SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Climate change
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1448905095

Message started by verslagen1 on 11/30/15 at 09:38:14

Title: Climate change
Post by verslagen1 on 11/30/15 at 09:38:14

Got suckered into a docudrama advert regarding the California drought.
They bases their assertions on the Milankovitch cycles and had a chance to read up on it today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Basically, we're 9000 yrs from the last ice age and 12000 til the next, and it's only going to get worse.
But, based on the Vostok ice cores, temperature is about to drop, at least in Vostok.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 11/30/15 at 10:14:13

15,000 years ago, the Great Lakes had not even formed yet. They were still buried under slowly retreating glaciers. I live in St. Louis and these glaciers extended just north of here. Our climate was similar to modern day Montreal.

Is it any wonder this year is warmer than last year? Almost by definition, ever year from the last ice age should be warmer than the previous.

Climate change is the single biggest hoax pulled off on the world ever.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by oldNslow on 11/30/15 at 10:23:23

Quote:

But, based on the Vostok ice cores, temperature is about to drop, at least in Vostok.

About to drop here too. Based on the fact that tomorrow is December 1st. Wonder if I ought to send off an email to notify all those idjits getting together in Paris.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Ed L. on 11/30/15 at 15:30:58

Climate change is the single biggest hoax pulled off on the world ever
What if it isn't?
Shouldn't some credence be given to science that supports climate change instead of denying that it is even possible.
It's not like tobacco and cancer which only took 30 years or so to prove the connection using science and only affects the smoker.
The potential ramifications of man made climate change for the human race could be devastating over the next century. Or maybe not if you ignore the majority of the scientific studies and just blame it on nature. Either way something is causing a change in the climate.
Actually I could give a poop about it. I'll be dead long before it hits the fan. JMHO after a few beers

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 11/30/15 at 18:16:20

I'm a couple beers behind you but trying to catch up....

What if it isn't?

Good question. Here's a couple good answers. The plans to cut co2 involve limiting the power grid from reaching very poor nations who get their heat and cooking from biomass, ie burning wood. As someone in the air filtration business, wood smoke is horrible for you. Smells great, but not good. "We got our high standard of living, but screw you poor pele. die young, we don't care"

Another reason is we have a limit on exonomic resources. Dedicating them to a farce removes them from the availabilty to be used on legit problems.

okay, another beer waiting. later.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Ed L. on 11/30/15 at 19:06:02

Had to look exonomics up, haven't heard of that term. Your point is why waste resorces to chase a red herring when it could be used better. I don't think anybody knows what to do about co2 and air pollution and they are throwing sh1t at the wall to see what sticks. It's a common political tatic, looks good but inefficent. Don't see how the current policies limit the third world countries from developing a low co2 emission power grid. What they do in thier country should be thier own business. We are probably trying to sell the third world countries unproven technology to make a buck off it, I wouldn't be surprised if Haliburton isn't getting into it. Just a stray thought.
China just declared an air pollution emergency in one of thier big cities because of wood and coal smoke. Looks like the problem won't go away for a while. When it comes to basic creature comforts like heat and cooking coal and wood are the choice for the peasants of the world. Can't see any way of changing it.
Looks like I'll have beachfront property in Florida if I live that long. ;)

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/15 at 22:01:10

Change is the only constant. Spend time paying attention. Go look at the ice caps on Mars. They shrunk, at the same time we were seeing temperature changes. The Arctic, you know, the one that was gonna be ice free two years ago, yeah, that one, the one they had to Rescue the scientists who were gonna prove it, once and for all, when the ICE grabbed their ship...
And the hurricanes. Ohh, more, bigger, wurser, itsa Comin,, but, rather than that, it's been just the opposite.

And then, remember, how many times have we been Warned, loudly, often, about the Certain Dangers,, if we don't take immediate action.
Vietnam, Iraq, and many others,, only to eventually discover that it was all lies.

And, why did we stop using the weather stations out in the forests? Replaced by stations on rooftops...

What about the emails from a few years ago?

I have sufficient evidence to doubt. The more They push, the less I trust.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by HovisPresley on 12/01/15 at 04:25:45

Climate change is a reality.
How much of that change being due to 'human activities' is the question.

PS. I think Mark meant 'economic resources' rather than 'exonomic'.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/01/15 at 05:37:15

Hey grammar Nazi, why don't you stick that red pen of yours where the sun dont shine. i was typing that last night in a hotel bar on my ipad.
noisy, crowded etc... pretty much like breakfast this morning. i'll bet youre a real joy to live with.....jerk.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by HovisPresley on 12/01/15 at 05:55:47

The grammar and spelling are fine.
Exonomics are relevant, as are economics.
Why the problem?

