Deranged Rhino Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 ... I am just not worried about it, I am not worried about it for future generations. For now... Everybody get away from the coasts... And stay outta the flood plains and off the volcano... ;-) ;-) One in every 10 people on the planet lives near a coast -- that's a conservative estimate. You might not be worried about it now, chances are you're going to be gone before it's an issue. But your grandkids or great-grandkids might feel differently if huge swaths of the global population are forced to relocate due rising sea levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I'm not. I do agree, it is silly to suggest global cooling. We are just going to see how the data in the next 15-20 years shakes out. I am not denying anything, I do agree with the conservatives here on human influence. This doesn't mean we go out and pollute and say: "To heck, it is all nature anyway." I am just not worried about it, I am not worried about it for future generations. IMO, we take our resources and adapt to the changes on the fly and stop worrying who's causing what. For now... Everybody get away from the coasts... And stay outta the flood plains and off the volcano... ;-) ;-) I'd suggest that you and DC Tom are one in the same, but that's just too hard to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) Today it's warmer than yesterday. Tomorrow's supposed to be warmer than today. Proof positive, I guess. Actually, tomorrow and Saturday is supposed to be colder w/Sunday and Monday being warmer and then Tuesday & Wednesday colder again. I am telling you... It's all man's fault! ;-) :-P I'd suggest that you and DC Tom are one in the same, but that's just too hard to believe. LoL... Gee, thanks for the insult. One in every 10 people on the planet lives near a coast -- that's a conservative estimate. You might not be worried about it now, chances are you're going to be gone before it's an issue. But your grandkids or great-grandkids might feel differently if huge swaths of the global population are forced to relocate due rising sea levels. Wait... Aren't people relocating TO the coast now? Well stop! And there in lies the rub. I have faith that they will make do. To think we gotta be the fix, which isn't even possible, is just insane. Edited March 27, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 One in every 10 people on the planet lives near a coast -- that's a conservative estimate. You might not be worried about it now, chances are you're going to be gone before it's an issue. But your grandkids or great-grandkids might feel differently if huge swaths of the global population are forced to relocate due rising sea levels. I've done my part and taught them to swim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Tom, I've known you to be pretty rational most of the time about most things. For you to so enthusiastically skewer hard data collected over a period of 34 years while going completely crickets on the image touting "global cooling" based on 2 data points should make you consider that you might not be completely objective on this particular issue. I'm sure you'll try blasting me for this, but I'm convinced you're favoring one side based on your political leanings here. The difference is that I was never under the impression that anyone was touting global cooling. Is anyone here arguing that the planet is cooling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 The difference is that I was never under the impression that anyone was touting global cooling. Is anyone here arguing that the planet is cooling? I don't know about global cooling, but this guy is chillin on the moon: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) Changing gear a little. What say ye some of my liberal siders on this board? I am not saying let the earth go, it still has to be tended to, but that has always been the case. "Rambunctious Garden is short on gloom and long on interesting theories and fascinating narratives, all of which bring home the idea that we must give up our romantic notions of pristine wilderness and replace them with the concept of a global, half-wild rambunctious garden planet, tended by us." http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/q-and-a-the-rambunctious-garden/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/rambunctious-garden-9781608194544/ Is anyone here arguing that the planet is cooling? No. I would certainly hope they are not... But then again, you got some crazy beeatches around here! ;-) :-) Edited March 27, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 No. I would certainly hope they are not... But then again, you got some crazy beeatches around here! ;-) :-) The moment someone does, I won't even argue with them. I'll just call 'em an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 For you global cooling deniers: http://www.ecnmag.co...ps-grow-60-year The arctic will be "ice-free by 2013." "An ice-free Arctic is] definitely coming, and coming sooner than we previously expected." These were but some of the breathless pronouncements made by scientists, climatologists, and even NASA over the last decade or so. All the while, the summers were getting colder and the ice caps more voluminous — quite a bit more, apparently. According to a report in the Daily Mail, the Arctic ice cap grew by nearly a million square miles from 2012-2013, an increase of 60% year over year. This sharply contradicts earlier reports of doom-and-gloom and a climate change-induced apocalypse (not to mention, hyperbolic and slightly-ridiculous Hollywood blockbusters). Back in 2007, the BBC — in a report echoed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center — touted the following headline: “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013”. Hi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I just read a fascinating article claiming the planet it cooling. It was spot on. I'll link if when I find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Today it's warmer than yesterday. Tomorrow's supposed to be warmer than today. Proof positive, I guess. Hey...the same thing is happening here. Mercy sakes, Rubber Duck, it looks like we got ourselves a concensus!