| Author | Message | ||
     Reepicheep |
Kerry Livgren Rocks!  | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I wonder what our lakes, rivers and streams would look like if all those man made dams never existed. I also worry about large city rain drainage. Does it effect the earth much that those particular spots do not get to absorb the rain fall naturally like in open areas?  | ||
| Ourdee |
http://www.ted.com/talks/justin_hall_tipping_freei ng_energy_from_the_grid.html | ||
| Blake |
Good point re the damns. Some of them anyway. We do need water to live. The flood control damns have proved questionable in results at best. Better would be smarter siting for homes and towns. Sustainable farming in river valleys depended on flooding to maintain high concentration of soil nutrients. Now we damn to prevent flooding and have to spread chemical fertilizers. Don't build or live in a flood plain seems simple and logical enough, no? Yet another predictable result of big gov't meddling, the national flood insurance ripoff. Without it, how many homes would be built in on the coast in major hurricane zones and other severe flood jeopardized regions? And if they were, who would have to pay for the insurance? The owners! What a concept!  Basically, our federal gov't has helped make it desirable to build in major flood zones. How dumb is that? | ||
| 86129squids |
Damn, Blake!! Damn it ALL!  | ||
| Whatever |
Honestly, I just don't have much more energy to spend on it. I will give you the basics of what I know. Carbonate in the oceans records exactly how much CO2 and what historical temperatures "make up" the atmosphere. There is an extremely accurate correlation, and you can basically drill down to bedrock and take benthic mud samples in the oceans that can be dated with isotopes so you know exactly how old the mud is and then you take samples of the drill core, dessicate them and then measure how much carbonate is in the ocean from the carbonate bearing organisms that get deposited there. It is actually a very simple process when you look at it, and statistical analysis is done on any experiment run that becomes published in a scientific journal. If the variation in results do not fall within a precision and accuracy range the result is thrown out. I got as far as the last ice age in the samples I analyzed at Duke University Marine Laboratory in the late 1980's. Many people specialize in paleoclimatology like my professor Tom Johnson who is at University of Minnesota Duluth now (at least since I last spoke with him). I find it fairly useless to argue with people who are not scientists (maybe some of you are but most of you aren't) who do not understand what high quality statistical analysis is required to publish in a scientific journal and recieve National Science Foundation, NOAA, EPA or any other money to continue with the research. Rainfall in Africa can similarly be correlated to depositional events in large lakes. They get the results, do a Fourier Analysis and "outliers" are pretty much thrown out. The experiments are repeated ad naseum by different scientific teams, they argue about it and then the most reproducible result is taken into account and applied to the theory at hand. Then some zit faced geek kid going after his Masters degree may come and disprove something held as tenet within the scientific community. He/she challenges the status quo and becomes the new superstar... until disproven... and on and on it goes. I went to graduate school twice, but did not want to spend a lifetime digging for oil, which is basically what my specialty of Structural Geology is used for. I felt the environmental issues were a little more pertinent. Anyhow, I have to go study, throw together a pig costume and go hang out with my friend's kids. Hope it doesn't rain tonight. I can't friggin spell right when I am in a hurry... (Message edited by Whatever on October 31, 2011) | ||
| Court |
>>>>Kerry Livgren Rocks! That is an accurate statement.  Kerry could use our prayers . . . . . http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-09-01/kerry_livgren_falls_ill#.Tq7Ws2BU2vM (Message edited by court on October 31, 2011) | ||
| Whatever |
Here is the page for the professor I worked with. The guy is a genius and has very high standards. He graduated from Scripps, which is the best of the best as far as Ocean Sciences. Nice guy, but he almost killed me in Physical Oceanography class. Applied calculus and statistics, yuck. It was fun to hook back up with him when I worked for the Red Cliff Tribe in Northern Wisconsin when we were trying to do some original research funded by EPA on the Superfund site there in Ashland. http://www.d.umn.edu/llo/people/tjohnson.html | ||
| Kyrocket |
This is all I have to contribute to the climate change theory; I rarely, if ever, watch anything on global weather but I do watch the local news who has been keeping records since the 1880's sometime. More often than not our record high temperatures were recorded in the late 30's or 40's and our record lows were more recent, like the 70's or later. I know this is all local to me and the global jibber jabber talks about rising oceans, melting ice caps and what-not but I just can't make that leap. | ||
| Whatever |