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/01/15 at 06:11:07

it was clear from the context what i meant. you routinely point out grammar. stop being a d!ck about grammar. exonomics is a fairly rare word which clearly didnt fit in that sentance.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by HovisPresley on 12/01/15 at 06:22:23

It's NOT grammar.
Both myself and 'EdL' had to look up the word.
Exonomics are relevant in the subject matter.

Less personal abuse would be appreciated, Mark ;)

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Ed L. on 12/01/15 at 06:25:50

Exonomics works fine when taken in context, just wasn't familar with the term or it's use. Economics fits the ticket also, one covers trade while the other covers everthing. Gotta walk the dog

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by strang on 12/01/15 at 06:48:50

So we C02 test our exhausts in a detailed way but 10,000 million tonnes of C02 into the atmosphere.... ;D

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/01/15 at 06:53:51

072039263C1F3D2A3C232A364F0 wrote:

It's NOT grammar.
Both myself and 'EdL' had to look up the word.
Exonomics are relevant in the subject matter.

Less personal abuse would be appreciated, Mark ;)

Bull...... stop the grammar Nazi crap, u do it all the time.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Serowbot on 12/01/15 at 07:28:48

7C4E49585F4E59664A59402B0 wrote:

Hey grammar Nazi, why don't you stick that red pen of yours where the sun dont shine. ........jerk.

Is there some ambiguity here?...

Come on, Web... you're better than this...

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by verslagen1 on 12/01/15 at 08:14:24

When china cleaned up it's act for the olympics, it got hotter.
When all the airlines were grounded for 911, it got hotter.

China has just declared an air pollution emergency.
And everyone sites co2 as the problem, but not the particulates that reflect sunlight.
If water vapor in the contrails helps reduce heating them maybe they ought to increase the effect. Inject water into the jet exhaust.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by thumperclone on 12/01/15 at 08:25:41

no sane person can claim WE are not having an effect

we had "smog days" in L.A. in the 60s
stay indoors, no school, couldn't see the San Fernando foot hills
from 5 miles away

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by oldNslow on 12/01/15 at 08:30:49

514D504855405746494A4B40250 wrote:

no sane person can claim WE are not having an effect

we had "smog days" in L.A. in the 60s
stay indoors, no school, couldn't see the San Fernando foot hills
from 5 miles away

Smog sucks for the folks that have to breath it, but it's existence is hardly proof that human activity is causing the climate to change rather than mechanisms that we don't understand. That fact that this whole deal is so politically driven is what makes people skeptical.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Serowbot on 12/01/15 at 09:32:47

The denial is the politically driven part...
Why?.. Money...
Dirty energy is cheaper than clean.
Cleaning up the mess you make takes time and money...

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by oldNslow on 12/01/15 at 09:41:17

Quote:

The denial is the politically driven part...

You got that exactly backwards. The skeptics aren't going to make a ton of money and clamp down even harder on the worlds economic freedom. It's the clowns meeting in Paris as we speak that want to do that. And the "science" that they are using to justify their agenda is largely bulls*it.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by verslagen1 on 12/01/15 at 09:44:58

No question we have an impact, for millennia temp's have gone up and down like clockwork. For nearly 10k years Vostok temps haven't changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#/media/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by raydawg on 12/01/15 at 10:51:19

Carbon offsets clean the air..... Gotcha. Denial sure. Repubs want old folk to eat dog food. Guns use people to advance their ideology. Planned parenthood is good for C02 health.

Odd........ It's almost like I am putting my faith and belief into something that I can't really prove. No matter, I will just force people to believe and if it impinges on their lives, so be it, as I am on a Cursade to save the ignorant from them selves.....

Gee, that sounds familiar ::)

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/01/15 at 17:49:28

there are 40,000 delegates attending this party in Paris and I'm sure none of them are traveling on their own money.

the future careers and livelihood of all 40,000 are dependent upon the fact that mankind's contribution to climate change is the primary driver of increasing temperature. They will fight logic until the bitter end. The fact is; Big Climate is Big Business.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/15 at 18:01:21

This is the only scam bigger than the Fed. They stopped using weather stations in remote areas and installed new ones in ridiculous places, rooftops, near runways, the game is so easy to see,

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/02/15 at 05:36:41

The data in the article below is easily verifiable. Why are we even having this discussion?! Of course we all know why, but shouldn't it be easy to change just one mind?

One of you guys who accept the mainstream climate change narrative, challenge the data below. Present your case why I should be worried about mankind's contribution to climate change?

http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2015/11/30/the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-ix

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Serowbot on 12/02/15 at 08:11:29

The weather instruments at Tucson International Airport were moved a decade or so ago,.. factors like airport expansion, shade, mass of pavement, etc... all effect readings. These things are taken into account by weather scientists,.. and may be seen as raw data manipulation by deniers.
If these factors were not taken into account... they could also be seen as flaws in data by the deniers, too...