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 I've done my part and taught them to swim. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 (edited) I just read a fascinating article claiming the planet it cooling. It was spot on. I'll link if when I find it. Again, the coldness of space will always win out. Of course, we might go like a light bulb first. That is, ever see what happens to a light bulb right before the filament burns out? It gets really bright, then bam... Dead. Burnt, dead and then frozen solid. Edited March 27, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Hey...the same thing is happening here. Mercy sakes, Rubber Duck, it looks like we got ourselves a concensus!!! It's actually supposed to rain up here. So I'm in the planet's getting wetter camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Hi Every day you write something just a little dumber than the day before. No one else viewed what I wrote in that post as anything but sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 It's actually supposed to rain up here. So I'm in the planet's getting wetter camp. I drove through a serious downpour today between Austin and Smithville. we may have a concensus forming here........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 Don't know that anybody's "arguing" that the globe is getting cooler. But I sure hit a hot button or two with a flippant pic. Maybe it's time for a "Reset". But I'll settle for a martini. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) “Like Treating a Cold with Chemotherapy” No sooner do I post last night’s item about the walkbacks coming in the next IPCC report on the impacts of climate change due out Monday than I come across Matt Ridley’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal saying much the same thing. Some highlights: The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses “very little confidence” that it will do so. There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. . . The IPCC’s September 2013 report abandoned any attempt to estimate the most likely “sensitivity” of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The explanation, buried in a technical summary not published until January, is that “estimates derived from observed climate change tend to best fit the observed surface and ocean warming for [sensitivity] values in the lower part of the likely range.” Translation: The data suggest we probably face less warming than the models indicate, but we would rather not say so. . . In short, the warming we experienced over the past 35 years—about 0.4C (or 0.7F) if you average the measurements made by satellites and those made by ground stations—is likely to continue at about the same rate: a little over a degree a century. But here’s my favorite bit from the article: And if renewable energy had proved by now to be cheap, clean and thrifty in its use of land, then we would be right to address that small risk of a large catastrophe by rushing to replace fossil fuels with first-generation wind, solar and bioenergy. But since these forms of energy have proved expensive, environmentally damaging and land-hungry, it appears that in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold. Along the way, Ridley cites the work of Richard Tol, one of Europe’s foremost climate economists. Tol’s work was cited dozens of times in the infamous 2006 “Stern Review” by the British government that concluded the economic costs of climate change would be 5 – 20 percent of global GDP. Tol repudiated the use of his work in the Stern Review, saying that if a first-year graduate student had submitted that analysis to him, he would have flunked the student. The report due out next week will conclude that the economic cost of a 2.5 degrees C increase in temperature will be below 2 percent of global GDP. More at the link: http://www.powerline...hemotherapy.php . Edited March 28, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 All those convinced of AGW/CC should have the courage of their convictions and stop emitting CO2, never buy or use air conditioning, drive a car or use mass transit, use aerosols, appliances, nor should they use any electricity regardless of the source. Then they'll have a right to B word at others for doing those things. But short of triggering a massive volcanic eruption I haven't heard any ideas other than carbon fasting that any of these (mostly) kooks propose to fix the "problem". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 All those convinced of AGW/CC should have the courage of their convictions and stop emitting CO2, never buy or use air conditioning, drive a car or use mass transit, use aerosols, appliances, nor should they use any electricity regardless of the source. Then they'll have a right to B word at others for doing those things. But short of triggering a massive volcanic eruption I haven't heard any ideas other than carbon fasting that any of these (mostly) kooks propose to fix the "problem". Why do we want to stop emitting CO2? Hell, the earth had much higher levels of CO2 in the past. Plants need it. They definitely needed more CO2 back when Greenland had a climate like Egypt: http://www.ku-prism.org/polarscientist/losttribes/Jan131897Boston.htm "Greenland was once upon a time a tropical country. That is proved absolutely by the remains of an extensive tropical flora which are found there. Where now a sheet of solid ice over a mile thick covers mountain and valley, and mighty frozen rivers called glaciers make their way to the sea and hatch icebergs, there was in earlier days a verdure-clad wilderness of luxuriant vegetation. Together with the palms and tree ferns, there were trees related to the giant sequoias of our own west coast; also representatives of the "gingko," the sacred tree of Japan and of the Eucalyptus family, which today is restricted to Australia. Climbing vines festooned the trunks of these monarchs of an ancient forest with draperies of foliage, while close to the ground grew those curious dwarf trees called "cycads," somewhat resembling palms in miniature, in the midst of a tangled undergrowth of ferns and other flowerless plants that carpeted the densely wooded areas." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts