Screw climate change

a reply to: deadlyhope

You are spot-on here. We spend so much time talking about it we forget it is normal for Earth's climate to be variable. Its how it carves itself out.

The real issue...is man's effect on speeding up natural climate change. But 1st, the whole world would have to admit they are affecting natural and normal climate change.

Look at photos of India, or Tokyo with people walking the street with face masks due to man made pollution/germs. The air in some of these photos is gray, thick and even to ground level with man-made pollutants.

We've all long, long way to go...but shouldnt stop trying. If only for our children's, children's, children.

a reply to: deadlyhope

The European Commission plans to unveil long-delayed ‘ecodesign’ restrictions on small household appliances in the autumn. They are expected to ban the most energy-inefficient devices from sale in order to cut carbon emissions.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


It'll be here in the US before long.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I really don't know if man made climate change is a real thing or not, in large part -- as you said -- because neither "side" can be trusted. What I do know though is that if those screaming the loudest about climate change really believed their hype, then they would be the first ones to set the proper example for the rest of us. But they don't. Instead we see crap like this:

Wha t planet are you on, Leo? DiCaprio flies his LA friends 6,000 miles around the world so they can listen to his speech on GLOBAL WARMING

And this:

Paris climate change conference creates its own massive carbon footprint

And this:

Gore Defends Mansion's Power Consumption

I'll believe their fearmongering hype when they do.

In the meantime, there's plenty we could do -- and SHOULD DO -- to clean up our air, water, food and soil. Instead, we continue to be poisoned while the crony capitalists doing the major polluting laugh all the way to the bank.

a reply to: intrptr

What data...

Data that is too specific to my location for me to be comfortable providing. But you can peruse this:
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov...

a reply to: stosh64

I guess you didn't actually read what I wrote. I don't live on a beach.
High tides are getting higher.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

laid upon us , we are not going to make the 300 years or so for the climate change effect

We're seeing the effects. But but by the end of this century there will be a lot more. At this rate, in 300 years things will be very, very bad.

I live by the waterside. In the past five years high tides have been getting higher than I've ever seen them. My yard is going away.

So----what have you done to prevent the erosion of your yard? You do realize that there are methods to prevent erosion? Have you employed those methods or just sit there watching it go and waiting for someone to "save" you? You really expect nothing to change in the world where water and soil/sand come into contact with each other?
You sound a lot like a landowner that lives on the other side of a creek from me. He cut all the trees along the creek bank because he didn't want to rake leaves. Several years later he presented me with a very costly plan for stabilizing the creek bank on his side and expected me to share the costs with him even though, having allowed the trees on my side of the creek to remain, my side isn't eroding.
So, what measures have you taken to prevent further erosion on your property?

a reply to: diggindirt

So----what have you done to prevent the erosion of your yard?

This is not a matter of the shoreline moving landward. There is a seawall which prevents that. But, because tides are getting higher, the seawall is being inundated and the seawater is now reaching places it didn't reach before. I have not yet undertaken heightening the seawall because of cost and a convoluted permitting process which involves the City, State, and US Government. Any work on or near the shoreline requires such. I'm not actually certain I can obtain the necessary permits.

You really expect nothing to change in the world where water and soil/sand come into contact with each other?

I grew up in, on, and around the ocean. I am quite aware of beach erosion. This is not that.

You sound a lot like a landowner that lives on the other side of a creek from me.

Higher tides are not the same thing as wandering creek beds.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
As if we could change the sun, which is THE biggest factor in global temps.

Well DUH it is the largest source of heat but as per fricking usual you deniers can't think beyond a simplistic single step. It's not just the amount of heat but how that heat is absorbed and/or radiated back out into space that affects our climate. That is where the CO2 mechanism kicks in.

Gordon Bennett give me strength........

a reply to: deadlyhope

In October of 2008, we ordered alternative energy components to take most of our usage off-grid. We had a hurricane that kicked our collective asses and a few months later, the stuff we ordered came. We were about four months without conventional power.

Since then, our monthly power costs from the grid have gone from $450/month to $120/month. We spent $12,000 for solar panels, 250W wind genny, charge controllers, DC disconnect, several yards of wiring and conduit, concrete, batteries, etc. etc. Because of our high cost of power, it paid for itself in four years.

You know what the rub is? The cost of creating solar panels is several times our "footprint" . Now, lately, there are a few companies that use solar power to create solar panels. That is pure.

We bought BP panels, because they carried a 20-year guarantee. If we'd have foreseen the damage BP did to the Gulf of Mexico, we'd have chosen another company. So it goes.

You can make your own way, get off the grid. It is nearly impossible for city dwellers to do so.

I don't believe that humans were designed to live SO close together.

a reply to: argentus

I don't believe that humans were designed to live SO close together.

Huh.
I didn't take you for one of those on the "designed" side of the fence.

a reply to: Phage

You're right not to do so; that was a poor choice of word within context of modern view. When rabbits are enclosed too closely together, they war on each other. Sweet, little cuddly rabbits. Humans are no better.

How about this: The human system does poorly when couched closely together with others of its species; they fare much better when spread out.

a reply to: argentus

The human system does poorly when couched closely together with others of its species; they fare much better when spread out.

