have been dramatically reduced in the last 40 years. Homes are more energy efficient. Appliances are more energy efficient.


What does any of that have to do with adapting to climate change? You are still using air conditioning in your homes, aren't you? That's not adapting your homes to climate change and making them more energy efficient, that's using more energy. 

What is being done to dig canals and channels from the Mississippi and other large rivers to divert water to drought stricken areas and away from flood plains? What is being done to replenish the depleting aquifers that are getting sucked dry? Where are all the thousands of fish farms? Where are all the thousands of desalinization plants? Where are all the stands of new forests being replanted to prevent desertification and erosion?

Poor economy and lack of money is no good excuse for not implementing those kinds of things if people want to survive.

.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

naturelover said:


> What does any of that have to do with adapting to climate change? You are still using air conditioning in your homes, aren't you? That's not adapting your homes to climate change and making them more energy efficient, that's using more energy.
> 
> What is being done to dig canals and channels from the Mississippi and other large rivers to divert water to drought stricken areas and away from flood plains? What is being done to replenish the depleting aquifers that are getting sucked dry? Where are all the thousands of fish farms? Where are all the thousands of desalinization plants? Where are all the stands of new forests being replanted to prevent desertification and erosion?
> 
> ...


Insulating homes and making appliances more efficient results in LESS energy usage, does it not? Less energy usage = less production emissions, no?

How do you propose that we replenish the aquifers?

And what do fish farms have to do with anything??


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

Follow the money, I agree. Most global warming claims come with a warning that research money is needed. So some folks are trying to keep their jobs in research, making computer models, etc.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

megafatcat said:


> Follow the money, I agree. Most global warming claims come with a warning that research money is needed. So some folks are trying to keep their jobs in research, making computer models, etc.


Exactly. And if they ever get their laws and taxes in place, who would be better to serve as potentate of the local climate tax adjustment board than the local research scientist? Think of all the agencies and bureaus and departments worldwide, just waiting to be staffed with mid level supervisors with lifetime appointments and it's enough to make a climate scientist squeal with joy.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> What does any of that have to do with adapting to climate change? You are still using air conditioning in your homes, aren't you? That's not adapting your homes to climate change and making them more energy efficient, that's using more energy.
> 
> What is being done to dig canals and channels from the Mississippi and other large rivers to divert water to drought stricken areas and away from flood plains? What is being done to replenish the depleting aquifers that are getting sucked dry? Where are all the thousands of fish farms? Where are all the thousands of desalinization plants? Where are all the stands of new forests being replanted to prevent desertification and erosion?
> 
> ...


Don't mistake genuine environmental issues with AGW. That's been the supreme example of how the Al Gores and others promoting AGW have used slight-of-hand to confuse the issue. Water and air pollution have no relationship to AGW. 

The EPA forcing coal fired power plants to close to control carbon emissions will increase the price of natural gas and electricity way beyond what people expect. If you think prices are going up only 10 or 25% you're in for a shock. How many people can afford to pay twice as much for utility bills? 

The real horror story is that high utility prices affect businesses too. How many jobs will that force overseas? The Chinese don't care what they pump into the atmosphere. They're LTAO over our stupidity. Especially since their industries pump over 400 tons of mercury into the atmosphere that ends up over here. 

We'd be better off with the protections from the previous level of regulations here rather than increase emissions in China where there are no regulations. They don't care if they kill millions of their own. Do you think they care about us?

As long as we can get up off a sick bed and still shop at Walmart, the Chinese don't give a ----.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Darren said:


> The EPA forcing coal fired power plants to close to control carbon emissions will increase the price of natural gas and electricity way beyond what people expect. If you think prices are going up only 10 or 25% you're in for a shock. How many people can afford to pay twice as much for utility bills?


Do you know what the climate scientists are up to in Great Britain? They want to pump 160,000 metric tons per year of sulfur dioxide, the exact same stuff put out by coal fired power plants, into the atmosphere all over the world to cool the earth. No, really. 

Wouldn't it be easier to build more coal plants if they really want to cool the earth and starve billions of people? No, climate scientists don't earn a living from power plants, but they do earn a living playing with balloons and hoses. 



> British to Test Geoengineering Scheme
> 
> Can a garden hose to the stratosphere really keep the planet cool?
> 
> ...


http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38564/?p1=MstRcnt


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

naturelover said:


> What does any of that have to do with adapting to climate change? You are still using air conditioning in your homes, aren't you? That's not adapting your homes to climate change and making them more energy efficient, that's using more energy.
> 
> *What is being done to dig canals and channels from the Mississippi and other large rivers to divert water to drought stricken areas and away from flood plains? What is being done to replenish the depleting aquifers that are getting sucked dry? Where are all the thousands of fish farms? Where are all the thousands of desalinization plants? Where are all the stands of new forests being replanted to prevent desertification and erosion?*
> Poor economy and lack of money is no good excuse for not implementing those kinds of things if people want to survive.
> .


Seriously? Route water away from the Mississippi and kill the productive deltas on the south end? You would consider that enviromental progress? IMHO, the arid lands are overpopulated now. Bringing them more water just exacerbates that problem, too. The flooding problems this year illustrate what a futile effort it is to try and manage a major river system. 

Fish farms? Where you have to provide filtration/water quality and food for the fish?? Wonder how many kilowatts per month the average fish farm uses with all their pumps, and how many bushels of corn are in their daily food ration? One of the least evironmentally friendly forms of agriculture, I think.

Planting new forests - that was tried and failed. Under the Homestead Act, millions of folks got "tree claims" and planted trees. But most of them died in spite of watering and good efforts at cultivation. The plains weren't suited to growing trees, that's why there weren't trees there to begin with. There ARE all kinds of forestry projects ongoing in areas where forests can grow. Here in Missouri, the Conservation department makes seedling trees of native species available very cheap and thousands if not millions are purchased and planted every year. Many of the states have similar programs. 

And you can turn up your nose at A/C all you want to, but in places like Texas this year where more than 70 consecutive days were over 100 degrees, A/C literally saved lives. 

The technology for desalinization exists. But nobody is going to make the investment to build all these plants until there is a need/market for the water and money to be made. If/when it is needed, it will happen under a free enterprise system.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

YA revert the Mississippi River dry up the delta, let the ocean come in further, and then that way it will sure make the Next Hurricane that comes in, WILL make a direct hit on NO. Sounds like a plan to me.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And some of that kind of thinking is also start the largest pipe line in the world and Pipe Water Out of the Great Lakes for the Desert Southwest.
Ya start that and lower those lakes down and No shipping gets down. Also sounds like a plan to me. NOT.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Climate Reality :hysterical: Digestion Reality happened after my morning cup of coffee this morning as well. I think the two are pretty closely related.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Digestion Reality happened after my morning cup of coffee this morning as well. I think the two are pretty closely related.


97% of scientists agree with that


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Do you know that a while back 90 something percent of all geologist said the world was flat? Did you know that not that long ago a large percentage of scientist said we were heading for global cooling?


You cannot compare something that way. Point 1 is that those people were not actually geologists, at least not in the sense they are today. As I know, alchemy was also fairly common back then. It was only recently that the scientific method was actually created. The faith was removed, in exchange for something far more appealing: Evidence.
Point 2 is that these people are also dead.
Point 3 is that a very small percentage of scientists said we were headed for global cooling. Most likely, primarily media hype that made the somewhat more gullible population reject AGW. 
Point 4: How about making some gold, shall we? We can start by banging chunks of zirconium and yttrium together. It should work fine. 



watcher said:


> Ok show me a scientist who has a computer model which I can put in the recorded temperatures for the last 10 years and have it output what the temperatures actually were 20 years before that. 50 years. Before you start looking I'll save you some time, there are NONE, zero, not a single one works.


The IPCC models have, in fact, been reasonably reliable. Unless you count the fact the the temperature has risen beyond the highest expectations of the IPCC and other scientific communities.



watcher said:


> Look at it this way. Say someone told you they had a computer program which predicts the future value of a stock. They tell you if you pay them they will put in a company's data and tell you how much the stock will be worth in 5 years thereby allowing you to make MILLIONS of dollars. You ask them to show how well it works by giving them a company's data and have the program tell you what the stock was worth 5 years ago. When they do that the value is WAY off. Would you trust anything that person told you about the future value of any stock?


Such a terrible inconvenience for the person to make billions instead of millions, all because of bad computer models...



watcher said:


> 1) Show me the studies that prove that the increase in CO2 levels are a cause and not an effect of higher temperatures.


The point of industrialization provides the best source of the excess CO2 levels. The earth naturally had an equilibrium at the the beginning of industrialization, it only went out of whack when it began. Furthermore, CO2 is very firmly established as a GHG, you would first have to show that it is not a GHG to show that it is an effect and not a cause. Moreover, the correlation between CO2 levels and global average temperature rises is the strongest. There is no other rise that correlates as strongly. To further this point, also consider that the sun appears to be in a cooler period at this point.
Point made: CO2 is well established as a cause. Please show me the evidence that it is an effect, instead.



watcher said:


> 2) Show me a computer model which works in reverse.


