# GW will cause flooding of low countries



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...land-at-centre-of-30year-dispute-1927002.html

A low-lying island in a sprawling mangrove delta which has been disputed by India and Bangladesh for almost 30 years will be squabbled over no more. It has disappeared beneath the waves.

In what experts say is an alarming indication of the danger posed by rising sea levels brought about by global warming, New Moore Island has become totally submerged. "It is definitely because of global warming," said Professor Sugata Hazra of Jadavpur University in Kolkata. "The sea level has been rising at twice the previous rate in the years between 2002 and 2009. The sea level is rising in accordance with rising temperatures."

Known as New Moore Island in India, and South Talpatti in Bangladesh, the uninhabited outcrop in the Sundarbans delta region measured barely two miles in length and one-and-a-half miles in width. Yet the island had been angrily disputed by the two countries, almost ever since Bangladesh secured independence from Pakistan in 1971.




This is going to become more and more common.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

It was a sand bar that first rose in 1974 and disappeared like most sand bars situated in a river delta. This is a joke post right?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

salmonslayer said:


> It was a sand bar that first rose in 1974 and disappeared like most sand bars situated in a river delta. This is a joke post right?


Hopefully.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Nope it was caused by to many ships in the water at one time need to limit the number of boats :clap::clap: :awh::awh:


----------



## Windy in Kansas (Jun 16, 2002)

That photo reminds me of New Orleans. 

Haven't we been reading and hearing about eventual coastal flooding for about 10 years now, maybe just 5 to 7. I sure don't see people abandoning Florida, California, etc. and they still keep buying beachfront property. Don't think I would.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> The sea level is rising in accordance with rising temperatures."


Right. Meaning not at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Remember, Algore recently bought a mansion on the California coast, so...

Lies, all darn lies. The only constant is change.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Nope it was caused by to many ships in the water at one time need to limit the number of boats :clap::clap: :awh::awh:


I think I agree with this version of the cause, and result to fix it.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

A large portion of the worlds rice production occurs just a few feet above sea level. As the ocean rise that major world food source will disappear. The people that depend on it will migrate to areas that are already populated.

Denial may seem fun to some people it isn't helping us.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> It was a sand bar that first rose in 1974 and disappeared like most sand bars situated in a river delta.


Do you have a source for this?


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

I have a 1908 National Geographic in which they discuss the rate at which the glaciers in Glacier Bay are receding. They also note evidence of other warming periods (tree stumps).

Suppose man had a hand in this as far back as 1908? Maybe burning too much whale oil in their lanterns?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

fishhead said:


> A large portion of the worlds rice production occurs just a few feet above sea level. As the ocean rise that major world food source will disappear. The people that depend on it will migrate to areas that are already populated.
> 
> Denial may seem fun to some people it isn't helping us.


So how did Greenland gets it's name when it is covered in ice?


I guess man and man-made GW caused this?

Oh that's right, always blame humans for what mother nature does on her own.. 
I always fail to see how some can blame humans consistently for what mother nature does..


----------



## hobbyfarmer (Oct 10, 2007)

> South Talpatti Island as it was known in Bangladesh or New Moore Island or Purbasha as it was known in India was a small uninhabited offshore island that emerged in the Bay of Bengal in the aftermath of the Bhola cyclone in 1970 and disappeared at some point in the first decades of the 2000&#8217;s.


http://www.zadanews.com/2010/03/24/new-moore-island/


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2010)

Since this article is from March 25, I'd think its just a matter of somebody hoping to further vocalize their belief in global warming. Or else, they are really late getting their news.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

fishhead said:


> A large portion of the worlds rice production occurs just a few feet above sea level. As the ocean rise that major world food source will disappear. The people that depend on it will migrate to areas that are already populated.
> 
> Denial may seem fun to some people it isn't helping us.


And yet after all these years of supposed global warming, store shelves are loaded with rice and the Chinese restaurants serve it in abundance. Got any vegetation around your ponds? When you get a big rain and your pond rises, does the vegetation disappear? Nope. Rice would just continue to be grown in land that is now too dry.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

fishhead said:


> A large portion of the worlds rice production occurs just a few feet above sea level. As the ocean rise that major world food source will disappear. The people that depend on it will migrate to areas that are already populated.
> 
> Denial may seem fun to some people it isn't helping us.


Ok you folks that grow rice in Arkansas watch the sea shore ound::hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

When I first read the title, I thought Bush was somehow going to flood low countries.

I was relieved, but similarly entertained, to find out that global warming hysteria was behind the article.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

I think its time for me to get some sleep, when I read the title, the first thing I thought of was "Why is George W Bush going to flood Holland and Luxembourg?" 

Night everybody, sometimes working night shift sucks


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

tgmr05 said:


> When I first read the title, I thought Bush was somehow going to flood low countries.
> 
> I was relieved, but similarly entertained, to find out that global warming hysteria was behind the article.


:rotfl: I didnt see your post before I posted mine!


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I'm probably wasting my time here but in case there are any open minds that are reading this thread.

Most rice in the world is grown in river deltas. Those river deltas are very close to sea level and at risk to rising ocean levels and storm surges that in the past with lower levels would have been likely to escape salinization. 

That safety buffer will disappear as levels rise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm probably wasting my time here but in case there are any open minds that are reading this thread.





> That safety buffer will disappear as levels rise.


Have a look at REALITY:



> However, *for the past 6,000 years *(many centuries before the first known written records), the world's sea level has been gradually approaching the level we see today


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Sea_Level.png


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

You're ignoring increase coming from the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers. Those increases will dwarf the gradual rise over the past 6,000 years.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

fishhead said:


> Most rice in the world is grown in river deltas. Those river deltas are very close to sea level and at risk to rising ocean levels and storm surges that in the past with lower levels would have been likely to escape salinization.
> 
> That safety buffer will disappear as levels rise.


You don't give people credit that they will adapt through different farming methods, new rice strains, moving, water barriers, etc. if the sea waters _slowly_ rise? 

Shortsighted comments like this is fearmongering.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Most of the land capable of producing rice is already producing rice. The same goes for other crops. That is fact and no amount of oil industry spin makes it otherwise. 

The intersection between maximum food production and human population is going to happen in the next few decades.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

fishhead said:


> Most of the land capable of producing rice is already producing rice. The same goes for other crops. That is fact and no amount of oil industry spin makes it otherwise.
> 
> The intersection between maximum food production and human population is going to happen in the next few decades.


I see you gave your prediction lots of wiggle room. Did you learn that from those back in the 70's who predicted we would all starve to death by 2000? The earth will be fine and last as long as it was intended to last. I personally do not believe it will be a few decades.


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

I think the rise in sea levels is due to overweight fish, we need to put the slimy buggers on a diet.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Shygal said:


> I think its time for me to get some sleep, when I read the title, the first thing I thought of was "Why is George W Bush going to flood Holland and Luxembourg?"
> 
> Night everybody, sometimes working night shift sucks


ha, I am not the only one who misreads thread titles, lol. I know GW Bush caused Katrina, but his powers ARE limited ))!


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

chickenslayer said:


> I think the rise in sea levels is due to overweight fish, we need to put the slimy buggers on a diet.


A Hoy Mate deep fry em :hobbyhors:hobbyhors


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

fishhead said:


> You're ignoring increase coming from the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic glaciers. Those increases will dwarf the gradual rise over the past 6,000 years.