People are social animals, that is undeniable. We thrive when living amongst others (of our species and others). Since we tend to congregate in larger and larger groups it would seem that there is some advantage.

Personally, I like people but I don't like crowds. Or cities. Avoid both when I can.

a reply to: Phage

Yes. Isn't that a mutually-exculsive ideal? We both appear to want to live together, and yet cause each other strife when we do so.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: argentus

The human system does poorly when couched closely together with others of its species; they fare much better when spread out.

People are social animals, that is undeniable. We thrive when living amongst others (of our species and others). Since we tend to congregate in larger and larger groups it would seem that there is some advantage.

Personally, I like people but I don't like crowds. Or cities. Avoid both when I can.

My two cents. Humans do great when they live closer together in groups small enough that they know everyone. When they live too close to a bunch of strangers, we turn into a bunch of nut cases. It's not that different from other social animals. Also, I've always thought our natural dislike of the smells of other humans (b.o., gas, etc.) Is an evolutionary mechanism so that we all tend to avoid living in too close proximity. You know, to prevent plagues and such. Just my own pet theory.

Well, if you distrust all current science (can't say I blame you) but love our planet, one of the very best things you can do for the earth is prevent human encroachment on undeveloped areas. As humans, we sprawl all over the world and destroy habitat all over the planet. So if you want to get active, join your local nature lovers and start raising money to buy up acreage and never develop it. Or do the same with a big group of hunting buddies to set aside land just for hunting. Or work with your local park district to make more nature trails. Or try to get your local government councils to deny permits to developers on unspoiled land. Or fight clearcut logging or mountaintop removal.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
In a nutshell, your sources talk about solar activity in the form of sunspots and what effect that may have on the climate in the future. In particular, if reduced solar activity could result in a cooling trend (similar to the "Little Ice Age"). The thing is, sunspot activity has been declining, while temperatures have been rising.

Your first source, the most recent of your lot:

The study concludes that although the temperature changes expected from future solar activity are much smaller than the warming from human carbon dioxide emissions, regional climate variability associated with the effects of solar output on the ocean and atmosphere should be taken into account when making future climate projections.

www.astrobio.net...

I know what those sources state. I also know that there are many scientists who believe that solar activity is THE deciding factor, far more than anything we do. Mainstream sources will take the global warming position, every time. Do some deeper looking, and you can find more information. When they start looking into hypothetical causes for warming on other planets in the solar system, instead of accepting the most obvious conclusion, it's clear that there is bias involved. Denying clear data, in favor of pushing the theory of man-made global warning, isn't good science. Too much data in support of that has been found to be falsified, anyway. There is no real credibility.

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Global warming claims 'based on false data'

New Study Crushes Global Warming Data Claims

Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

Report: Temperature Data Being Faked to Show Global Warming Breaking News at Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com... Urgent: Do You Back Trump or Hillary? Vote Here Now!

Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

Real scientific studies don't need to lie and falsify data. Climate change/global warming studies are pseudoscience a best.

Denying ignorance includes rejecting proven frauds.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Ah, gish galloping. A technique usually reserved to those who have no actual leg to stand upon.

Let's summarize;
1) You posted a number of links regarding the relationship of solar activity, as indicated by sunspot number, to climate. In order, apparently, to show that human activity may not be the primary cause of warming.
2) I point out that solar activity, as indicated by sunspot number, has been declining while global temperatures have been rising.
3) You post a bunch of links which seem to be claiming that the rise in global temperatures is not actually occurring at all. That it's a lie.

How about this; present one source at a time, which you consider credible and provide your interpretation of what is being said and why you consider it to be credible and how it relates to solar activity and its effect on climate. Then we can have an actual discussion of its merits. Do any of them say that solar activity has been increasing? That might be a good starting point.

a reply to: Phage
So you've actually done nothing to prevent the erosion except complain.
I know about permits, just finished the permitting process for an area of our field that was beginning to erode due to the unusually wet spring we had this year. It takes action to keep things in shape, not just whining on the internet about some imagined "climate change."
And just so you know, soil erosion is just that, erosion, which happens when water meets soil/sand, whether in a creek or on the ocean. Complaining about it without taking action to prevent it doesn't make it stop. Yes, it takes money and time and effort to maintain and protect your property but it is what responsible landowners do.

a reply to: diggindirt

So you've actually done nothing to prevent the erosion except complain.

Not complaining. Expressing my personal experience with rising sea levels. It's happening. I can see it. It is affecting me directly.

Yes, it takes money and time and effort to maintain and protect your property but it is what responsible landowners do.

I said "yet." I know it's my responsibility to deal with my seawall at some point. Did I say someone else should do so?

a reply to: Phage

What you can see, taste, smell, etc - Is the most relevant. Large cities with toxic air need cleaning up, straight up. It would reduce pollution and greenhouse gases, but equally if not more importantly - People would be for it, more likely. It's not partisan to want to see the mountains while breathing safe air. It's not partisan to desire clear water, not brown/green/purple water.

Sure, what we can't see might kill us - But you're not going to convert people to your cause if they can't actually see proof, even the scientists seem to be dumb about this topic, paid to have this opinion or that, or to make this statement or that, subscribing to such people is basically religion.