Pardon?



watcher said:


> 3) Show me a study which shows the human cause of the global warming which ended the last ice age.


We were not able to influence the weather during this time.
Notice that we were not able to influence the weather then... But we are now. Quite amazing, don't you say? Of course that is your hinge pin argument that you attempt to make here, that somehow by showing we could not influence the weather before, means we therefore cannot do so now? However this is very simply a case of wishful thinking. 



watcher said:


> 4) Show me a study which shows the human cause of the "little ice age", after all if we can warm the earth we must surely be able to cool it.


We could cool it, probably, if we were determined enough. 



watcher said:


> 5) Show me a study which shows what humans did to warm the earth to end the "little ice age".
> 
> If you can do even 2 of those 5 I'd be impressed.


The last three quotes that are in my post here are flawed in one common manner: They all use prerequisite parameters. Therefore, if they are met, they would disprove your point. However, since it is clearly impossible to do so based on solid historical facts, these parameters are set in such a way as to be unanswerable, therefore continuing to prove that humans are incapable of influencing the weather. The only point that continues to be made, therefore, is that humans could
a. not influence the weather before and
b. can influence the weather now, via excessive release of greenhouse gases.

I have answered this post in the best way I could see fit. I would appreciate it if you could do likewise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I have answered this post in the best way I could see fit.


And still haven't said what your "38 years ago" comment was all about.





> However, since it is clearly impossible to do so based on solid historical facts, these parameters are set in such a way as to be unanswerable, therefore continuing to prove that humans are incapable of influencing the weather. The only point that continues to be made, therefore, is that humans *could*


LOL

That's some solid proof there


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And still haven't said what your "38 years ago" comment was all about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I think he was using the Chewboca defense. If Chewboca is a Wookie, you must acquit.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Seriously? Route water away from the Mississippi and kill the productive deltas on the south end? You would consider that enviromental progress? IMHO, the arid lands are overpopulated now. Bringing them more water just exacerbates that problem, too. The flooding problems this year illustrate what a futile effort it is to try and manage a major river system.


I never said divert all the water away. We all know what's happened when that kind of thing has been done in the past. However, if canals with locks were constructed leading from major rivers that flood every year to water conserves in dry lands then the locks could be opened every year during spring flood season to divert excess flood waters away from flood plains. Think about what happened last spring with all the flooding that occured from Saskatchewan and Manitoba all the way south to Louisiana. Dams had to be breached and we all know what happened as a consequence of that. If there had been canals already built to drain off those flood waters and diverted to dry lands it would have solved several problems for a lot of people. 



> Fish farms? Where you have to provide filtration/water quality and food for the fish?? Wonder how many kilowatts per month the average fish farm uses with all their pumps, and how many bushels of corn are in their daily food ration? One of the least evironmentally friendly forms of agriculture, I think.


Oceans are getting overfished already. More lakes and rivers are becoming polluted. How much more environmentally unfriendly can you get than what's happening already? When the oceans become less saline from glacial melt the remaining ocean fish will die anyway. When no wild fishing from oceans and fresh waters is practical anymore people will still want fish and something will be done about it then to create fish farms. Why wait for most of the wild fish to be dead and gone before doing something about it? People will create free flowing man made brinewater and freshwater lakes and ponds and canals constructed like the fish farms and free flowing canals in Asia but it would be better to start constructing those now instead of waiting until it's almost too late.



> Planting new forests - that was tried and failed. Under the Homestead Act, millions of folks got "tree claims" and planted trees. *But most of them died in spite of watering and good efforts at cultivation. The plains weren't suited to growing trees, that's why there weren't trees there to begin with.* There ARE all kinds of forestry projects ongoing in areas where forests can grow. Here in Missouri, the Conservation department makes seedling trees of native species available very cheap and thousands if not millions are purchased and planted every year. Many of the states have similar programs.


They should have planted Lombardy poplars, as was done in Utah and the Canadian plains.












> And you can turn up your nose at A/C all you want to, but in places like Texas this year where more than 70 consecutive days were over 100 degrees, A/C literally saved lives.


I'm not turning up my nose at A/C but I think too many people are taking it for granted and not considering alternatives. What will people do during those same conditions when there is no A/C available.  



> The technology for desalinization exists. But nobody is going to make the investment to build all these plants until there is a need/market for the water and money to be made. If/when it is needed, it will happen under a free enterprise system.


The technology for desalinization exists and is being used in many places already. Just not being used in the places where people take it for granted that they will always have access to fresh water. The people who take their water for granted are the ones who have $ signs in their eyes and think in terms of investments and free enterprise instead of planning ahead now for future necessity and survival. Those are the people who will let fresh water go to waste now and then end up having to buy their fresh water later from others who are already thinking and planning ahead now.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Those are the people who will let fresh water go to waste now


You can't waste water.

All you can do is move it around.

It doesn't go away, and it comes back the next time it rains


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't waste water.
> 
> All you can do is move it around.
> 
> It doesn't go away, and it comes back the next time it rains


Ha! Maybe you should tell that to the people in Texas now - or those in the horn of Africa. Their water has gone away and I don't see it coming back as rain. Do you? And now Texas is forecasted to have another 2 years of drought.

All that water from the spring floods got wasted in the Gulf of Mexico when it could have been moved into reservoirs in Texas ..... if only people would have had foresight about that from previous droughts when the rains didn't come.

.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

naturelover said:


> I'm not turning up my nose at A/C but I think too many people are taking it for granted and not considering alternatives. What will people do during those same conditions when there is no A/C available ?


They'll do the same thing when artificially delivered water is no longer available.

I appreciate your passion and energies in this particular field of study, NL, but, truth is, _nature will_ take it's course soon enough, (as you have been trying to convey) and nature has never been partial to huge unbalanced populations of any species.
The false reality that has been propped up is dying. Nature is winning. People are going to die by default. There is nothing that can be done because those people are apathetic by choice.
No amount of crying, aloud or in secret, is going to change the mind of the masses, nor the course of the inevitable.
Personal education to survive and aid a few along the way is the best we can do.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

There are energy saving alternatives to air conditioning. People used to build with high heat in mind and those houses were relatively comfortable. We had an old house on the fisheries research station. When it was 95 degrees and high humidity you could walk into that house and it almost seemed like it had air conditioning. That's because it had high ceilings.

Earth tubes are a low cost way of cooling your house. In many cases it's possible to design them to work using solar heat. The sun never quits shining but the electricity does quit and many times it's when you need it the most.

We can do better and if our children are going to inherit a habitable planet we must do better. Unless of course we are so selfish that we don't care about the next generation. This forum is the last place I would think there would be opposition to sustainable living.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

I will buy into this climate change stuff when it is proved that there have not been any climate changes before the industrial age. Other wise it is just the normal changes in the earth that have taken place since the beginning. 

That being said I do believe in taking great care of my environment, but I will not be a part of the enrichment of already super rich climate change salesmen.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> I will buy into this climate change stuff when it is proved that there have not been any climate changes before the industrial age. Other wise it is just the normal changes in the earth that have taken place since the beginning.
> 
> That being said I do believe in taking great care of my environment, but I will not be a part of the enrichment of already super rich climate change salesmen.


Agreed!

Let me add; I won't cede Liberties/Rights to the already over powered/greedy Government either.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Ha! Maybe you should tell that to the people in Texas now - or those in the horn of Africa. Their water has gone away and I don't see it coming back as rain. Do you? And now Texas is forecasted to have another 2 years of drought.
> 
> All that water from the spring floods got wasted in the Gulf of Mexico when it could have been moved into reservoirs in Texas ..... if only people would have had foresight about that from previous droughts when the rains didn't come.
> 
> .


Whoa!

If you believed that mother nature will do as she see best, then why aren't you complaining about what the Army Corps of Engineers have done to the Mississippi Delta? Oh that's right it wouldn't be popular..

Now just in case you don't understand, I will explain it to you..
The River moves and sweeps across the delta in cycles or did at one time. But now it doesn't move. It is locked in place so that it stays beside New Orleans and keeps the Lake(man made) full.. If the River was allowed to flow the way it was intended, then it would have moved away from NO and continued it's sweep back and forth across the delta. As one area fills with silt the river changes it's course and continues this motion until that area fills with silt. 
But no! Folks like you who claim to be for the environment, really just want to control it. Just like they do now only with a "new" set of rules. You want water diverted to Texas (or any other place) where there isn't water at the moment.. Why? To satisfy your need? Nature doesn't always do what you ask, but yet you want to control it.. I guess you really aren't such a good environmentalist after all. Since your only goal is to control it...


Oh, here is another idea.. 
If you want water then shut down the Texas Eastern gas pipeline. Once it is shut down we will start pumping water into it and sending it your way.. We have more than enough here in central PA.. Avg rainfall is approx 24 inches for the year. We already have over 56 inches and this is only Sept.. Even the year of hurricane Agnes we only got 59 inches.. So we might be on the way to another record... These numbers are approximate, but they woudl be close enough for government work..:happy2:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Ambereyes said:


> I will buy into this climate change stuff when it is proved that there have not been any climate changes before the industrial age. Other wise it is just the normal changes in the earth that have taken place since the beginning.
> 
> That being said I do believe in taking great care of my environment, but I will not be a part of the enrichment of already super rich climate change salesmen.