Except the Antarctic glaciers *ARE NOT* melting. They are, in fact, growing.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

fishhead said:


> A large portion of the worlds rice production occurs just a few feet above sea level. As the ocean rise that major world food source will disappear. The people that depend on it will migrate to areas that are already populated.
> 
> Denial may seem fun to some people it isn't helping us.


Al Gore's money grubbing scams won't help either.
Nobody denies climate change, but all the liberal schemes, lies and faux science in the wolrd will not help a bit.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I don't know why people debate about this. It doesn't matter anymore what caused it, man made or not - the facts are the oceans are warming, glaciers are melting and ocean levels which once were slowly rising at a steady rate are now rapidly rising at a steady rate and there's nothing people can do to stop it. All people can do now is prepare for changes in climate, increased ocean levels, loss of marine life as a food source and loss of fresh water resources and adapt their agricultural practises to accomodate to those losses. Some people will have to move if they want to live. Some people will die because they refuse to accept the truth and won't think far enough ahead but that won't be any great loss - good riddance to them. Earth couldn't care less what people do.



Txsteader said:


> Except the Antarctic glaciers *ARE NOT* melting. They are, in fact, growing.


That's old news from 2 years ago. Keep up to date with the news, hon, things are changing there now too.
http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/reason-antarctic-glacier-is-melting-faster-is-found-0304/

.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

fishhead said:


> I'm probably wasting my time here but in case there are any open minds that are reading this thread.
> 
> Most rice in the world is grown in river deltas. Those river deltas are very close to sea level and at risk to rising ocean levels and storm surges that in the past with lower levels would have been likely to escape salinization.
> 
> That safety buffer will disappear as levels rise.





fishhead said:


> Most of the land capable of producing rice is already producing rice. The same goes for other crops. That is fact and no amount of oil industry spin makes it otherwise.
> 
> The intersection between maximum food production and human population is going to happen in the next few decades.


I grew rice in Arkansas and it was grown on less than 1/4 of the land that will grow rice and is 500 feet above sea level. They grow rice in Texas and California with about the same results. Rice can only be grown for market in an allotment basis. If you want to many farmers would plaint much more in rice because it makes more money then soybeans. In the east it is grown on terrace hills. I don't know were you got your information but it is wrong.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Old Vet, I know nothing about rice growing, but I also thought that it requires a lot of water to grow. So, where you grew it at 500 foot elevation in Arkansa, did your rice need a lot of water and if so how was the water delivered? If it didn't need a lot of water delivered to it then what kind of rice was it you were growing?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> the facts are the oceans are warming, glaciers are melting and ocean levels which *once were slowly rising* at a steady rate are now rapidly rising at a steady rate


The data shows they were rising FASTER in the past.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

chickenslayer said:


> I think the rise in sea levels is due to overweight fish, we need to put the slimy buggers on a diet.


Fat swimmers. This island is another victim of America's obesity epidemic.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

A little less hysteria would go a long way. Some of us are old enough to remember when the propellant in aerosol cans would destry the atmosphere and throw us into an ice age in, like, 20 years. Well that was the 60's and the sky didn't fall. Then, Freon was killing the ozone layer and we were all gonna die from that, too. And other "manufactured crises" in between. I don't think that anyone would argue that the most efficient and frugal use of our resources is wise, and that we shouldn't be reckless with our environment. But people gotta live and the planet earth isn't a museum to be labeled "DON'T TOUCH". So we have to be rational and reasonable and find our way forward. Great strides have been made in this country, polluted rivers have been cleaned up, air quality standards are higher, etc. Don't turn people off from this path now with hysterical doomsday predictions and the surrounding political gamesmanship.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Old Vet, I know nothing about rice growing, but I also thought that it requires a lot of water to grow. So, where you grew it at 500 foot elevation in Arkansa, did your rice need a lot of water and if so how was the water delivered? If it didn't need a lot of water delivered to it then what kind of rice was it you were growing?
> 
> .


Yes it takes a lot of water for rice. We used wells to flood the fields but one farmer had a Pivot irrigation water and keep it running most of the time. We could run rice on any Buckshot ground but we also can raise it on some sandy or clay ground. There are several types of rice, short grain, Long grain,brown grain,white grain with many different names. Some are maturing early some late but When you go to buy it they are mostly the same.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

All the residents of this unoccupied island have move to higher ground, and they are safe.:goodjob:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> Earth couldn't care less what people do.


Exactly (despite what the alarmists and scammers try to feed us.)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Txsteader said:


> Except the Antarctic glaciers *ARE NOT* melting. They are, in fact, growing.


You live in reality?:bored:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

No ones is being hysterical. Climate change, however, is happening, whether you want it to or not. The only wiggle room in the argument is managing to blame climate change on some natural cause. And using Al Gore as an example of climate change being wrong won't do; Al Gore is a bit loony. You've got to pay attention to the other thousands of scientists who say it is happening.
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/f...orum/28897-argument-scientific-consensus.html


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

fishhead said:


> I'm probably wasting my time here but in case there are any open minds that are reading this thread.
> 
> Most rice in the world is grown in river deltas. Those river deltas are very close to sea level and at risk to rising ocean levels and storm surges that in the past with lower levels would have been likely to escape salinization.
> 
> That safety buffer will disappear as levels rise.


I see a lot of open minded people reading your posts, they just don't happen to agree with them.:hrm:


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

One thing I have noticed here in New England over the past couple of years is that it is much windier than in years past.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

tinknal said:


> Fat swimmers. This island is another victim of America's obesity epidemic.


Guess we need to get Michelle on this, quickly, before we have no more rice!:shocked:


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> You live in reality?:bored:
> 
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
> According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years,* with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.*


I've noticed the same thing all my life. Things melt faster in summer and slower in winter. Wow.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> You live in reality?:bored:
> 
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
> According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.


Are you not aware that Arctic and Antartic are different?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> You live in reality?
> 
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
> According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.


 Your post is why the alarmists have lost the war. If you dont know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic then its a pointless argument.

And Naturelover, nice try but I know you are pretty savvy and you know that the West Glacier shelf may be declining but that overall the Antarctic ice shelf is growing.

Gobal warming may in fact be happening but using sand bars as an argument and not knowing the different between the poles is not helping your cause.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *You've got to pay attention *to the other thousands of scientists who say it is happening.
> http://www.*theenvironmentsite.org*/fo...consensus.html


No, we DON'T have to listen to their ranting when we can see data ourselves.

And here's a HINT for you:

An ONLINE FORUM is NOT a reliable SOURCE for anything


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

salmonslayer said:


> Your post is why the alarmists have lost the war. If you dont know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic then its a pointless argument.
> 
> And Naturelover, nice try but I know you are pretty savvy and you know that the West Glacier shelf may be declining but that overall the Antarctic ice shelf is growing.
> 
> Gobal warming may in fact be happening but using sand bars as an argument and not knowing the different between the poles is not helping your cause.


So forgive me for making an honest reading error. It happens when you're trying to read 60 different posts in an hour. A mistake such as that does not prove me a complete nutcase, however, unless you are simply deliberately trying to be rude, which I think may be the case.
Anyways, the ANTartic cap is also melting:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-Antarctic-ice-melting-or-growing.html
Ed Norman: I think you ignored the part where it said "over *30 years*".


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, we DON'T have to listen to their ranting when we can see data ourselves.


And you have data showing that climate change can be attributed to what particular natural cause? I notice that, although posted many, many times, this question never actually gets answered.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I notice that, although posted many, many times, this question never actually gets answered.


I posted a link to a chart that showed rising sea levels over *thousands of years*

Pick a cause, because it's NOT "man"
If you really wanted "answers" you'd know the difference in "Arctic" and "Antarctic"


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

salmonslayer said:


> And Naturelover, nice try but I know you are pretty savvy and you know that the West *Glacier* shelf may be declining but that overall the Antarctic *ice shelf* is growing.


Salmonslayer, I mentioned it only because somebody said that the Antarctic glaciers were growing, which is false. The Antarctic glaciers are not the same thing as Antarctic sea ice shelves. 

Antarctic glaciers are *fresh water* ice which was created by snowfall and they are indeed declining rapidly from below due to rising ocean temperatures deep between submerged mountain ridges. Antarctic sea ice is composed of *salt water* and it declines and then grows every year with the changing seasons. Sea ice shelves have no effect on the oceans whether it melts or not - salt sea ice is not the issue.

Unfortunately there are too many people who don't seem to understand the difference between *salt* water ice shelves and *fresh* water ice glaciers and how declining fresh water ice adding to the oceans changes the salinity and natural circulation of the salty ocean waters. 

It really is a very serious problem that the fresh water ice is melting and not being renewed, and also that with it changing the salinity of the oceans it is essentially an increasing *toxin* to the salty oceans and marine life, as well as it is altering natural water circulation and altering global weather patterns.

I think these are things that more people need to educate themselves about the differences between salt water ice and fresh water ice and need to understand how the oceans changing salinity levels are speeding up climate change as well as toxifying the oceans.

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Ed Norman: I think you ignored the part where it said "over *30 years*".


Nope. I'm sure it coincides with the start of their study. But why on earth would they make the ridiculous statement that it seems to melt more in the summer? Why?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Old Vet said:


> Yes it takes a lot of water for rice. We used wells to flood the fields but one farmer had a Pivot irrigation water and keep it running most of the time. We could run rice on any Buckshot ground but we also can raise it on some sandy or clay ground. There are several types of rice, short grain, Long grain,brown grain,white grain with many different names. Some are maturing early some late but When you go to buy it they are mostly the same.


Thank you for this information. So if I understand this correctly then, rice requires plenty of fresh water to grow, yes? It cannot grow in briny or salt water? If the fresh water from wells and any other fresh water sources are not available due to depletion of fresh water aquifers and glacial waters then the rice (and many other crops) cannot be grown, no matter what level it is at above sea level. It would require that our society have desalinization plants put in place throughout the nation to supply purified fresh water to any crops, including rice. I think in such a situation that using that water for rice crops may be too exorbitant a waste of energy in desalinizing water. So rice might end up going the way of the dodo bird in favour of crops that don't require so much fresh water.

.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

I believe there is still time to minimize the negative impacts of climate change but the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

If we reach the point where methane is released from the permafrost it will be game over and we will be put into survival mode. Most people won't make it.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> So forgive me for making an honest reading error. It happens when you're trying to read 60 different posts in an hour. A mistake such as that does not prove me a complete nutcase, however, unless you are simply deliberately trying to be rude, which I think may be the case.


 Come on man, its the other end of the earth and the Arctic and Antarctic are completely different.....it has nothing to do with rudeness. What it has to do with is complete falsehoods being put forward as some type of truth. Al Gore oversold the whole global warming issue and people are reacting to the ---- poor science and bad data which posts like this propogate.



> Antarctic glaciers are fresh water ice which was created by snowfall and they are indeed declining rapidly from below due to rising ocean temperatures deep between submerged mountain ridges. Antarctic sea ice is composed of salt water and it declines and then grows every year with the changing seasons. Sea ice shelves have no effect on the oceans whether it melts or not - salt sea ice is not the issue.
> 
> Unfortunately there are too many people who don't seem to understand the difference between salt water ice shelves and fresh water ice glaciers and how declining fresh water ice adding to the oceans changes the salinity and natural circulation of the salty ocean waters.
> 
> ...


 So then educate yourself naturelover; you keep changing your position as indisputable facts keep getting in the way of your sky is falling position. If the above sea level glaciers all decide to melt at the same time then yes sea level rise would be a problem. But sea ice melt if it all melted at the same time would result in how much sea rise? Zero, as you know. Ocean salinity is an issue and I agree but it has nothing to do with the OPs post.

I actually believe global warming (or call it climate change) is happening but just like the false drivel being spewed by ALGOR we keep being sent 20 years to the rear by garbage science. I dont believe you think that a sand bar disappearing in a river delta is any more a harbinger of global warming than the fact that cows farting are a significant factor in the methane input into the atmosphere.

Raise your hand out there if you actually trust the climate science data....anyone..anyone...okay I count two..anymore?


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

chickenslayer said:


> I think the rise in sea levels is due to overweight fish, we need to put the slimy buggers on a diet.


oh! and I thought the rise in water levels was because of the BP oil spill......:teehee:


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

naturelover said:


> Salmonslayer, I mentioned it only because somebody said that the Antarctic glaciers were growing, which is false. The Antarctic glaciers are not the same thing as Antarctic sea ice shelves.
> 
> Antarctic glaciers are *fresh water* ice which was created by snowfall and they are indeed declining rapidly from below due to rising ocean temperatures deep between submerged mountain ridges. Antarctic sea ice is composed of *salt water* and it declines and then grows every year with the changing seasons. Sea ice shelves have no effect on the oceans whether it melts or not - salt sea ice is not the issue.
> 
> ...


Ice is all pure fresh water, regardless of what type of water it comes from. The solutes do not freeze, just the water.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Thank you for this information. So if I understand this correctly then, rice requires plenty of fresh water to grow, yes? It cannot grow in briny or salt water? If the fresh water from wells and any other fresh water sources are not available due to depletion of fresh water aquifers and glacial waters then the rice (and many other crops) cannot be grown, no matter what level it is at above sea level. It would require that our society have desalinization plants put in place throughout the nation to supply purified fresh water to any crops, including rice. I think in such a situation that using that water for rice crops may be too exorbitant a waste of energy in desalinizing water. So rice might end up going the way of the dodo bird in favour of crops that don't require so much fresh water.
> 
> .


NL, while rice requires fresh water it doesn't require well water. Rice has been grown for ages at many elevations by diverting surface water.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

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

'nuff said


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Heritagefarm said:


> You live in reality?:bored:
> 
> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
> According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.


Wrong pole 

Antarctic is the SOUTH pole
Artic is the NORTH pole


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

EPA to Take an Important Step in Reducing Global Warming Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists
_WASHINGTON (November 10, 2010) &#8211; The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued broad recommendations to reduce global warming emissions from large power plants, oil refineries, cement plants and other industrial facilities. State and local regulators will use the recommendations on a case-by-case basis when they review individual permit applications. The document, called a guidance, encourages energy efficiency and certain types of biomass to reduce emissions. Investing in greater energy efficiency would lower fuel costs for these facilities and reduce their heat-trapping emissions.

Below is a statement by Rachel Cleetus, climate economist with the Union of Concerned Scientists....