I do not trust the media myself, but I do trust science. The media is always going to put their spin on things. Numbers do not lie. Just my opinion as a scientist. | ||
| Slaughter |
Blake, Somebody apparently hacked your posts: "DAMNS" should be "DAMS" DAM IT is an expression used to demand that water be flow-controlled or contained. DAMNIT is a bit more shall we say... demanding?? | ||
| Court |
Darn | ||
| Sifo |
Darn Is Court knitting? | ||
| Blake |
Dam the typos? Char, I understand the data and the statistics. Not questioning its integrity for what it is, not at this point anyway. I accept it. I just don't see the correlation to the alarmism. Another question, does elevated CO2 lead or follow rises in global temperature? Recapping other skeptical points: Sea level is dropping. Explain? How can sea level decrease if the oceans are both warming and ice caps are melting? >>> You look at glaciers retreating, the carbon record in Antartic ice, the levels of carbonate in sea sediments on top of the measurements in the atmosphere it all matches up. Matches up to what?  I'm seriously asking. With what does the history of carbonate levels in sea sediments match up? The global climate warming has been warming. Okay. It's warming catastrophically? I don't see it. Was it not much warmer not too long ago during the medieval warm period? Didn't civilization prosper then? There was much much more ice long ago, yes? Migration occurred across the bearing strait land bridge, but sea level rose making that impossible. Was that a catastrophe? The point being that the remnants of the last ice age have been diminishing for a long long time, yes? Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide? At some points in history it was much more elevated than now though, yes? Caused by what? The next ten years will tell us much, and as you say, China and India aren't going to curtail CO2 emissions, so ... ? Why are the oil and coal industries bad and greedy? I'll never understand that view. Cheap energy saves lives, boosts prosperity,; it's a good thing. If you said OPEC, an illegal trade cartel, was greedy, then I'd agree wholeheartedly! Posted on Monday, October 31, 2011 - 12:21 pm: Char, >>> Anyhow, I guess the review of 1.2 BILLION records on climate temperature is not enough for some people who like to deny that climate change is real. Who is denying that climate changes? Seriously, when that kind of accusation is tossed out, it tends to diminish the credibility of its proponent(s) as it doesn't seem like they are listening at all or willing to participate in honest objective debate. The point that skeptics raise is that the climate changes all the time and that its mere changing is NOT justification for alarmism. It has been both much warmer and much colder in the planet's history. The worse of the two for human prosperity was the colder periods. In fact the most recent warmer period was a time of great prosperity for human kind. Does none of this sink in? At some point simple reason and logic must come to bear against alarmism being justified by forensic science, yes?. I question the entire underlying premise of anthropogenic climate change alarmists. Why is it more bad than good if the climate warms? It seems the alarmists (not saying you are one) only ever represent the negative consequences of a warmer climate. Does that reflect honesty? Not in my view. Greenland actually used to be much greener. Why is returning to the climate that allowed that a bad thing? Has not in general the climate been warming since the last ice-age, then the so-called mini-ice age such that glaciers have been retreating? Are we to expect the remnants of an ice age to remain for eternity? Or is it logical that they would diminish over time, and for some periods more rapidly than others? I think what is most missing from the discussion is simple honest reasoned debate. Why is that? Why won't anyone answer the simple questions? The big money argument is much more applicable to the MASSIVE global gov't funding than that provided by big industry skeptics. The difference in magnitudes between the two is immense, yet the nearly negligible in comparison funding for skeptical research is that which is dismissed as being corrupted by money??? Huh??? (Message edited by blake on October 31, 2011) | ||
| Harleyelf |
CO2 both leads and follows warming trends. The historical high levels were during our volcanic period of geologic history. The artificially created sort we have now does act as a blanket to keep heat in the earth. The real issue is the Van Allan Belts we destroyed sixty years ago with our nuclear tests. There used to be seven, now there are two. They no longer protect us from the cosmic radiation as well as before and so now the new plant life, which would otherwise absorb the excess CO2, is inhibited from developing. Is it serious? Yes. Is it going to kill us all? Not this year. | ||
| Chauly |
Harleyelf: What are you talking about? The Van Allen Radiation Belts still exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Radiation_B elts It appears they don't have anything to do with plant life, either. You're thinking of, maybe, something else? | ||
| Hootowl |
I think so. And there are two, and have only ever been two. I also don't understand how a nuclear detonation (on Earth) could have any effect on them whatsoever. | ||