 So obviously you know climate has changed before, why is it so hard to believe that mankind can affect it this time? You do know that all those fossil fuels that have been quietly sequestered underground represent millions of years worth of solar energy? And we are putting them right back into the atmosphere. One thing is certain, change is gonna happen. With or without us, but the fact is we ARE here, and we ARE putting all those millions of years worth of energy back into the atmosphere. That are undisputed facts. 
My take, for what its worth, is that we are slowly changing the climate, but it is slow enough that we will adapt. Its already happening. 
And jenn, I do not support enriching the 'carbon credit' scammers either. Just another group of parasites trying to make money without doing anything useful.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> So obviously you know climate has changed before, why is it so hard to believe that mankind can affect it this time? You do know that all those fossil fuels that have been quietly sequestered underground represent millions of years worth of solar energy? And we are putting them right back into the atmosphere. One thing is certain, change is gonna happen. With or without us, but the fact is we ARE here, and we ARE putting all those millions of years worth of energy back into the atmosphere. That are undisputed facts.
> My take, for what its worth, is that we are slowly changing the climate, but it is slow enough that we will adapt. Its already happening.
> And jenn, I do not support enriching the 'carbon credit' scammers either. Just another group of parasites trying to make money without doing anything useful.


I think man's contribution compared to nature's is insignificant. Even if you accept the greenhouse gas theory, which is a bogus analogy, carbon dioxide is insignificant compared to water vapor. Water vapor and subsequent cloud formation which is primarily controlled by the Sun is part of the feedback mechanism that controls weather and climate.

The massive preponderance of water vapor compared to carbon dioxide is something the global warming alarmists have to ignore. Once you realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide, the argument for carbon taxes is destroyed.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Darren said:


> I think man's contribution compared to nature's is insignificant. Even if you accept the greenhouse gas theory, which is a bogus analogy, carbon dioxide is insignificant compared to water vapor. Water vapor and subsequent cloud formation which is primarily controlled by the Sun is part of the feedback mechanism that controls weather and climate.
> 
> The massive preponderance of water vapor compared to carbon dioxide is something the global warming alarmists have to ignore. Once you realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide, the argument for carbon taxes is destroyed.


Water vapor and cloud formation is a climate feedback; it is not a forcing. CO2 is a climate forcing. It is as simple as that.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Water vapor and cloud formation is a climate feedback; it is not a forcing. CO2 is a climate forcing. It is as simple as that.


Are you saying that water vapor is not a so-called green house gas?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Their water has gone away and I don't see it coming back as rain. Do you? And now Texas is forecasted to have another 2 years of drought.


It fell somewhere else.

When the drought ends, Texas will again have some floods and other places will be dry, but the total amount of water will remain the same


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> CO2 is a climate forcing. It is as simple as that.


CO2 levels have been higher in the past, when there were not enough humans to affect the climate

Therefore, it has to be "natural"

It's as simple as that


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Darren said:


> Are you saying that water vapor is not a so-called green house gas?


I did not say that. Please read my post again:
*Water vapor and cloud formation is a climate feedback; it is not a forcing. CO2 is a climate forcing. It is as simple as that. *


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I don't understand. I'd appreciate reading your description or definition of climate forcing.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> I think man's contribution compared to nature's is insignificant. Even if you accept the greenhouse gas theory, which is a bogus analogy, carbon dioxide is insignificant compared to water vapor. Water vapor and subsequent cloud formation which is primarily controlled by the Sun is part of the feedback mechanism that controls weather and climate.
> 
> The massive preponderance of water vapor compared to carbon dioxide is something the global warming alarmists have to ignore. Once you realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide, the argument for carbon taxes is destroyed.


 Water vapor and CO2 are BOTH 'greenhouse gasses'. Doesn't matter that there is a 'massive preponderance' of H2O, they BOTH play a significant role in climate.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

According to NASA,



> "Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,â Dessler said. âSo the real question is, how much warming?"
> 
> The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Increasing water vapor *leads to *warmer *temperatures,





> *warming *brought about by increased carbon dioxide *allows more water vapor *to enter the atmosphere


LOL

If you claim both sides you're sure to get something right once in a while


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I never said divert all the water away. We all know what's happened when that kind of thing has been done in the past. However, if canals with locks were constructed leading from major rivers that flood every year to water conserves in dry lands then the locks could be opened every year during spring flood season to divert excess flood waters away from flood plains.


Ummm I have one tiny question here.... do you suppose we should pump that water back uphill to those dry areas using coal fired electrical plants.... or build more nuke plants to operate those pumps? :shrug:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ummm I have one tiny question here.... do you suppose we should pump that water back uphill to those dry areas using coal fired electrical plants.... or build more nuke plants to operate those pumps? :shrug:


Which one requires the least amount of constant supply of water to be used in its operation .... coal or nuke?

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Which one requires the least amount of constant supply of water to be used in its operation .... coal or nuke?
> 
> .


They are probably both about the same. does it really matter? They both seem to have their negative impacts on our environment.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Paumon said:


> So do you think man should just carry on as usual as if nothing is happening without doing anything to adapt to changing climate, without doing anything of a conservational nature?


As always, mankind will adapt to the changes. Thatis out lot in the universe.

What do you prepose we do? Minor conservation efforts will not make any difference.

Mankind won't take itself backwards to live in the stoneage with no energy use at all and reduce our population to 5% of what it is now - which is about what you would need to meet the figures 'your' side on this expouse. Won't happen.

In another post you said you didn't care if global warming was natural or man-made....

So you are willing to destroy the natural path the earth would take to preserve the humans? Kind of an odd stance for a preservationist to take - you want to change the world to meet your needs? Interesting dilema for your side to take....


Whatever happens, we will adapt - or die. We won't go backwards on this by choice tho, and any country to try that is foolish. Any group doing so is foolish.

The toothpaste isn't going back in the bottle. We move forward.

Conservation and energy efficiency is probably a good idea on it's own merrits, has nothing to do with global warming.

What all the buzz is about is wealth redistrubution. Folks want to use this issue to take money from some, and give it to others. Al Gore wants to line his pockets. Some groups & countries want to use it to somehow 'punish' other groups or countries. Some groups want to take from the rich and give to the poor - somehow.

_That_ is what the global warming issue is all about - money.

We can't agree for sure it is happening beyond normal fluctuations; we can't by a wide margin show mankind is causing it; We can't stop it, or even really slow it down; If it is aturally occuring or a regular fluctuation we we could cause terrible _harm_ to this planet by some of the far-reaching plans some have come up with.

None of this, not any of it, is about the earth or climate or anything like that.

It's all about the money.

--->Paul


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Forerunner said:


> They'll do the same thing when artificially delivered water is no longer available.
> 
> I appreciate your passion and energies in this particular field of study, NL, but, truth is, _nature will_ take it's course soon enough, (as you have been trying to convey) and nature has never been partial to huge unbalanced populations of any species.
> The false reality that has been propped up is dying. Nature is winning. People are going to die by default. There is nothing that can be done because those people are apathetic by choice.
> ...


Agreed.

I think there's something to be learned from the fable about Noah and the Great Flood.

There used to be a time when people looked at obstacles that nature set in their paths as challenges to be overcome and resolved, come hell or high water. Now it does seem like apathy has set in and too many people full of excuses are giving up and lying down, choosing hell over staying afloat on high water. Perhaps it's just as well that they die by default and then a new breed of innovative survivors can start over again.

.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Ha! Maybe you should tell that to the people in Texas now - or those in the horn of Africa. Their water has gone away and I don't see it coming back as rain. Do you? And now Texas is forecasted to have another 2 years of drought.
> 
> All that water from the spring floods got wasted in the Gulf of Mexico when it could have been moved into reservoirs in Texas ..... if only people would have had foresight about that from previous droughts when the rains didn't come.
> 
> .


I can't make sense of this message.

I appreciate your passion on this topic, and I understand you are concerned and want to 'do something'.

But you are telling us to do 4 different opposing things here, and it does not compute! 

In order to move water across a continent, one has to use much power. Water already flows to the lowest spots, you can't just make it flow uphill to those that are dry - you have many thousand foot divides between the watersheds, creating channels and pumps to overcome this will consume much power and create the sort of energy waste you think is bad for our climate. I can't resolve that conflict you set up?

You say the water that didn't fall in Texas is 'gone' and won't come back, but you then mention the flooding in other parts of the country. In my part of Minnesota, we had a _terribly_ cold and wet spring and first part of summer. The water was not 'gone', it was relocated to here. The heat they experienced - we had the cold to balance it. Nothing was 'gone', it is only relocated for a time. One hurricane & Texas again will be wet & not know what to do with the water it has. You are taking very, very short-term issues - a couple year drought in Texas - and trying to apply them to events that are measured in centuries. A 3 year drought or a 3 yerar wet spell means nothing to a study of global temperatures. We always have extreme fluctuations somewhere to what we consider 'normal'. Many of the global warming alarmists use these normal, short-term flutuations to spread their alarm. But it really is nothing, and the rain was there on this continent. It was _Not_ gone.