&#8220;Industry critics say the EPA has overstepped its authority. The Supreme Court wouldn&#8217;t agree. In 2007, the court ruled that global warming emissions are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In response to the ruling, the EPA reviewed the scientific research and issued a finding that global warming emissions do indeed endanger public health and welfare. The bottom line is the agency is legally required to regulate the sources of these emissions. _

This the proposed regulation here:
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

_ 'In April 2007, the Supreme Court concluded that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles &#8211; an Agency determination that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

A decision to regulate GHG emissions for motor vehicles impacts whether other sources of GHG emissions would need to be regulated as well, including establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources of air pollutants.'_


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Thank you for this information. So if I understand this correctly then, rice requires plenty of fresh water to grow, yes? It cannot grow in briny or salt water? If the fresh water from wells and any other fresh water sources are not available due to depletion of fresh water aquifers and glacial waters then the rice (and many other crops) cannot be grown, no matter what level it is at above sea level. It would require that our society have desalinization plants put in place throughout the nation to supply purified fresh water to any crops, including rice. I think in such a situation that using that water for rice crops may be too exorbitant a waste of energy in desalinizing water. So rice might end up going the way of the dodo bird in favour of crops that don't require so much fresh water.
> 
> .


I know of nothing that will grow without water. If you find anything that will let me know. There are some plants that will grow in salt water. I don't think that watermelons will grow in salt water so what will we do if you cant raise watermelons. Your answer is almost with out merit. If all the water is briny we wont need rice or anything because we will be dead.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> And you have data showing that climate change can be attributed to what particular natural cause? I notice that, although posted many, many times, this question never actually gets answered.


Any takers?:cowboy:


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Any takers?:cowboy:


Maybe you missed my previous post in which National Geographic reported evidence of previous glacier retreats. If the causes of these previous periods was not natural then what?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

And the scientific community has a consensus that the glaciers are melting due to natural causes, right... You still didn't answer my question: Right now, what natural cause is causing climate change?


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

To my mind, the obvious answer to previous climate change is both simple, and complex.

The obvious part is the role that volcanic eruptions play. Large eruptions almost always portend cooling periods, it is in the geologic record. Not all cooling periods lead to ice ages, but many do.

The less obvious would include our meandering magnetic poles, the sun's solar cycles, even asteroids. 

One good long series of eruptions on this planet would negate much of the change that has already been documented.

There is a growing list of eruptions for just this year, lots of activity in Indonesia right now.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Jena said:


> Ice is all pure fresh water, regardless of what type of water it comes from. The solutes do not freeze, just the water.


That's not entirely correct. Water with dissolved salts in it can freeze as salty water, not strictly fresh, however, the freezing temperature of salt water is lower than fresh water; ocean temperatures must reach -1.8 degrees Celsius (28.8 degrees Fahrenheit) to freeze. Try it for yourself - fill a container with salted water and stick it in a freezer - the salt does not all seperate from the water as it freezes and you will end up with a block of salty water ice floating on top of a layer of very dense salt-saturated unfrozen water.

When sea ice forms, most of the salt is pushed into the ocean water below the ice but some salt will be trapped in small pockets between ice crystals. Water below sea ice has a higher concentration of salt and is more dense than surrounding ocean water and so it sinks. In this way sea ice contributes to the ocean's global "conveyor-belt" circulation. Cold, dense, polar water sinks and moves along the ocean bottom toward the equator, while warm water from mid-depth to the surface travels from the equator toward the poles. Changes in the amount of sea ice can disrupt normal ocean circulation, thereby leading to changes in global climate.

.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> EPA to Take an Important Step in Reducing Global Warming Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists
> _WASHINGTON (November 10, 2010) â The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued broad recommendations to reduce global warming emissions from large power plants, oil refineries, cement plants and other industrial facilities. State and local regulators will use the recommendations on a case-by-case basis when they review individual permit applications. The document, called a guidance, encourages energy efficiency and certain types of biomass to reduce emissions. Investing in greater energy efficiency would lower fuel costs for these facilities and reduce their heat-trapping emissions.
> 
> Below is a statement by Rachel Cleetus, climate economist with the Union of Concerned Scientists....
> ...


There's the end run around Congress. Why is Obama so opposed to manufacturing facilities/jobs/economic prosperity in the United States?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Pouncer said:


> To my mind, the obvious answer to previous climate change is both simple, and complex.
> 
> The obvious part is the role that volcanic eruptions play. Large eruptions almost always portend cooling periods, it is in the geologic record. Not all cooling periods lead to ice ages, but many do.
> 
> ...


And you have proof that the amount of volcanic activity is larger than the amount of GHGs produced by humans, and therefore the GHGs produced by humans is negligible?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Stephen in SOKY said:


> There's the end run around Congress. Why is Obama so opposed to manufacturing facilities/jobs/economic prosperity in the United States?


Says who? The jobs didn't get shipped out because of more regulations on factories, they got shipped out because third world countires abuse their workers and don't pay them squat.


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Heritage Farm, please do not put words or arguments in my mouth, thank you.

I said nothing whatever about greenhouse gases, did I? No, what I said was: That there have been previous periods of cooling brought about by volcanic activity. And that the wandering magnetic pole and solar activity may play a role as well. Simple.

Even smaller eruptions have produced colder temps on a smaller scale. 

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-deadly-volcano-eruptions.php The Icelandic eruptions pose a big threat to Europe, due to flouride and sulpher dioxide.

I am no expert, just a lay person with interest since there are active volcanoes not that far from where I live.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Says who? The jobs didn't get shipped out because of more regulations on factories, they got shipped out because third world countires abuse their workers and don't pay them squat.


Remove the rose colored glasses. I worked in a lamp manufacturing facility(Light bulbs) and they moved because of the regulations that EPA and OSHA put on them. You can't manufacture that in the US without breaking many rules. When I left they were making about 10 cents for each product they made and they made 12 million per day and payed much better than most around.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

tinknal said:


> NL, while rice requires fresh water it doesn't require well water. Rice has been grown for ages at many elevations by diverting surface water.


I understand that, and that would work if there is the surface water to divert. But you wouldn't be able to grow rice in a place that is stricken by drought for example, or that only has surface water available for short periods of time during the year.

I was merely asking about rice's water requirements because Fishead had mentioned that the majority of rice crops around the world are grown most conveniently where river deltas are located. His point was that with ocean levels becoming higher many of those flat delta rice paddies will become submerged thereby forcing rice crops to be grown at higher elevations wherever fresh water can be found and diverted to create the rice paddies. 

My point is that as fresh water becomes more scarce, so too will rice crops become more scarce since it requires more water than many other crops do. People who's survival is dependent on rice as a staple food will have to adapt to growing other food crops that don't require as much water as rice requires.

.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

naturelover said:


> *My point is that as fresh water becomes more scarce, so too will rice crops become more scarce since it requires more water than many other crops do. *People who's survival is dependent on rice as a staple food will have to adapt to growing other food crops that don't require as much water as rice requires.
> .


How silly! Have you never heard of a desalinization plant??

when you get stuck in a myopic point of view - not only does it create fearmongering, but perpetuates narrow thinking.

http://www.worldwater.org/data20062007/Table21.pdf 

The chart, from 2006 shows the top 100 world wide desalinization plants in existence or planned. _What is noteworthy, is how many use/plan on using sea water...._


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Pouncer said:


> Heritage Farm, please do not put words or arguments in my mouth, thank you.
> 
> I said nothing whatever about greenhouse gases, did I? No, what I said was: That there have been previous periods of cooling brought about by volcanic activity. And that the wandering magnetic pole and solar activity may play a role as well. Simple.
> 
> ...


If your statement was not about GHGs, what proof do you have that negates the hazards of billions of tons of excess GHGs?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Wolf mom said:


> How silly! Have you never heard of a desalinization plant??
> 
> when you get stuck in a myopic point of view - not only does it create fearmongering, but perpetuates narrow thinking.
> 
> ...


I have already mentioned desalinization plants in a previous post, I guess you missed it. Do you think desalinization plants should be created for growing rice? Will it be worth the expenditure and energy required to purify so much water for rice crops when it could be better put to use for growing crops that don't require as much water as rice does?

.


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Heritage Farm, if you would like to pick a fight about this issue, find someone else.

Once again, I said NOTHING about GHGs. Read it again carefully-I said nothing about greenhouse gases, period. My comment was about volcanoes and other natural events which may cause COOLING periods. I don't have to prove anything to you, and neither does anyone else. 

YOU want to fight, not me. I said nothing about GHGs, one way or the other.

Take it some place else, would you?


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

A few more thoughts on climate change......its possible that sea levels coming up could have a beneficial effect. The changing temps are sure to make an impact on ocean currents, which fuel our rain patterns. In concert with the jet stream of course.

I hope that the vast areas of taiga in the US, Canada, and Russia become viable farmlands. There are many millions of acres, after all.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

The only thing keeping a plant open near here is the cost of shipping . Yes sooner than later it will move too . EPA will put them in Mexico before it is over:clap::clap:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Pouncer said:


> A few more thoughts on climate change......its possible that sea levels coming up could have a beneficial effect. The changing temps are sure to make an impact on ocean currents, which fuel our rain patterns. In concert with the jet stream of course.
> 
> *I hope that the vast areas of taiga in the US, Canada, and Russia become viable farmlands.* There are many millions of acres, after all.


That might be feasible over the course of time and with a lot of human intervention. I think it would take a lot of hard work to condition and build up the taiga soil to make it suitable as crop land since it is very thin and acidic, but that may become a necessity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga#Soils

.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

What I am saying, naturelover, is that as our climate naturally changes, unless inovation goes by the wayside, humans will keep on inventing new ways of dealing with their environment. 

To keep repeating that we won't have any potable water, ignoring inovation and the human spirit for adaptation/survival is negating the obvious.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I can't argue with that. Human innovation and the human spirit for adaptation/survival is the reason we now have a population of nearly 7 billion people putting a strain on natural resources.

Neither you or anyone else has answered my question (I've actually mentioned it twice now in this topic) - should desalinization plants be created for producing enough fresh water for growing rice as a staple food?

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Neither you or anyone else has answered my question (I've actually mentioned it twice now in this topic) - should desalinization plants be created for producing enough fresh water for growing rice as a staple food?
> .


Alright, I'll bite. 

Yes, they should. Now what will you say?


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> And the scientific community has a consensus that the glaciers are melting due to natural causes, right... You still didn't answer my question: Right now, what natural cause is causing climate change?


I recall a disaster in Africa several years back in which a volcanic lake suddenly released CO2 in quantities sufficient to suffocate hundreds of natives in the area. Scientists have installed degassing equipment to prevent the disaster from happening again.

CO2 is pipelined from Colorado to Texas to replace the oil being pulled from the ground there.

CO2 (if it is a cause of global warming .. the basic premise of cap and trade whether true or not) occurs naturally in quantities that dwarf anything man is presently capable of matching.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

palani said:


> I recall a disaster in Africa several years back in which a volcanic lake suddenly released CO2 in quantities sufficient to suffocate hundreds of natives in the area. Scientists have installed degassing equipment to prevent the disaster from happening again.
> 
> CO2 is pipelined from Colorado to Texas to replace the oil being pulled from the ground there.
> 
> CO2 (if it is a cause of global warming .. the basic premise of cap and trade whether true or not) occurs naturally in quantities that dwarf anything man is presently capable of matching.


And trees love it :hysterical:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ed Norman said:


> Alright, I'll bite.
> 
> Yes, they should. Now what will you say?


What I want to know is why do you (or anyone else) think it will be a worthwhile expenditure of energy and resources to accomodate a single species crop that requires so much more water than other species of staple food crops?

.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> What I want to know is why do you (or anyone else) think it will be a worthwhile expenditure of energy and resources to accomodate a single species crop that requires so much more water than other species of staple food crops?
> 
> .


In your opinion, the oceans rise to unprecedented levels. That means the river deltas will move upstream to new areas. Those areas will now be conducive to rice growing. With more free water in the system due to melted glaciers, warmer temps, etc, there will be more evaporation, more rain. Rice will not be a problem. 

Throughout history, places that could grow rice, did. Those civilizations depended upon it. Other places would not grow rice, they found something else to eat. People can adapt. Arkansas and California can grow rice. Maybe after your imagined global change, Oklahoma and Arizona will be the new rice growing states. So what?

Rice can be grown without flood irrigation, weeds are more of a problem, but it does work.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2010)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Nope it was caused by to many ships in the water at one time need to limit the number of boats :clap::clap: :awh::awh:


No no no.... too many people were standing on it and it tipped over.



palani said:


> I have a 1908 National Geographic in which they discuss the rate at which the glaciers in Glacier Bay are receding. They also note evidence of other warming periods (tree stumps).
> 
> Suppose man had a hand in this as far back as 1908? *Maybe burning too much whale oil in their lanterns?*


*snort*



tgmr05 said:


> When I first read the title, I thought Bush was somehow going to flood low countries.





Shygal said:


> I think its time for me to get some sleep, when I read the title, the first thing I thought of was "Why is George W Bush going to flood Holland and Luxembourg?"


I opened the topic to see what George was being blamed for THIS time!!


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> What I want to know is why do you (or anyone else) think it will be a worthwhile expenditure of energy and resources to accomodate a single species crop that requires so much more water than other species of staple food crops?
> 
> .


What you are overlooking is you can get water from rivers and such to grow rice. I used river water also and had other water sources. They weren't as convenient as a well but I used them. How much water flowed down the Mississippi River in a day? More than you can use on rice in a year and there are more rivers in the US than just one.If you want to build a desalination plant go ahead but you will be miles from any rice field. Why not get rid of rice all together and grow things that don't use water in vast amounts? The reason is that we have a lot of water some of it is not potable but you can use it for growing things.Just because you can't drink it the plants thrive on it. You can even have a sand filter for salty water and use that for growing things. You can grow rice with little water but you will have weeded crop and need to be cleaned before processing. I don't know where you are going with this but rice will be around long time since you are gone and forgotten.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by naturelover
> What I want to know is why do you (or anyone else) think it will be a worthwhile *expenditure of *energy and *resources *to accomodate a single species crop that requires so much more water than other species of staple food crops?


You don't "expend" water.

You simply move it around.

The vast majority of the water used to grow rice goes back into the ground, or into the air, to fall somewhere else

It's that sort of silly rhetoric that ruins your credibilty.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Perhaps you misunderstood the question? Perhaps it was a deliberate misunderstanding that allowed you to throw some more insults around? 

Let me repeat the question. The question was:

Should desalinization plants be created for producing enough fresh water for growing rice as a staple food, and if so, will it be a worthwhile expenditure of energy and resources to build and operate desalinization plants to accomodate a single species crop (rice) that requires so much more water than what other species of staple food crops require? And please don't anybody mention watermelons again because watermelons are NOT a staple food.

I think that within another 2 decades all that water you're all saying you _think_ is going to be available for crops will all be either salt water or highly polluted fresh water that will all need to go through treatment plants of one kind or another before it can be used on crops. Everywhere around the world. What will make rice, which will require more water than other crops, worth the additional expense of treating excessive amounts of water that could be better used on a greater quantity of other crops that don't need so much?

Okay, is that clear enough? Call me a doomsday crier if you wish but that leads me to some more questions, slightly off topic but still relevant to this topic. 

Have you counted the number of insults that have been posted throughout this topic? Have you taken note of WHO all the people are that are flinging the insults? Why do so many people of a certain mindset get so insulting when the topic of climate change comes up? And why do you think it's okay for you to be insulting during the discussion? When did it become acceptable? I'd like to know because nobody sent me the memo and I'd like to take the opportunity of throwing a few insults around myself without fear of getting demerits for it when some of the other insulters complain about it.

Better yet, I would really prefer to be having the discussion with like-minded people without interruptions and insults from the peanut gallery from people who only use the topic as an EXCUSE to be insulting.

This place isn't a forum any more. Look up the definition of the word forum.


.


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood the question? Perhaps it was a deliberate misunderstanding that allowed you to throw some more insults around?
> 
> Let me repeat the question. The question was:
> 
> ...


You ask plenty of questions but never quite get around to saying what you are thinking. Do you think people in rice dependent countries should have to move, or be left to wither, or what? Rice will grow in stinking muddy silty water just fine. No need to treat it first. 

My father in law grows rice next to the ocean. About every 3-4 years, a typhoon floods his lower fields with salt water and the rice dies. He waits a year, the salt is washed away, and he grows rice again. If he put up a levee, he wouldn't even have to worry about the occasional flood. The runoff from his rice fields goes into fish ponds and they grow tilapia and other fish. 

Southern Idaho is a desert. A dry, desolate, sagebrush and lava desert. Then they started ditching out of the Snake River and now the area is called the Magic Valley for a very good reason. Everything is lush and green with hay and crops. Where I live every creek coming out of the mountains has water run into ditches to water crops. 

And I think you are confused by the fact that water stands in rice fields, which makes you believe rice uses more water than other crops. It is actually an average crop for water needs. 

Take a look at Table 5 on the bottom of this page and see that rice is lower in water needs than many other common crops (including watermelons  ) http://www.fao.org/docrep/S2022E/s2022e02.htm

And feel free to insult me, I enjoy it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

What *natural cause*, for the past couple of *decades*, can be blamed for *climate change*, that the scientific community has a *consensus* on?


----------



## Ed Norman (Jun 8, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> What *natural cause*, for the past couple of *decades*, can be blamed for *climate change*, that the scientific community has a *consensus* on?


I don't know. 

What natural cause, for the past couple of millenia, can be blamed for climate change, that the scientific community has a concensus on?


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> What *natural cause*, for the past couple of *decades*, can be blamed for *climate change*, that the scientific community has a *consensus* on?


Can you name ANYTHING that the scientific community has a *consensus* on?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yes. Excess GHGs in the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, ect, causing, or at least majorly contributing, to climate change. That, there is a consensus on. 
Flip through any major science text... Biology, environmental sciences, etc.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Perhaps you misunderstood the question?


No misunderstanding

You mistakenly assume that if sea level rises, *all the water *gets too salty.

The facts are the rivers will STILL be fresh water, and the "rice belt" will simply migrate inward.


Sea level is rising at the rate of 1.8 MM per year, which means in 3 years, it's a little *LESS than 1/4 inch*

I don't think there will be any need for desalinizaton in our lifetimes (or anyone else's)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And why do you think it's okay for you to be insulting during the discussion?


It's not "insulting" to point out a lame rhetorical argument.
These subjects al;ways go the same way *because* of those who want to ignore *data* and play on *emotional hype*

Look at now many times Heritage has repeated the same question, while ignoring all the data SHOWN that has answered it several times already



> *What natural cause*, for the past couple of decades, *can be blamed for climate change*, that the scientific community has a consensus on?


Slightly rewording it doesn't make it a new question, and doesn't change the answers already SHOWN.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood the question? Perhaps it was a deliberate misunderstanding that allowed you to throw some more insults around?
> 
> Let me repeat the question. The question was:
> 
> ...


OK I wish not to insult your intelligent but rice can grow in polluted water it would help if they put sewage in the river before it goes on to my rice fields but the EPA won't let them. That way you can have some nutrients in the water.But the river keeps flowing to the ocean. To put a desalination Plant in for rice NO not ever. Water from a desalination Plant should be for drinking and other uses for potable water. Since I am not like minded with you I guess you don't want to know what you are talking about.So build all the desalination Plant you want All I was saying is that there is water enough for rice without using that technology. Now if you are talking about drinking water for humans I say use all the technology that you can. Is that where you are going saying save the water for drinking later or are you arguing that rice should be band? I can't see where you are going so please get their and make a statement about where you are going instead of playing along.

I see that you are not from the south Watermelon are staple enough I can't know what you northern people do to cool off.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> This place isn't a forum any more. Look up the definition of the word forum. naturelover





> Definition of FORUM
> 1
> a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business b : a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum



There you go me bucko, quit your whining and defend your premise with credible sources or shut up. You seem blind, deaf and indifferent to any idea but your own and that my friend is not what a forum is for.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Better yet, *I would really prefer to be having the discussion with like-minded people* without interruptions and insults from the peanut gallery from people who only use the topic as an EXCUSE to be insulting.


In other words, you'd prefer to talk about it ONLY with those who *agree with you*, and buy the hype.

You're on the wrong bus here.
Another will be along shortly.

Maybe it will take you where you want to go


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

beowoulf90 said:


> So how did Greenland gets it's name when it is covered in ice?
> 
> 
> I guess man and man-made GW caused this?
> ...


You really shouldn't be bringing in inconvenient truths into a conversation, like how when the Vikings colonized Greenland, it was indeed Green. And how later on, most of the outposts were abandoned, because global cooling occurred.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

You really shouldn't be bringing in inconvenient truths into a conversation, like how when the Vikings colonized Greenland, it was indeed Green. And how later on, most of the outposts were abandoned, because global cooling occurred.

They caused it their own self had them stills fired us making hooch and destroyed the ozone :hobbyhors Serves them right :smiley-laughing013:


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> What *natural cause*, for the past couple of *decades*, can be blamed for *climate change*, that the scientific community has a *consensus* on?


There is no consensus among scientists. That is a myth perpetuated by the grant sucking climate guessing crowd.

We can't give a reason for any climate change because it is a very complex system that we do not understand. 

Has the climate changed in the last couple decades? What changes are you talking about? Temperature, precipitation, what? Where? What are you comparing those decades too? What is the standard for comparison?

You seem to be mindlessly repeating sound bites.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Jena said:


> There is no consensus among scientists. That is a myth perpetuated by the grant sucking climate guessing crowd.
> 
> We can't give a reason for any climate change because it is a very complex system that we do not understand.
> 
> ...