Poking holes is easy...
Real scientists look at the entire picture, and 99% agree with the methodology...
Manipulation, is not always distortion.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

If you get a dyno test on your bike,... it always includes data on ambient temperature and humidity...
Outside factors must be taken into account.
This is why the term "raw data" exists....

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/02/15 at 08:51:57

I understand that part. In my job, one of the things we do is measure the air pressure differential between upstream and downstream points. RH and temperature must be taken into account if you want the most accurate readings. It's very easy for me to make that data point to almost any conclusion I want by taking readings at certain times of the day.

NASA makes adjustments based upon their own parameters. Peer review articles agree with them. However, remember that ALL the predictions within the early IPCC reports have been over estimated because they over calculated the effect of several variables.

Now, if you were predisposed to accept a correlation between CO2 and global temperature, how easy would it be to over estimate the effect of these variables. Note: I'm not saying this was done on purpose, (I'm not saying it wasn't either) but it's certainly easy to believe subconsciously, someone could have done this. You have to consider this a valid point because again, the early IPCC reports were so very wrong and all reports after that have lowered the temp predictions for the same future timeframe. How can 4 reports in a row over estimate temperature predictions? Too soon to tell if the 5th is also over estimated as it just came out. Isn't it a possibility that either on purpose or subconsciously, they select data to support their conclusion?

By the way, a retired German scientist recently took all the raw temp data and concluded that NASA's adjustments were just as likely to be over estimated as underestimated. I actually sent an email to NASA asking for a response to his report. No reply yet.

The problem is you can site your data and I can say the source of that data has ulterior motives for the data to point to one conclusion and you can do the same for mine.

So we're in a little bit of a stalemate. Neither of us experience the effect of climate change in our lives so we have no personal experience to point to.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Serowbot on 12/02/15 at 09:22:52

Good points...

What it boils down to, is... trust...
I tend to trust the scientific system of review... ...others, see conspiracy.
I believe there are as many scientists that would love to shoot down a theory as there those that would like to join the bandwagon..
This generally separates wheat from the chaff.
I also expect they know more than we do...
Particularly experts in that field,... as many comments come from scientists not directly related to that field...

Gotta' believe somebody... I choose to believe the experts, and go with the majority.

After all... you don't go to your doctor, for advice on carb jetting...

Peace,
Serow

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by verslagen1 on 12/02/15 at 09:32:39

personal experience... Let's talk CA drought.
CA never gets a lot of water (except after major burns)
but 2011 to 2014 is the driest on record since 1895.
2015 is another year w/out much.
The advert said it's due to a pressure trough keeping the jet stream from going down CA. And it's more or less stationary where it used to cycle.
This is why whenever they talk el nino rains they say it won't end the drought. I got a feeling they ain't coming at all. If so, we're down to our last year of water.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/02/15 at 09:42:21

I'm not a degreed engineer but I've dealt in one particular field for so long now, there isn't much I don't know about airflow and particulate capture. However, I'm always shocked to find how little actual engineers know and to make matters worse, how stubborn they are to accept what I know after years of actual field work. There are an awful lot of engineers who are to clever by half as the saying goes.

I don't go to my Doctor for carb jetting, but I don't blindly follow what he says either. Give yourself more credit.

My big question is simply that 15,000 years ago, much of North America was covered by ice. Now, whenever a discussion about evolution vs intelligent design comes up, I'm told I don't understand how a million years is just a tick of the evolutionary clock. Well, I assume the same applies for geology as well. 15,000 years ago we were covered in ice and today we're not so is it any surprise we're warmer today?

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/02/15 at 09:46:24

677463627D7076747F20110 wrote:

"since 1895". Geologically speaking, that's a very short timeframe.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by thumperclone on 12/02/15 at 10:08:57

263522233C3137353E61500 wrote:

not to worry I'll flush twice from now on :D

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/02/15 at 10:17:55

Was it California a few years ago in the middle of another drought of the century who came up with the marketing slogan : Have fun in the sun, but don't flush after number 1"

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by verslagen1 on 12/02/15 at 12:13:18

665453424554437C50435A310 wrote:

"since 1895". Geologically speaking, that's a very short timeframe.

ya ya... we'll all matter like a mouse fart in the wind.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by old.indian on 12/02/15 at 13:02:16

083A3D2C2B3A2D123E2D345F0 wrote:

Was it California a few years ago in the middle of another drought of the century who came up with the marketing slogan : Have fun in the sun, but don't flush after number 1"

Yep.... The early 70s to be exact.....It's been more than long enough for all the lessons to be forgotten.... :-/ Society has a memory span that doesn't exceed a single Nano second.... ::)

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/15 at 14:17:11

152720313627300F233029420 wrote:

15,000 years ago we were covered in ice and today we're not so is it any surprise we're warmer today?[/quote]

Quoted in hopes that it will sink in.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by MnSpring on 12/02/15 at 17:28:53

Next, ‘Ice Age’, due in about another 15,000 years.
So where I sit now, will have about 900 feet of ICE, over my head.