And so forth.

Again, I too care about our environment and if we can live a good life and keep our footprint smaller that is a cool thing, I'm for it.

But what you are saying seems to be asking we have it both ways, and really re-enforces the idea that global warming is just about redistrubing the money on this planet, and not about fixing or worrying about any sort of global changes.

Anyhow, that is how I read your messages.

--->Paul


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Rambler, no offense intended but I think you and some few others are thinking too much inside of a tiny box that so many have gotten comfortable with. Ask me those same questions in another 3 or 4 years when everyone's had more ongoing problems with lack of water in some places and too much water in other places and have had more time to think outside of the box. 

I think it's ironic that nobody thinks anything of so much time, resources, energy and money being spent to install and operate so many pipelines to transport dead sludge all over the nation to feed an addiction for said sludge. But perish the very thought of a few pipelines or canals and locks (or whatever....) to transport life giving water from places that have a surfeit to places that need it ..... Oh the horror of it all, such blasphemy! :shocked:

Click on the map to enlarge


.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

What is this talk about trying to pick up flooded water and pump it to areas that are short on water?
Flooding waters are so full of so many things that it would cost a whole bunch to purify if a company even wanted to do that.
You can't just put that kind of water back into the aquifers without cleaning it up first,
You can't just pump that stuff just to put on the l;and that has no water. All sorts of carp is in it. Man stop and think what it would take and then what kind of water you are talking about.
Oil, disease caring bacteria, medical waste you name it it is in there.
Now there is a way to put water back into the ground and Nevada is doing it. They have special runways for RAIN WATER to go into storage not flooded water that covers over half the country.
Special drains in the sidewalks, that carry water and store it to get refilled into their water reservoir system. But with at all of cities going broke don't look for them to be building special catch places for rain water.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

the biggest threat to water resources is the burgeoning world population. oh and contrary to what a certain global warming alarmist has written, climate IS weather. the weather today & tommorrow and the next day all add up to climate. if you can't grasp that simple concept how can your arguments be taken seriously. it's like saying ones & fives don't matter just the grants & franklins.


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

Pops2 said:


> the biggest threat to water resources is the burgeoning world population. oh and contrary to what a certain global warming alarmist has written, climate IS weather. the weather today & tommorrow and the next day all add up to climate. if you can't grasp that simple concept how can your arguments be taken seriously. it's like saying ones & fives don't matter just the grants & franklins.



Perhaps they're trying to say a few days of dollar bills does not negate the flood of C-notes we are experiencing.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> What is this talk about trying to pick up flooded water and pump it to areas that are short on water?
> Flooding waters are so full of so many things that it would cost a whole bunch to purify if a company even wanted to do that.
> You can't just put that kind of water back into the aquifers without cleaning it up first,
> You can't just pump that stuff just to put on the l;and that has no water. All sorts of carp is in it. Man stop and think what it would take and then what kind of water you are talking about.
> ...


LOL. AK, you already mentioned a part of the solution but you are still thinking inside the box too much. Where do you think spring flood water comes from? Do you think it comes up out of the ground? What do you think snow is? Where do most places already get their water from? Don't most cities already have water treatment plants for their city water?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Which one requires the least amount of constant supply of water to be used in its operation .... coal or nuke?



Either can circulate water and REUSE it, so none is "consumed?



> I think it's ironic that nobody thinks anything of so much time, resources, energy and money being spent to install and operate so many pipelines to transport dead sludge all over the nation to feed an addiction for said sludge


It takes BILLIONS of gallons of water to make any difference in a drought,
The *logistics *of transporting it to where it's needed is impossible

It takes over 27,000 gallons to put one inch of water on* one acre*

That's 3 LARGE tanker trucks *per acre*, getting about 4-5 miles per gallon of diesel fuel
It would take over 300 trucks just to do ONE of the cotton fields behind my house

You're not being realistic



> http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthrain.html


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're not being realistic


Nonsense. There are other countries that are already doing it, some for centuries already, some are 3rd world countries. Don't try to tell me that our wealthier, more technologically advanced western society can't improve on what some 3rd world countries are already doing. Here is just one example for you:

http://www.oas.org/DSD/publications/Unit/oea59e/ch17.htm



> In some countries, water is routinely transported from regions where it is plentiful to regions where it is scarce. Several water conveyance and distribution techniques are available, and are actively used in many countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.
> *Technical Description*
> Among the most common water conveyance methods are tanker trucks, rural aqueducts, and pipelines. In some cases, this involves the transfer of water from one portion of a river basin to another, or between river basins. Each of these methods is described below.
> Â· Tanker Trucks
> ...


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Yesterday I noticed something that has left me puzzled.

I was hunting grouse in a remote area that I frequent. The vegetation was unusually lush just like it is all over the area. That got me thinking of other areas that have turned into jungles this summer.

One big wetland at least 50 miles away that I sample monthly has turned into a jungle. In the 5-6 years that I've been sampling it the vegetation has never been anywhere near so lush. Trails that I've been using have disappeared making walking the mile long round trip really tough.

Another trail closer to home has all but disappeared in brush and weeds.

The weeds in my garden went crazy this summer and are worse than I've ever seen.

I thought it was because of the frequent rainfalls.

The confusing part is that the streams I saw yesterday were almost dry but the vegetation on land was lush. One stream was drier than I've ever seen over the past 40 years.

My theory is the drought we've been in for several years left the soil dry and all the rain we had just went to recharge the soil and into plant growth leaving no groundwater to flow into the streams. Groundwater recharge is a major source of stream flows in this area.

To make it more confusing the lakes in this area regained some elevation that has been lost in the drought.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> The IPCC models have, in fact, been reasonably reliable. Unless you count the fact the the temperature has risen beyond the highest expectations of the IPCC and other scientific communities.


Not that I've seen. If you put in the last 10 years temp data and ask it to tell you what the temps were 50 years ago the numbers are way off. If the computer models can't "predict" past temps with today's data why in the world would you trust them to predict future ones?




Heritagefarm said:


> The point of industrialization provides the best source of the excess CO2 levels. The earth naturally had an equilibrium at the the beginning of industrialization, it only went out of whack when it began. Furthermore, CO2 is very firmly established as a GHG, you would first have to show that it is not a GHG to show that it is an effect and not a cause. Moreover, the correlation between CO2 levels and global average temperature rises is the strongest. There is no other rise that correlates as strongly. To further this point, also consider that the sun appears to be in a cooler period at this point.
> Point made: CO2 is well established as a cause. Please show me the evidence that it is an effect, instead.


You are wrong. A link between higher temps and increased CO2 levels has been established but no one has ever shown there is a direct causal link between increased CO2 and increased temps. If you have a study which proves a direct causal link I'd love to read it. BTW, did you know that selling ice cream causes temperatures to increase? The data proves it just check it out. If you track the amount of ice cream sold vs the average daily temperature you will see as sells rise the temps do as well. Maybe we should ban ice cream? You can also show churches cause an increase in crime and many other things with cold hard facts. They are examples used in statistics classes to show how easy it is to make the data say what you want. As Mr Twain, IIRC, said; There are lies, there ---- lies then there are statistics.

As you may or may not know as the temp of water rises its ability to hold gases in solution falls which means as the ocean warms it releases CO2 (as well as other gases). 




Heritagefarm said:


> Pardon?


See my first response to you in this msg and you'll see what I mean.




Heritagefarm said:


> We were not able to influence the weather during this time.
> Notice that we were not able to influence the weather then... But we are now. Quite amazing, don't you say? Of course that is your hinge pin argument that you attempt to make here, that somehow by showing we could not influence the weather before, means we therefore cannot do so now? However this is very simply a case of wishful thinking.


Swing and a miss. The point is there is historical PROOF showing in the past the earth has both cooled and warmed massively and there was no human involvement at all. Yet when it happens now its suddenly all our fault.




Heritagefarm said:


> We could cool it, probably, if we were determined enough.


Another miss. The point was, again, it happened and there was no human cause.




Heritagefarm said:


> I have answered this post in the best way I could see fit. I would appreciate it if you could do likewise.


Unfortunately you didn't seem to answer any of my questions. I asked for studies to show things, not just your opinions. Problems with your view that humans are causing GW:

None of the scientist have a model which works. There are lots of them which shows what they want it to show. Ever hear the term GIGO? If not google it.

No studies have shown a causal link between CO2 and increased temps only a relationship.

There has been global warming, and cooling, in the past when it is clear humans had no ability to cause it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Which one requires the least amount of constant supply of water to be used in its operation .... coal or nuke?
> 
> .


Nuke.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Rambler, no offense intended but I think you and some few others are thinking too much inside of a tiny box that so many have gotten comfortable with. Ask me those same questions in another 3 or 4 years when everyone's had more ongoing problems with lack of water in some places and too much water in other places and have had more time to think outside of the box.
> 
> I think it's ironic that nobody thinks anything of so much time, resources, energy and money being spent to install and operate so many pipelines to transport dead sludge all over the nation to feed an addiction for said sludge. But perish the very thought of a few pipelines or canals and locks (or whatever....) to transport life giving water from places that have a surfeit to places that need it ..... Oh the horror of it all, such blasphemy! :shocked:
> 
> ...