"A very inconvenient truth."


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

naturelover said:


> That's not entirely correct. Water with dissolved salts in it can freeze as salty water, not strictly fresh, however, the freezing temperature of salt water is lower than fresh water; ocean temperatures must reach -1.8 degrees Celsius (28.8 degrees Fahrenheit) to freeze. Try it for yourself - fill a container with salted water and stick it in a freezer - the salt does not all seperate from the water as it freezes and you will end up with a block of salty water ice floating on top of a layer of very dense salt-saturated unfrozen water.
> 
> When sea ice forms, most of the salt is pushed into the ocean water below the ice but some salt will be trapped in small pockets between ice crystals. Water below sea ice has a higher concentration of salt and is more dense than surrounding ocean water and so it sinks. In this way sea ice contributes to the ocean's global "conveyor-belt" circulation. Cold, dense, polar water sinks and moves along the ocean bottom toward the equator, while warm water from mid-depth to the surface travels from the equator toward the poles. Changes in the amount of sea ice can disrupt normal ocean circulation, thereby leading to changes in global climate.
> 
> .


I am well aware of the thermodynamics involved in freezing water. It is true that a very small amount of impurities may be caught in the atomic structure of the ice, but not enough to make the water "salty". If you could pick up an ocean going ice berg and take it home, you could melt it and drink that water. It's not salt water.

"Normal ocean circulation" cannot be defined by humans. We haven't been noticing long enough to quantify it. Oceans are dynamic systems that change over time. There have been times of far more sea ice and times of far less. That could affect the ocean circulation patterns, but who is to say which state is "normal"?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Jena said:


> If you could pick up an ocean going ice berg and take it home, you could melt it and drink that water. It's not salt water.


That is correct but only because icebergs are not sea ice. Icebergs are massive, blocky chunks of glaciers that have calved off fresh water glaciers that develop on land. Glaciers are formed from freezing rain and snow that gets compacted into brittle ice layer by layer. Icebergs drifting at sea are big chunky things that only show a small tip of their bulk above the surface. 

Sea ice never gets as thick or chunky as glaciers and calved icebergs, and it's not as brittle as glacial ice. Sea ice is churned frozen ocean water that forms in wide rippled sheets like rafts or platforms floating on top of the ocean. It has a lot of impurities in it and is salty enough that it would have to be filtered and desalinized for drinking purposes.

If you were to cut two equal sized blocks of ice, one from sea ice and one from iceberg, they wouldn't even look the same in color and transparency. The sea ice would look whipped up or foamy inside because of millions of tiny air bubbles with other impurities and salts trapped inside it.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> And the scientific community has a consensus that the glaciers are melting due to natural causes, right... You still didn't answer my question: Right now, what natural cause is causing climate change?


Oh lets just say the thousands of black smokers in the Atlantic warming up the ocean water..

You want people to show a natural cause yet you can't show a man-made cause either.. As another poster said in the 60's & 70's it was a man-made ice age coming now it is man-made global warming.. So it things changed that quickly from the 70's then we must be able to control the weather and earths warming.. So why the (false) alarm?

As I said earlier how did Greenland get it's name, when it is covered in ice?

But of course I expect some environmental scientist (read as mad scientist) to come out and tell me how man is destroying everything.. Falsifying data is wrong and has been proven that it has been done, yet these same people are held up as GODS to some.. Sorry if you have to falsify any information then your character and honesty is lacking and anything you do is now under suspicion 

While I don't want things destroyed the eco-terrorists continue to try and limit man and to control us.. Regardless of what side of the argument you are on.. If you agree with these eco-terrorists then you hate freedom.. So be it, but I won't give up my freedom so eco-Nazis can control how I live and feed my family..


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> You want people to show a natural cause yet you can't show a man-made cause either..


I did, you just don't want to see it.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I did, you just don't want to see it.


Oh? Then I missed it,

Is it all the methane?
Or the CO2?
or the exhaust from vehicles? 
or are the factories belching all that toxic smoke?
Which has been regulated for decades and cost us billions in higher product costs..

So tell me which excuse is it this time?

There is no consensus on what it is.. 

Unless you falsify the data, Which has been done!

So why should I trust the same people now?
Give me one good reason I should pay for "carbon credits" or any other scam?

You can't do it! 
You will believe those who continually lie to us and have an ulterior objective.
So you can believe it, but don't sit there are try to force your anti-freedom acts down my throat.. It won't happen..

If you want to pay Gore and his cronies money, then by all means do it..Save the world for us!

I'm sure we will appreciate it!
Since you seem to have all the answers, be the hero and save us from ourselves...

But don't think about taxing me more for this fallacy as if it is a good plan, because I will fight you tooth and nail to stop this abuse of the taxpayers.. 
Again this isn't about Global warming, it's about control and controlling the masses..


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> conspiracy theory conspiracy theory conspiracy theory


I get so tired of this...


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I get so tired of this...


You can call it what ever you want..

If you cry wolf over and over, we quit listening..

Now you are crying wolf again.. 

First it was global cooling, now it's global warming.. So did so much change in 40 years or so?

They lied the first time to get their agenda through, yet you want me to trust them now..

I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid!

But then I guess you trust those that lie to you?

You are free to cry wolf all you want, but don't try and tax me out of my hard earned cash.. WARNING! I do bite

How come the only way we can "save the Planet" according to those on the left is tax everyone more?

You want my attention on this, then lead by example!
So far the leaders aren't doing that, in fact they are wasting more power and energy then most people.. But I guess that is okay because they are liberals..
Typical carp!


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

beowoulf90 said:


> How come the only way we can "save the Planet" according to those on the left is tax everyone more?


I propose that we tax the left first and then once they have payed enough tax the right.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> You can call it what ever you want..
> 
> If you cry wolf over and over, we quit listening..
> 
> ...


So you resort to rude insults instead? Highly effective.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> So you resort to rude insults instead? Highly effective. Heritagefarm


After 4 pages of ignoring all comments in opposition to your support of a discredited theory you try to paint yourself as a victim? Seems to me you and those like you would have supported the Cardiff Giant, Piltdown Man, the Sokai Paper, or the Archaeoraptor. The earth as we know it will end, how is known when not so much.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> After 4 pages of ignoring all comments in opposition to your support of a discredited theory you try to paint yourself as a victim? Seems to me you and those like you would have supported the Cardiff Giant, Piltdown Man, the Sokai Paper, or the Archaeoraptor. The earth as we know it will end, how is known when not so much.


Ah, so I should just join the insult fight, is that what you're saying? I might also add I'm a creationist!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> Is it all the methane?
> Or the CO2?
> or the exhaust from vehicles?
> or are the factories belching all that toxic smoke?
> Which has been regulated for decades and cost us billions in higher product costs..


Whatever it's doing, it's climate change, and the effects aren't pretty. We've already got an island flooded, and the ice caps (or at least, portions of them) are melting. We have a lot of *greenhouse* gases. Even though the ppm/ppb of GHGs is relatively small, the excess increase in GHGs is not subsiding. Climate change from man is withstanding until conclusive evidence of naturally caused climate change is presented.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> Ah, so I should just join the insult fight, is that what you're saying? I might also add I'm a creationist! Heritagefarm


Do whatever you want to do. Finding credible sources supporting your position would be productive. If credible sources are non existent cut your losses. Since most climatological sources are suspect you are in a pickle. At this point science has shot itself in the foot and any evidence it provides will be viewed with suspicion. Seems to me any argument is futile.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I might also add I'm a creationist!


That's obvoius since you're "creating most of your "facts"


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

I am all for the flooding of low land countries....never could stomach the Dutch.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

This is the main cause of the whole thing dihydrogen monoxide that is some bad stuff :smiley-laughing013:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

bjba said:


> Do whatever you want to do. Finding credible sources supporting your position would be productive. If credible sources are non existent cut your losses. Since most climatological sources are suspect you are in a pickle. At this point science has shot itself in the foot and any evidence it provides will be viewed with suspicion. Seems to me any argument is futile.


LOL, you killed your own post by asking me to give you a credible source and then say that any source you don't agree with is suspect? Yes, ignoring scientific evidence in exchange for unsupported idiotic conspiracy theories can indeed kill an argument. Topic unsubscribed. Once again, man - made climate change withstanding.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Whatever it's doing, it's climate change, and the effects aren't pretty. We've already got an island flooded, and the ice caps (or at least, portions of them) are melting. We have a lot of *greenhouse* gases. Even though the ppm/ppb of GHGs is relatively small, the excess increase in GHGs is not subsiding. Climate change from man is withstanding until conclusive evidence of naturally caused climate change is presented.


all you have to do is to look at the past.There have been ice ages and tropical ages. I can find tropical plaints in fossils around here and even sea creatures. I can find fossils from the time of the dinosaurs extinction here. If you look at the last 300 years there was a small ice age that we are just coming out of and of course it will be warmer. If you look at the last 100 years you will find that the average temperature is a little warmer but not the daily temperatures. many of the highest temperatures are from the early 1900. this year we broke the record about 3 times but in some years we didn't even come close. I can remember my grand father talking about crossing the Arkansas River at Little Rock with a team of mules and a freight wagon most any winter now the river hasn't even come close to freezing over in my life time. Now what causes it just may be man made but it started back in the early 1700.If you think that it is man made we should be in an ice age today if man wasn't here. Every climate is in change either up or down and has been that way since before man even come on the scene and this can be verified by fossils.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> So you resort to rude insults instead? Highly effective.


No just tired of hearing "wolf"..

How many times do you have to try and feed us falsified data?

Yea I know you will tell me it isn't falsified, yet the same ones who got caught are contributing to this data also.. So to me it is falsified.. For their agenda's sake..

So if a person robs a bank, do you put them in charge of the money?

No.. Yet your spokesperson is Gore, you know the one that said seas will rise, yet bought property on the seashore..

Lead by example or get out of the way!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

beowoulf90 said:


> No just tired of hearing "wolf"..
> 
> How many times do you have to try and feed us falsified data?
> 
> ...


1. You only think it's falsified because you don't want to agree with it.
2. This is an internet debate. Before you go around shouting ridiculous, unbased absurdities find footnotes and scientific links to back up your claims.
3. Al Gore? What makes you think he's my spokesperson? Once again, unsupported claims. "Lead by example": live up to your own words; it ain't working well!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Old Vet said:


> all you have to do is to look at the past.There have been ice ages and tropical ages. I can find tropical plaints in fossils around here and even sea creatures. I can find fossils from the time of the dinosaurs extinction here. If you look at the last 300 years there was a small ice age that we are just coming out of and of course it will be warmer. If you look at the last 100 years you will find that the average temperature is a little warmer but not the daily temperatures. many of the highest temperatures are from the early 1900. this year we broke the record about 3 times but in some years we didn't even come close. I can remember my grand father talking about crossing the Arkansas River at Little Rock with a team of mules and a freight wagon most any winter now the river hasn't even come close to freezing over in my life time. Now what causes it just may be man made but it started back in the early 1700.If you think that it is man made we should be in an ice age today if man wasn't here. Every climate is in change either up or down and has been that way since before man even come on the scene and this can be verified by fossils.


Natural cause of climate change for the past couple decades - stop hunting around in flawed historic data; it proves nothing right *now*. You just keep dodging the question.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Leave your flamethrowers at the door, please.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> Leave your flamethrowers at the door, please. Heritagefarm


??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????:shrug:ound:ound::hysterical:


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2010)

This conversation has gotten boring. Everyone is talking in circles around each other.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Natural cause *of climate change for the past couple decades - stop hunting around in flawed *historic data*; it proves nothing right now. You just keep dodging the question.


Natural causes dont CHANGE

You won't accept any thing you don't agree with, and you keep narrowing the parameters when proven wrong.

I see now you've even started YET ANOTHER thread on the SAME THING

Give it a rest


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> 1. You only think it's falsified because you don't want to agree with it.
> 2. This is an internet debate. Before you go around shouting ridiculous, unbased absurdities find footnotes and scientific links to back up your claims.
> 3. Al Gore? What makes you think he's my spokesperson? Once again, unsupported claims. "Lead by example": live up to your own words; it ain't working well!


Oh so you think I'm not leading by example..
So how much scrap do you recycle?

Me, I get about 1000 lbs or tin/light steel a month that would other wise end up in the landfill..
A couple of hundred pounds of copper, alum, and brass every other month. This is from all the "stuff" people throw away, such as DVD players, Computers, and other items..

We built our raised garden from skids that were heading to the landfill because they aren't the standard 40x48 skids most companies use..

We use no chemicals in the garden.. except a vinegar/water mixture.
To keep the batteries charge on the equipment we use solar chargers..

The fact that the data was falsified needs no links, there are plenty of news stories about it..
Now you want to cry wolf again and blame it on man-made things. When the fact that there are thousands of black smokers in the Atlantic Ocean.. 

You claim it is us and not nature, yet nature in the past nature has turned Greenland from a green paradise to a ice covered land. There are multiple scenarios such as this, such as the Nile and the Egyptians.. All through out history nature has done this, yet you blame man.. 

Now what I don't agree with is that it is man-made and the only way to solve it is another tax and loss of Freedoms.. Why do liberals always need a new tax or take more of our Freedoms away to solve a problem?

Is it because they don't believe it themselves or are just crooks wanting others money? Or are they exempt from these taxes and laws?

So what have you done to "save the planet", other then to try and blame man for everything..

Why is it that every eco-liberal has to have a private jet to fly to the green conferences? They are to "important" (in their own eyes only) to share the jet with others.. So tell me why the eco-liberals don't call out Gore when he left his SUV's run? 

When you get your own "house" in order then talk to me about leading by example, because I have done so, as best as I can.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Natural cause of climate change for the past couple decades - stop hunting around in flawed historic data; it proves nothing right *now*. You just keep dodging the question.


If you cant look at the past and make out a trend then you will not be able to live in the the future without buying into the hype and paying for nothing at all.I am not going to be arguing with you any more so post anything you want.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> I might also add I'm a creationist!


Even though the "consensus among scientist" would disagree with you?

I am a creationist also, but I believe that much of science has been co opted by corporations and governments.

Not much true science is done anymore. Most scientist may as well wear uniforms with team names and sponsor logos on them anymore.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> stop hunting around in *flawed historic data*; it proves nothing right now.


If the *historical *data is "flawed" how is it YOU use it to "prove" it's warming* faster *now?

LOL I thiink you just shot yourself in the foot (again)


----------