| Whatever |
Come on Blake. You really want to argue with me that benevolent do good corporations will save us all from ourselves? Almost every major environmental and safety rule in the US has been a reaction to companies both big and small that do not do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. If you have real questions about paleoclimatology, you should probably contact an expert who has dedicated his life to studying the issues, like my friend Tom Johnson. I am not into a debate for the sake of a debate... its old already. | ||
| Harleyelf |
My 1935 encyclopedia says there are seven. The testing which dispersed them was high in the atmosphere. Each of the previous layers protected us against a particular wavelength of radiation; now that there are only two, much more radiation gets through. This is also related to the skin cancer levels more than ozone is. | ||
| Hootowl |
In 1935 those belts were theoretical. They weren't actually measured until the late 50s. There are two. They exist several earth diameters away from the earth, and there is no way any terrestrial nuclear detonation would disrupt them, let alone disperse them, even if they were in the upper atmosphere, or even right in the middle of the belts. They are created by solar winds and stellar radiation interacting with the Earth's magnetic field. They would be unaffected by the miniscule amount of radiation generated by an atomic weapon. | ||
| Blake |
>>> You really want to argue with me that benevolent do good corporations will save us all from ourselves? Gee no. Whoever asserted such a thing? What are we to be saved from? I was just hoping for some answers to what seem like simple questions. How does it play if we turn that question around a bit?... You really want to argue that benevolent do-good government will save us all from ourselves? From what threat? My point re gov't was the much greater threat it poses versus corporations based on history. There just is no comparison. | ||
| Blake |
H-Elf, Pretty sure any increase in incidence of skin cancers are due to recent abundance of recreational time, the weekend warrior effect, a benefit of prosperity in America. | ||
| Sifo |
>>> You look at glaciers retreating, the carbon record in Antartic ice, the levels of carbonate in sea sediments on top of the measurements in the atmosphere it all matches up. Matches up to what? I think she is saying that all these things add up to the same conclusion. That climate changes. I don't think anyone is arguing that point though. I've noticed that most AGW believers don't represent the skeptics side of the argument accurately most of the time. If that's done through ignorance, then they really haven't examined the issue very well, have they? If it's done through dishonesty, they don't have much faith in their position, do they? The artificially created sort we have now does act as a blanket to keep heat in the earth. As apposed to natural CO2? I didn't think there was a difference. I've never, ever seen the Van Allen radiation belts discussed in a global warming discussion before. Links? | ||
| Kenm123t |
Blake you just got the Fancy your too _____ understand what I dont understand so talk to this guy treatment. Char news flash all of those corps you hate so much have provided the world with improved living standards. Royalty 100 years ago lived a lesser life than any of the so called Poor today. Your lifestyle is based on the work of 3 men for the most part Edison Westinghouse and Rockefeller Edison developed lighting and the basis of the power Grid, Westinghouse employed Tesla and developed A/C power Edison was right DC is easier to control at point of use. Westinghouse/Tesla were right about A/C for lower transmission losses. Rockefeller fueled the power plants with oil much easier to control than a coal fired plant. | ||
| Brumbear |
Ya ever FART and a corn nugget come out? | ||
| Aesquire |
Blake, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp-BDqQ0aMo&feature =fvst Even better for this thread. Always loved Kansas. Overindulgent orchestral long winded progressive rock with a ......... great fiddle player, awe inspiring lyrics and the best songs never played on radio since they're 12 minutes long. The state's not that bad either. ...but I do trust science Good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_dat a.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core Did the recent rise in CO2 come before or after the late 20th century warm spell? Which of these 2 statements represents science? 1. We don't have all the answers. 