But it’s gonna get a little warmer, before it gets colder again.

Oh, did you hear,
Gore was Fined, for,
throwing a CFL, Light Bulb,
in the Trash ? LOLOLOO

( CFL = Compact Florissant light.)
(Florissant lights contain Mercury/Cadmium, and are to be, ReCycled)

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by MnSpring on 12/02/15 at 17:53:22

Quote:

“ … Let’s talk CA drought. … "

Last year in Jan, I was in, Hemuet, Calf.
The event I attended was about 30 min drive, in the Country,
N/W, of town. (In the ‘country’).
(About 50-60 miles East of L.A.)

On the way their, over the gravel roads,
Their were places where, (With a 2 WD Rent-a-Car)
one had to, ‘GO FAST’,
Or be mired in the, mud, on the roads,
from the Leaking, ’AIR’, Sprinklers, for the corps growing.

If Calf, Had a, ‘Water Use ban”, it sure was not apparent then.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by verslagen1 on 12/02/15 at 18:03:55

You mean Hemet?
Most water out there is from wells.
They pump it, spray it, and it goes back to where they got it.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by MnSpring on 12/02/15 at 18:24:35

“ … You mean Hemet? …”

Yep

Not knowing the situation.
Hearing all the, ’talk’. then, experiencing the Muddy Roads.
From Leaking well heads, and over saturation

Came to a different conclusion.

Did not know that the Aquifers, were on a, ’low table’,
so the water would seep down again,
and be reused.

From the people their, from many areas, way outside Calf,
It was the talk of the event.

BECAUSE, it is what they heard/believed, (From the Media).

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by verslagen1 on 12/02/15 at 18:55:24

I know the area, lived there for a year, grandparents lived across the valley for many years.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by MnSpring on 12/03/15 at 08:03:38

“ I know the area, lived there "

Yep ! That, is why, one listens to the people, that, ‘been their done that’.
Rather than the Media, looking for a sensational story to be able to sell more ads.

Listening to the Media, ALL of Calf is stricken, not parts of.

I suppose, kina, like a ‘subject’ of another country,
telling someone who teaches, firearm Safety,
(in a Country they cannot Vote in), that, they are ‘teaching to kill’.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by pg on 12/03/15 at 09:46:34

5C4F5859464B4D4F441B2A0 wrote:

I know the area, lived there

Verslagen1:

How bad is the water supply there? On occasion I will read something about it and I'm not sure how credible it is. Can you give an update what the residential & commercial restrictions are and where they are more than likely to go if the drought continues?

Best regards,

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by verslagen1 on 12/03/15 at 11:46:56

to me the only restriction is financial. and my town gets it's water by well.
in tehatchapi they're out of water and have to truck it in.
Hemet is bounded by 4 lakes and still has a lot of ground water.
so it varies by locale.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/15 at 07:29:19

It's December 4th in St. Louis and I'm going to play golf.... Thank God for global warming....!

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Serowbot on 12/04/15 at 07:50:54

It's December 4th here, too!... ;D...

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Paraquat on 12/04/15 at 09:05:22

WTF.
It's the 4th here, too!
Thanks a lot, Obama.

It's going to be 54'F this weekend and I'm going riding. I do recall last year when I was unable to ride until April...

--Steve

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by verslagen1 on 12/04/15 at 09:36:31

imagine that, it's Dec. 4 here too. :-?
It's darn cold here, but I rode, but I ride all year long... almost. 8-)

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by raydawg on 12/04/15 at 10:41:36

I rode in, not bad either, a few rain showers, but in the 40's.

I kept out a few pairs of speedos just in case we get into the 50's durning Winter Solace Holidaze ;D

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/04/15 at 12:04:53

Is there a special day in the Winter when you try to make people feel better?

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by Serowbot on 12/04/15 at 12:11:15

Should be every day...

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/04/15 at 15:50:27

My sister got a sunburn, laying in the yard, on a towel, around 1964, on Christmas day. Houston Texas. I wuz THERE, I Saw It. She did it intentionally, cuz it was just so nice and sunny and warm, on Christmas day.

Houston, we have a problem.

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by raydawg on 12/04/15 at 18:08:25

5A454344595E6F5F6F57454902300 wrote:

Has she peeled yet? :-[

Title: Re: Climate change
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/04/15 at 18:57:40

Man! That's my Sister! I wouldn't know if or when...
That's a good question, though. I hope I would have thought of it if someone else told that story. Funny man,,