When you talk of 'another 3 or 4 years' you are clearly missing the subject here. Global warming is measured in centuries, with minor fluctuations of a decade or 2. A few years doesn't even register. Where I live was covered with glaciers 10,000 years ago; the soil I farm is 130 feet deep yellow clay that was scraped off Canada & deposited here by those glaciers. When drilling the deep well, they brought up some grass & twigs from that level, with a thin layer of the topsoil from back then.

You appear to be a young person, and have not lived through the fluctuations of weather patterns over the years. As a farmer, I am deeply in tune with weather, weather patterns, and changes.

You are not speaking of global warming here, you are speaking of normal weather patterns that cycle on 10 to 28 year cycles. Sometimes the pile up on each other & appear real bad; sometimes these different cycles oppose each other & mellow each other. And so we have the long term weather patterns you are speaking of. Texas has been dry before, Minnesota has been wet & cold before, and it will all happen again in another generation.

None of this has to do with climate change.

The sun drives climate change. We little beings don't have so much to do with it. We are along for the ride. It is our lot in life to adapt to where we are, or adapt where we are to fit our needs.

That all will continue.

As to moving water... We use about 3 gallons of liquid fuel per day per person. It is possible to ship that amount of liquid around the country in pipelines with pumps.

We use 70 gallons of water per day per person.

The pipes to handle water shipment need to be 24 times bigger! The pumps to run that system do not compute - you would be using a great deal of energy which compounds the greenhouse gas production issue.

Rivers and lakes that flood are already the 'low ground', so it is is silly to say we should create impoundment areas to catch 'extra' water. That is already what happens in a flood. You can't pump water away fast enough to make a dent in the flooding.

Transporting raw water from one watershed to the next watershed will also transport species, diseases, and bad things from one watershed to the next. This is a serious issue.

It would also change the micro climates of the water sheds. You pump that much water into Arizona, and suddenly there is a lot more water evaporation from what used to be dry desert. Environmentalists constantly say it is wrong to pump irrigation water for corn fields - why is it different tp pump water to cities, why is that ok?

I live in water-rich Minnesota. I've lived through many floods, and many droughts. Arizona & Texas could never pump enough water to make a dent in a flood - and if they could, then they would be taking away from our wetlands and soil reserves that feed out aquifers - a flood now and then is a natural thing that is used by nature to recharge - as Fishhead describes well in one of his later messages.

In times of drought around here, any water at all taken away to Arizona or Texas will be too much, our rivers go to a trickle and even a small pipeline would take too much.

Again, I enjoy your enthusuiasm and your concern and desire to 'do something', but I think many of your goals tend to defeat themselves and clash against each other. As well, you haven't experienced enough of life to see the patterns, the cycles, of life which are just normal, not some grand world change.

Thanks for the conversation, so often forums are short & choppy & appear cold and screaming at each other - just how it comes out, not intended. I enjoy shring ideas and discussing things, and pondering.

--->PAul


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> Not that I've seen. If you put in the last 10 years temp data and ask it to tell you what the temps were 50 years ago the numbers are way off. If the computer models can't "predict" past temps with today's data why in the world would you trust them to predict future ones?


First, some basics from skepticalscience...


> Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice â and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it canât tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day â thatâs weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.


This photo shows an IPCC prediction and the corresponding accuracy:










Also, this graph should be something like what you are looking for. It shows that natural trends and the climate change do not correlate very strongly at all. They did before - check out the correlation from back to 1850, where it deviated slightly. Then look at the front, where the temperature has steadily taken off from natural forcings during industrialization.










http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
and
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm





watcher said:


> You are wrong. A link between higher temps and increased CO2 levels has been established but no one has ever shown there is a direct causal link between increased CO2 and increased temps. If you have a study which proves a direct causal link I'd love to read it. BTW, did you know that selling ice cream causes temperatures to increase? The data proves it just check it out. If you track the amount of ice cream sold vs the average daily temperature you will see as sells rise the temps do as well. Maybe we should ban ice cream? You can also show churches cause an increase in crime and many other things with cold hard facts. They are examples used in statistics classes to show how easy it is to make the data say what you want. As Mr Twain, IIRC, said; There are lies, there ---- lies then there are statistics.


That depends on what you describe as a "direct causal link." Not to mention that 3rd grade science is capable of showing the heating effect of CO2. However, see the previous graphs.
Now, I will also mention that the anamoly programs used to construct temperature readings are publicly available. Feel free to find them and prove them wrong, the scientists will gladly accept any help they can get in making their programs better.
So, in order to show that since there is no causal link between CO2 levels and the warming trend you will first have to find the natural forcing, in order to do so. The rest of this quote is a red herring.



watcher said:


> As you may or may not know as the temp of water rises its ability to hold gases in solution falls which means as the ocean warms it releases CO2 (as well as other gases).


And where did the warming come from? 



watcher said:


> Swing and a miss. The point is there is historical PROOF showing in the past the earth has both cooled and warmed massively and there was no human involvement at all. Yet when it happens now its suddenly all our fault.


Correct.



watcher said:


> Another miss. The point was, again, it happened and there was no human cause.


Correct. And that proves what exactly? Notice that the CO2 trend, long ago, was also correlated to temperature rise. 



watcher said:


> Unfortunately you didn't seem to answer any of my questions. I asked for studies to show things, not just your opinions. Problems with your view that humans are causing GW:
> 
> None of the scientist have a model which works. There are lots of them which shows what they want it to show. Ever hear the term GIGO? If not google it.
> 
> ...


If you can prove the science wrong, feel free. Otherwise, there is little to no backing that humans are incapable of changing the temperature.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And getting that much water put over the land is impossible.
Just look at all those large farms that use huge irrigation units. They pump water at times 24/7. But let it RAIN for just a few hours and MORE water will fall over that acreage, then that irrigation system could do in days.~!
There eis nothing that will match mother nature and RAIN. 
Besides the lightening that happens, getting nitrogen in the earth to help grow things. 10 Million Tons of it. Man sure can't do that.
Nature is way better then anything man can do. And it is nature and the solar activity, and the tilting of the earth, and the spinning of the earth that causing climates to change not man.
Earth and its climate is way more complex, and dynamic then many know.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Simulated annual mean temperatures? You realize we don't even know where all the rain falls on this planet on a given day. Or how much rain falls on a given day. We don't know when and where the all wind blows, we just don't know.

I can simulate a lot of things if I get to guesstimate the inputs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Nonsense. There are other countries that are already doing it,


You're talking about countries smaller than most of our states, and providing DRINKING water only.



> Â· The technology can efficiently provide water *in small quantities *to less accessible areas.





> While these latter technologies are *limited by the cost of operation to less-steep terrain,* they are widespread throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.





> Â· Industrial and agro-industrial enterprises can be situated where water is otherwise unavailable *if economic factors are favorable*


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Just like the earth could not substain Dinosaurs, she cannot continue to substain us either. Just reality folks. Nothing more.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> First, some basics from skepticalscience...
> 
> 
> This photo shows an IPCC prediction and the corresponding accuracy:
> ...


You can post all the graphs you wish but you can't post a single one which shows that all the fancy programs used to make these graph will NOT work backwards. If you were to take the same data and ask the programs to tell you what was happening 20 years ago *IT WOULD BE WRONG*. Again I ask you why do you trust a model which doesn't work when tested with real *known* data?




Heritagefarm said:


> That depends on what you describe as a "direct causal link."


Its a fairly simple term. It means that B resulted directly from A. You cool pure water to 32 degrees F and it turns to ice. The cause of the state change is the change of temperature. You heat pure water to 212F and it turns to steam. The cause of the state change if the change of temperature.

You can have indirect causal relationships but we won't get into those for now. No need to muddy the water.

But there are also non causal relationships. Here's an example of a non causal relationship used in a lot of stats classes. As I have stated you can prove with data that churches cause crime. Its straight forward, as the number of churches in a town goes up the number of crimes rise as well. Bingo, churches cause crime, right? After all the data shows it. When you look into it you see there is a relationship between the number of churches and the number of crimes but no causal link. The relationship is as the number of people in a town increase the number of churches AND the number of crimes do as well. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Not to mention that 3rd grade science is capable of showing the heating effect of CO2. However, see the previous graphs


.

And any 3rd grade science is capable of showing the "CO2 effect" of heating a water-CO2 solution. IOW, you heat the solution and you get more CO2.

Which puts the bugger in the pie of GW. Is the increased CO2 a cause or a result of the warming? 




Heritagefarm said:


> And where did the warming come from?


Maybe the same place the warming which ended the last ice age and the 'little ice age'?





Heritagefarm said:


> Correct. And that proves what exactly? Notice that the CO2 trend, long ago, was also correlated to temperature rise.