2. The science is settled. If it is known that a data source faked the data, why use that source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controve rsy http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004 /12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ And, a good view of faked data, WITHOUT the medieval warm period that was added after the obvious was pointed out ( see wiki article ) The Obvious being presenting a model that's supposed to predict the future ( Zombies! ) that is so blatantly not predicting the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_cha rt_ipcc_large.jpg Climate Change is real. Ask the people of Petra. Ask the Anasazi. Ask the Vikings living in Greenland. ( oops, sorry, they are all dead or moved away because of climate change ) "Global Warming" as presented by the media and the companies making lots of money on it is a scam. "The Science is Settled" means "I'm a con man" or you are foolish enough to believe a politician that has made hundreds of millions of dollars off unregulated investment cons. The worst part is the damage this does to Science. The boy that cried wolf. IF there was an actual disaster coming, how can we believe someone who we know is a liar? And 1 question Char can answer, I hope. Is the acid rise in the Oceans due to Sulfuric or carbolic acid? The dead forests in upstate NY are due to sulfuric acid from Ohio tall stack coal power plants. ( Germany has like problems from upwind coal plants too ) | ||
| Whatever |
Aw Ken, do we really have to go back to your suposed all knowing analysis of my emotional state? Ask anyone who has met me in person if I have your imaginary hate complex you are so attached to. It seems to be the least common denominator you resort to for lack of words. I don't even hate 'so called enemies', quite frankly it is a waste of energy and a waste of time. | ||
| Aesquire |
Heck, Char, you understand the native American right thing better than most I talk to. I've passed guys jacklighting deer from a pickup trolling down the shoulder of the expressway. Legal. ( expressway runs though Reservation Land. ) The Government took an entire continent and left the natives with the right to fish and hunt. Venison out of "season" doesn't make up for the millions of acres you can't ride over anymore. NY reservations are a trip to me. Smokeshops, casinos, nice houses. I'm used to the Lakota Sioux reservations, which are not like that at all. ( though they may have smokeshops and casinos today, It's been a while...... come to think of it, before the idiots in DC and Albany taxed cigarettes up to $10 a pack, the local rez's looked like I remember the Dakota ones......hmmm....... ) Anyhoo.... of the top of your head, carbolic or sulfuric acidifying the oceans? | ||
| Whatever |
I also know what Blake's views are and I know what my views are and I do not hold any ill will toward him or anyone else that has different views. It, quite simply put, is not worth the effort. Arguing about stuff on an on-line forum is the last way to change someone's mind about something, if that is what you intend to do. If you find entertainment value in it, so be it. I refer him to someone I personally know has dedicated their life to studying these things. In other words, I don't try to pretend to be something that I am not. Ask me about dam removal programs or stormwater runoff or NPDES permits or toxics in the Great Lakes I might be able to answer most of your questions because I worked in the field for more than six years and a good time of that I spent researching the science. One Tribe I worked for contained probably some of the biggest skeptics of modern toxicology you can find... the traditional Anishinabe for spiritual reasons never believed and probably never will believe, in concept, that any introduced element in any water body is at all acceptable on any level. The very backbone of the Federal Water Quality Standards program that wanted to back up their desires to keep the water as clean as possible was something quite frankly entirely rejected by the very people I worked for. But after six months of hard work we came to an understanding and we got the requirements hammered out in a legal document that was bulletproof under any challenge that may have come up potentially. It was what they wanted so we got it done. I enjoyed the challenge quite frankly because of the sheer impossibility of pulling it off. They were supposed to get it done almost three years before we had it done because of these differences that were very difficult to convey to people who had such a wide variety of experience and beliefs. Scientists versus traditional spiritual practitioners. I was honored to do the work. If I "hate" corporations, supposedly, can anyone tell me why I just completed over 450 applications to corporate positions in the last 6 months? Does that just sound like a fun thing to do? Right on... | ||
| Whatever |
A- The only chemical oceanography I know about is from a geologic perspective. I can try to get it right but maybe I don't understand it entirely. The temperature and the light has to be just right, and also I assume so does the pH as well. Calcium carbonate production is a function of productivity of calcium carbonate organisms. If you look at the white muds (or technically called ooze) you see in the Bahamas, the critters in the water (and they may just have one or two cells) have to have the right conditions to grow, just like a coral reef has to have the right condition to grow as well. Where the bottom of the ocean is too cold for production of carbonate producing organisms, you get what is called the "snow line"... basically, just like on a mountain that has no trees above a certain altitude, but the inverse of that, so shallow warm waters produce the most "snow" ie. foraminifera that have tiny microscopic shells made of calcite and deeper and colder waters have no productivity at all. |