Again, is this because the CO2 was causing the rise or because the rise was causing the CO2?





Heritagefarm said:


> If you can prove the science wrong, feel free. Otherwise, there is little to no backing that humans are incapable of changing the temperature.


The science has not (can not?) answer my two basic questions therefore any theories or assumptions based on such science must be considered suspect.

Please answer the following question: What caused the GW which ended the last ice age?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Instead of arguing about climate change and if man is responsible for it or part of it I think we should be discussing the change in our environment and what we can do to fix the things that we are disrupting and destroying That man is responsible for a lot of this is patently obvious to all. The world is actually very small and everything is connected. If you think that what happens in China stays in China then please look at a map of the Yukon River. If you look at a map of the river and watershed you will see that this is an enormous river with enormous water flows and that it flows through wilderness and extremely sparsely inhabitied areas. And yet the river water is contaminated with unsourced and unexplained large quantities of pharmaceuticals including things such as viagra. These are not naturally occuring substances and there are not that many middle aged hunters peeing in the river to account for the quantities found in such a huge volume of water. So out side sources (rain) are carrying these contaminants into the the watershed. If this is happening to the Yukon River imagine the polution and contamination happening in heavily inhabited, industrialized and agriculture areas which will affect all of us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That man is responsible for a lot of this is patently obvious to all


LOL

No, it's NOT

Temps and sea levels have been rising and falling NATURALLY since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so long after mankind is extinct.



> So out side sources (rain) are carrying these contaminants into the the watershed.


Rain is DISTILLED water and carries NOTHING that it doesn't pick up *as it's falling*

Statements such as yours are why so few pay attention to the AGW crowds


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> No, it's NOT
> 
> ...


 As we learned in Meteorology 101, all rain begins as molecules of water condense onto a small particle of dust, or 'contaminant'. Its called the 'condensation nuclei', which provides the 'surface' for water molecules to condense onto, before they get heavy enough to fall as rain. 
And, again, saying 'the earth has changed before', while true, does NOTHING disprove mankinds involvement in the currently changing climate.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Rain is DISTILLED water and carries NOTHING that it doesn't pick up *as it's falling*


So how is the Viagra getting into the Yukon River then? Are you saying that Viagra is floating around in the air in a solid form and gets picked up by falling rain? How is the Viagra getting into the air? (flying Viagra, my god, what a frightening thought!)

Sure as shooting there's no way it's getting into the river due to middle-aged impotent Yukoner's peeing in the river, there just aren't enough men up there at all, let alone those who need to take Viagra.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Anybody have a link to the viagra story? Doing a search for viagra and yukon is a frightening thing. 

Until then, I will continue to laugh at the absurdity.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Nuke.


 Not according to the compilers at Wiki... from the Energy Dept, they say nukes use anywhere from 400-720 gallons per Megawatt-hour, while coal fired powerplants use 300-480 gpMwh.

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

Again and again, we hear the fallback premise that 'because it changed in the past, there is no way mankind can affect climate now'. Sorry, but that 'logic' is seriously flawed!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Anybody have a link to the viagra story? Doing a search for viagra and yukon is a frightening thing.
> 
> Until then, I will continue to laugh at the absurdity.


For goodness sake, don't use the word Viagra in any search, you'll pick up a virus or get your computer frozen if you do. 

Do a search on "pharmaceutical contaminants found in rivers" and you'll find lots of information about what's happening. Not only in the Yukon basin but also globally and including in all the larger rivers and lakes in the lower 48 States that now have untold numbers of intersex fish in them as a result of pharmaceuticals in the rivers and lakes.

What's different between the rivers in the lower 48 and the rivers in the Yukon basin is that in the States the pharmaceuticals are getting flushed into the continental rivers via domestic use but in the Yukon basin they are not. The Yukon basin is huge, it's over 330,000 square miles and there simply is not the population there to be contributing pharmaceuticals into all the river systems there. There's no way for so much pharmaceuticals to be getting into the Yukon basin except through precipitation of rain and snow.

.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

naturelover said:


> So how is the Viagra getting into the Yukon River then? Are you saying that Viagra is floating around in the air in a solid form and gets picked up by falling rain? How is the Viagra getting into the air? (flying Viagra, my god, what a frightening thought!)
> 
> Sure as shooting there's no way it's getting into the river due to middle-aged impotent Yukoner's peeing in the river, there just aren't enough men up there at all,* let alone those who need to take Viagra.*
> .


I don't even want to speculate how you know that............:run:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> I don't even want to speculate how you know that............:run:


:hysterical:

Well, us Canadian wimmins don't generally boast about it much (because we don't want to make you jealous, you see) but our Canadian men don't need to use Viagra. :grin:

:bouncy: :nana:

.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Paumon said:


> What I am interested in is the fact that the climate IS changing (by whatever cause is no longer relevant, it's of no consequence) climate change is the issue and there are many things need to be done immediately to change our lifestyles and to conserve what hasn't already been lost before it's too late to save anything.



What an internally inconsistent statement!

Of course the cause is relevant...otherwise how will you know what to do to remedy it?

You just assume a lifestyle change will fix everything....because that is what you seem to be after. This is just your excuse.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> As we learned in Meteorology 101, all rain begins as molecules of water condense onto a small particle of dust, or 'contaminant'


That's what I said
It's distilled water that is NOT carrying anything it didn't pick up in the air



> And, again, saying 'the earth has changed before', while true, does NOTHING disprove *mankinds involvement *in the currently changing climate.


And saying the climate is changing now does nothing to PROVE it


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what I said
> It's distilled water that is NOT carrying anything it didn't pick up in the air


So then that means there IS viagra in the air.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So how is the Viagra getting into the Yukon River then? Are you saying that Viagra is floating around in the air in a solid form and gets picked up by falling rain? How is the Viagra getting into the air? (flying Viagra, my god, what a frightening thought!)
> 
> Sure as shooting there's no way it's getting into the river due to middle-aged impotent Yukoner's peeing in the river, there just aren't enough men up there at all, let alone those who need to take Viagra.



I don't know that it IS getting in the river.
I just know some keep claiming that



> There's no way for so much pharmaceuticals to be getting into the Yukon basin except through precipitation of rain and snow.


That would be very simple to test for.

Catch some rain and have it analyzed.

We all heard "reports" of "oil falling from the skies" during the BP spill, but none of those ever turned out to be true either


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Not according to the compilers at Wiki... from the Energy Dept, they say nukes use anywhere from 400-720 gallons per Megawatt-hour, while coal fired powerplants use 300-480 gpMwh.


None of that matters since all they do is circulate the water through the cooling towers.

It's not being "consumed" or contaminated


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Do a search on "pharmaceutical contaminants found in rivers" and you'll find lots of information about what's happening. Not only in the Yukon basin but also globally and including in all the larger rivers and lakes in the lower 48 States that now have untold numbers of intersex fish in them as a result of pharmaceuticals in the rivers and lakes.


I did a search and haven't found anything about drugs in the Yukon WATER, but only in *fish* (salmon)
How about some *direct links* to these reports?


----------



## stormwalker (Oct 27, 2004)

emdeengee said:


> Instead of arguing about climate change and if man is responsible for it or part of it I think we should be discussing the change in our environment and what we can do to fix the things that we are disrupting and destroying That man is responsible for a lot of this is patently obvious to all. The world is actually very small and everything is connected. If you think that what happens in China stays in China then please look at a map of the Yukon River. If you look at a map of the river and watershed you will see that this is an enormous river with enormous water flows and that it flows through wilderness and extremely sparsely inhabitied areas. And yet the river water is contaminated with unsourced and unexplained large quantities of pharmaceuticals including things such as viagra. These are not naturally occuring substances and there are not that many middle aged hunters peeing in the river to account for the quantities found in such a huge volume of water. So out side sources (rain) are carrying these contaminants into the the watershed. If this is happening to the Yukon River imagine the polution and contamination happening in heavily inhabited, industrialized and agriculture areas which will affect all of us.


Yikes!


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

naturelover said:


> For goodness sake, don't use the word Viagra in any search, you'll pick up a virus or get your computer frozen if you do.
> 
> Do a search on "pharmaceutical contaminants found in rivers" and you'll find lots of information about what's happening. Not only in the Yukon basin but also globally and including in all the larger rivers and lakes in the lower 48 States that now have untold numbers of intersex fish in them as a result of pharmaceuticals in the rivers and lakes.
> 
> ...


 Ahh Naturelover keep spewing that and someone may believe it. The Yukon river is hardly a filthy river but the contaminant sources are well known. Mining, manufacturing and the military are the primary polluters (and continuing sources of present day pollution go back about a century) and the fact that every community that is located close to the Yukon gets flooded which contributes to the contamination and in some cases their effluent just gets leached or directly dumped into the river. You know that as a Canadian just like you know the source of pollution for the river I had a cabin on, the Taku and the heavy metals were coming from the Chief Tulsequa mine in BC. 

Pollution is bad but lets not get carried away and stick to those silly things like...oh easily documented facts. Even CPAWS isnt agreeing with you.

Isnt it enough to state that pollution is something we all abhor and we need to be good stewards of the land? The Texas drought isnt unprecedented, Fisheads theory that though lake levels are higher the streams are lower possibly because all the "lush" and newly energized vegetation is sucking up all the water is nifty but all your personal anecdotes diminish your arguments. We had unprecedented cold and rain the past four winters and springs where we live so therefore the climate is cooling? No? why does that correlation not work for you since you can "see" climate change from your house?

To me its equally ludicrous to claim climate change isnt happening as it is to claim its the EOTWAWKI in a couple years. Rambler seems to get it and had a good post, do what we can locally to preserve our environment but we will adapt to any change and to destroy the worlds economy on a fruitless quest to change nature is nothing more than wealth re-distribution and a fools folly. 

I actually enjoyed climate change today at my place, the leaves are changing, the temps have moderated, I have at best 25 years left to enjoy these seasonal changes and I'm making the best of it.

But I still like your passion....even if the US wont let you visit!! (reference to another thread and a good natured ribbing)


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Ed Norman said:


> Anybody have a link to the viagra story? Doing a search for viagra and yukon is a frightening thing.
> 
> Until then, I will continue to laugh at the absurdity.


Before a married couple, two PhD biologists, left for jobs at a college in New York, they found dissolved pharmaceuticals in the local river. The body doesn't metabolize all of the perscription drugs. The stuff that's secreted by the body isn't removed by most sewage or water treatment facilities.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

What does viagra have to do with climate cahneg?


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> What does viagra have to do with climate cahneg?


Nothing. They were just trying to get a rise out of you.



> Times Atlas 'wrong' on Greenland ice
> 
> Leading UK polar scientists say the Times Atlas of the World was wrong to assert that it has had to re-draw its map of Greenland due to climate change.
> 
> ...


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> What does viagra have to do with climate cahneg?


 Thats a HARD question to answer isnt it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Before a married couple, two PhD biologists, left for jobs at a college in New York, they found dissolved pharmaceuticals in the local river. The body doesn't metabolize all of the perscription drugs. The stuff that's secreted by the body isn't removed by most sewage or water treatment facilities.


That's nothing new in *populated areas*

The *claim* being made here is that it's being *transported by rain *into the Yukon


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What does viagra have to do with climate cahneg?


It keeps the temperatures UP for a long time

(See your Dr if it's hot for too long)


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Again and again, we hear the fallback premise that 'because it changed in the past, there is no way mankind can affect climate now'. Sorry, but that 'logic' is seriously flawed!


That's just ONE of the problems I have pointed out. But the fact still stands, history shows us the earth has had major periods of warming and cooling in the past. Should we just ignore this fact because it doesn't fit your political agenda?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Again and again, we hear the fallback premise that 'because it changed in the past, there is no way mankind can affect climate now'. Sorry, but that 'logic' is seriously flawed!


Assuming that man is a significant agent of climate change when the climate has warmed and cooled to extremes not seen since mankind's time on Earth is also flawed. 

Warming is no where near the danger to mankind that an ice age is. We've already seen at least one and possibly more instances during recorded history when global temperatures dropped to the point there was no summer due to a massive volcano eruption. Another is thought to be the reason for the bottleneck in our genes. After that one some say only 5,000 humans survived.

We know what caused the year without summer. Until we figure out what caused the periodic ice ages which make any potential contribution of man look like spit in the ocean, I wouldn't be so quick to believe that our puny contribution to the CO2 level is important.

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

For some reason we still think we are greater than mother nature. And then mother nature randomly shows us we're like ----ants floating down the Mississippi on a stick thinking we rule the world. :croc:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

watcher said:


> That's just ONE of the problems I have pointed out. But the fact still stands, history shows us the earth has had major periods of warming and cooling in the past. Should we just ignore this fact because it doesn't fit your political agenda?


What the previous natural fluctuations does prove is that the *earth is sensitive* and is capable of *changing* and of *[being changed]*.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Darren said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_Summer


When we are discussing modern climate change we are discussing long term trends. A single, random climatic event does not prove anything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What the previous natural fluctuations does prove is that the earth is sensitive and is *capable of changing *and of [being changed].


Yes it is



> A single, random climatic event does not prove anything


A couple of hundred years in *geologic time *could be considered a "single random event"



> When we are discussing *modern* climate change we are discussing* long term trends*


"Modern" doesn't span a* long enough *term to reach any *accurate *conclusions


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

One of the biggest problems with climate change is the rate of change. It's happening at a rate not seen in the last 6 ice age/warming cycles. If it happens too fast it risks destroying our food supply at a time when we are approaching the supply limit.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

fishhead said:


> *One of the biggest problems with climate change is the rate of change.* It's happening at a rate not seen in the last 6 ice age/warming cycles. If it happens too fast it risks destroying our food supply at a time when we are approaching the supply limit.


I'll say it once only.. 

That is false! 
The glacier in Peru (IIRC) is melting and revealing that it came quickly. The scientists that are studying this glacier are finding excellent plant specimens because they froze quickly and weren't destroyed by a long change.. So things change quickly at times.. 

So did the dinosaurs die out quickly or slowly.. That debate is still being waged with new evidence recently found.. It seems that the "meteor" claim isn't as solid as it once was.. While it was definitely a factor, it wasn't the end all catastrophe that it was thought to be.. Science is still learning new things.. Yet some here claim the science is settled on man-made global warming.. and to think they determined it in less than 30 years or so(remember it was global cooling in the 1970's early 1980's).. Not even a blink of an eye in geological time... 

Sorry it is nothing more than about control and greed by those who push it...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It's happening at a rate not seen in the last 6 ice age/warming cycles


Who was measuring the rate 10,000 years ago when the last Ice Age ended?

Who was measuring before then?

This is why so many discount *everything* the AGW believers say



> If it happens too fast it risks destroying our food supply at a time when we are *approaching the supply limit*


More empty rhetoric.

There is no "supply limit" until ALL available land is being used to produce food


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> That's just ONE of the problems I have pointed out. But the fact still stands, history shows us the earth has had major periods of warming and cooling in the past. Should we just ignore this fact because it doesn't fit your political agenda?


 The fact that the earths climate has changed in the past is not a 'problem', its just the way it is. Who is ignoring that? Certainly not climate scientists who know more about this stuff than you or I do.

And I dont know what you mean about 'my' political agenda...You are assuming way too much about me personally.... I am NOT in favor of the carbon-credit scams...although I AM in favor of higher fuel efficiency standards, strictly from a conservation point of view. Lets leave something for the future generations to burn.

But again, because the climate has changed without us, does not mean it cant change BECAUSE of us. Individually we are pretty insignificant, but in our billions, we can definitely affect things. From Hiroshima, to the Aswan High Dam, to the rainforests of South America, to the former lowlands of Holland, we humans are certainly capable of affecting the environment. 
You do know humans crank out more CO2 than all the volcanoes around the world on a yearly basis, right? About a* hundred times* more in an 'average year'. THat fact in itself should make you think twice about our potential impact on climate. (and before someone goes on about 'cooling' induced by volcanoes, that is due to decreased solar radiation, a short term, temporary effect)

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

But, like I said, even if we are heating up the globe, we will most likely adapt. Especially us homesteading types....


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what I said
> It's distilled water that is NOT carrying anything it didn't pick up in the air



Before the raindrop can 'pick up' anything in the air, it first must condense ONTO something... that something can be a small particle of dirt, soot , ash, nearly anything will do. As it falls through the air, it will pick up more detrius, but even if it were falling through PURE air after its initial formation, each raindrop would still have a small particle of airborne contaminant contained within it. The condensation nuclei. Rain never starts out as pure H20.
Rain is not distilled water. Its condensed water vapor. There is a difference.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "supply limit" until ALL available land is being used to produce food


Oh well, I guess everything is okay then.

The spring floods in the east delayed or destroyed crops this year, but that's okay because the land is still available to produce food .... oh, except for the lands that have been declared flood plains now and can't be used anymore.

Some states and provinces are drought stricken and burning up, crops and hay fields destroyed and people are getting rid of their cattle cuz they have nothing to feed them, the land is useless but that's okay because the land is still available.

The same things will happen again next year and there'll be even less food produced than there was this year, but that's okay, it doesn't matter that no food is being produced as long as the land is still available.

Something is not right with that picture.

.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Before the raindrop can 'pick up' anything in the air, it first must condense ONTO something... that something can be a small particle of dirt, soot , ash, nearly anything will do. ...


I always wonder why cloud seeding never worked 100% of the time. Now I know. Turns out the Sun controls the formation of clouds.

"... it clearly shows how cosmic rays promote the formation of clusters of molecules (âparticlesâ) that in the real atmosphere can grow and seed clouds."
.
.
.
"The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD teamâs report should be politically correct about climate change (see my 17 July post below). The implication was that *they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy â Henrik Svensmarkâs hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.*

http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

:duel:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Oh well, I guess everything is okay then.
> 
> The spring floods in the east delayed or destroyed crops this year, but that's okay because the land is still available to produce food .... *oh, except for the lands that have been declared flood plains now and can't be used anymore.*
> 
> ...


There's no reason land in a flood plain can't be used to grow crops. Land that's placed in the federal CREP program is taken out of production in return for money. Even that isn't necessarily permanent.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Rain is not distilled water. Its condensed water vapor. There is a difference


.


No.

By definiton, DISTILLED *is* "condensed from vapor"

The RAIN is not "transporting" Viagra to the Yukon. (although no one has shown it's really happening)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Oh well, I guess everything is okay then.



No one is starving from a worldwide "lack of food"

People starve because they can't get the food TO them, maiinly due to political/economical reasons



> The same things will happen again next year and there'll be even less food produced than there was this year, but that's okay, it doesn't matter that no food is being produced as long as the land is still available.
> 
> Something is not right with that picture.


The spin your using is what's not right.

There is plenty of feed and hay *available*, so no "supply limit" has been reached.

The problem is LOGISTICS since the supplies are not where they are needed


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

What did I miss, was out at the burn barrel enlarging my carbon footprint?
Matt
ETA: never mind, just looked back over the posts and saw nothing new...poor Gore...


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

salmonslayer said:


> No? why does that correlation not work for you since *you can "see" climate change from your house?*


Thank you SS, I love it. I have appropriated that line for the time being! 

v
v
v
v


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

So... OK, Climate is changing.
Problem is, we can't stop it from continuing, and cannot change it from happening. All of the 'cures' promulgated by the High Priests, simply redistributionist welfare programs, will do absolutely nothing to stop Climate Change.... and actually might make it worse (improve the lot of the world's 'poorest' and what is the first thing they're going to do? One guess! and that would be Get Jiggy... and have even more mouths to feed.

Whenever one of the High Priests recommends eliminating the problem (humans) I might sit up and take notice. Will it be by force, or volunteers?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The problem is LOGISTICS since the supplies are not where they are needed


Like water as a supply where it's needed? So what do you think could have been or can be done about that?

.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Food and supplies meant for refugees are often never delivered or are misappropriated to some extent by those in power such as local warlords. The UN and other agencies have never solved that problem. Aid workers don't always return home alive.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Like *water* as a supply where it's needed? So what do you think could have been or can be done about that?


Not much.

The logistics are too complicated and expensive to supply more than *emergency* drinikng water

And it might be full of Viagra and who knows what problems that would cause?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Like water as a supply where it's needed? So what do you think could have been or can be done about that?
> 
> .


As he pointed out the problem with food isn't the physical moving of the food, its the political moving of it. There are lots of people starving in Africa even though there is lots of food and trucks to carry it to where the people are. But the trucks can't get through because some group with guns are in the way.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> .
> 
> 
> No.
> ...


So you will argue with scientific facts, now? I notice you never answered my quiz a couple weeks ago on basic science terms.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Rain is not distilled water. Its condensed water vapor. There is a difference.


Yep, rain is condensed water vapor, and so is distilled water. what exactly do you believe the difference to be?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *So you will argue with scientific facts, now*? I notice you never answered my quiz a couple weeks ago on basic science terms.


Which of these facts are incorrect?:


Distillation involves boiling the water and then *condensing* the steam 

Distilled water is produced by *heating *water until it turns to a *vapor*, and then allowing it to *condense*



> Rain is liquid *precipitation*
> 
> In meteorology, *precipitation* (also known as one of the classes of hydrometeors, which are atmospheric water phenomena) is any product of the *condensation* of atmospheric *water vapor *that falls under gravity
> 
> ...


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

I'll make it even easier for you:










Notice the terms "vapor" and "condense"

The arguments you present are far more indicative of your understanding and comprehension of a topic or discussion.

As to your "quiz", anyone can google up some terms.
That proves nothing

*Show* me which of the above facts you can *prove* are incorrect and I will concede to your superior knowledge.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, rain is condensed water vapor, and so is distilled water. what exactly do you believe the difference to be?


Yes, but rain will form on air-born particles. That is what makes *acid rain*, when water forms on the sulfurous particles and falls to the ground.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which of these facts are incorrect?:
> 
> 
> Distillation involves boiling the water and then *condensing* the steam
> ...


Everything you have said is correct, but this does not mean that water is incapable of forming on air-born matter, i.e. acid rain.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Everything you have said is correct, but this does not mean that water is incapable of forming on air-born matter, i.e.* acid rain*.


So what "scientific fact" did I "argue with" that was incorrect?

What does acid rain have to do with Viagra in the Yukon River?

And who (other than you) said *anything* about water being "incapable of forming on air borne matter"?

Feel free to cut and paste the *exact quotes *you're talking about

It's *really* not that hard to keep up with the actual conversation if you try


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Everything you have said is correct, but this does not mean that water is incapable of forming on air-born matter, i.e. acid rain.


Step three has been shown to be more complex than simple condensation with the interaction of cosmic rays and the Sun.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, rain is condensed water vapor, and so is distilled water. what exactly do you believe the difference to be?


 It all has to do with the SURFACE upon which the vapor turns to a liquid. In a closed steam kettle, the relatively colder walls of the vessel are the surface, but in the atmosphere, those small particles of soot or dust are the surface. Those same particles become part of the raindrop. Someone here implied rain formed out of nowhere and just picked up stuff on its way down, when actually it FORMS on something, then carries that down with it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> It all has to do with the SURFACE upon which the vapor turns to a liquid. In a closed steam kettle, the relatively colder walls of the vessel are the surface, but in the atmosphere, those small particles of soot or dust are the surface. Those same particles become part of the raindrop. Someone here implied rain formed out of nowhere and just picked up stuff on its way down, when actually it FORMS on something, then carries that down with it.


That's where you're wrong, Greg. The formation of clouds composed of water vapor is related to the amount of cosmic rays that enter the Earth's atmosphere. That was just shown recently by the experiment using the accelerator at CERN. The atmosphere is not a closed system like your steam kettle example. 

Climatology has moved beyond seventh grade science.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Someone here* implied rain formed out of nowhere *and just picked up stuff on its way down, when actually it FORMS on something, then carries that down with it.


No one *implied* that at all.
You mistakenly *inferred* it

It was *clearly stated the rain was NOT "transporting Viagra" because it's distilled water, and that any impurities were picked up in the atmosphere.

See Post 132 for the actual quotes



emdeengee:
Quote:
So out side sources (rain) are carrying these contaminants into the the watershed.

Click to expand...





Bearfootfarm:
Rain is DISTILLED water and carries NOTHING that it doesn't pick up as it's falling

Click to expand...

That has yet to be proven false.

You're rewording the same idea and trying to say it's somehow different 

LOL

And no one has shown any links to "Viagra in the Yukon River" so that's just a rumor

Here's a simple yes or no question for you

Is rain "distilled water"?

You have at least a 50-50 chance of getting it right*


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And no one has shown any links to "Viagra in the Yukon River" so that's just a rumor


After it was first mentioned here I tried to find information about that. I found lots of information about a lot of different kinds of contaminants found in the Yukon river, including pharmaceuticals, but nothing specific documenting that viagra in particular had been found. I imagine if other pharmaceuticals have been found there then viagra is probably just one of them. Most documented contaminants were found worst where there are military installations near the river and 2nd worst where there are mining installations near the river.

Yukon River and Yukon watershed (in yellow)










.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Oh, and if there are pharmaceuticals getting rained into the watersheds of the northernmost territories I doubt they would be coming from China, more likely they would be from Russia which is much closer.

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Most documented contaminants were found worst where there are* military installations* near the river and 2nd worst where there are *mining installations *near the river


That sounds more like a point source than airborne

Was it actually in the water, or found in fish?

If there was Viagra in the air, there wouldn't be a lot of warring going on.

Everyone would be too tired


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Was it actually in the water, or found in fish?


All the information I found was about contaminants in the water. 

Something else interesting too was that the Yukon was found to be the ONLY large river in North America (of all those tested) that does NOT have any intersex fish found in it, all the others did.

.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

naturelover said:


> All the information I found was about contaminants in the water.
> 
> Something else interesting too was that the Yukon was found to be the ONLY large river in North America (of all those tested) that does NOT have any intersex fish found in it, all the others did.
> 
> .


 Alaska isnt that kind of place, they turn them back at the border.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> does NOT have any intersex fish found


Seems like most of those were found farther South, so temperature and growing/spawning times may affect it to some degree.

I haven't read a lot about it yet


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Darren said:


> That's where you're wrong, Greg. The formation of clouds composed of water vapor is related to the amount of cosmic rays that enter the Earth's atmosphere. That was just shown recently by the experiment using the accelerator at CERN. The atmosphere is not a closed system like your steam kettle example.
> 
> Climatology has moved beyond seventh grade science.


Actually the steam kettle is not a closed system either. As the water is heated in the kettle it produces water vapor. While in the closed kettle which is above the condensation point temp wise the steam is invisible... and remains that way until it leaves the closed, heated environment. It does not condense until it leaves the kettle and cools in the atmosphere.... yes, that very same atmosphere that rain is formed in. Just because the kettle is in your kitchen doesnt mean it is not surrounded by the same atmosphere that exists outside.


----------

