Should storm-damaged states get federal aid?

archer wrote: rockdoc....this subject is really no different than the Obama birth certificate issue.....they know what they know and no evidence to the contrary will change their minds.

There own evidence refutes their claims. The temperature graphs they used are scaled up to one tenth of degree. Temperatures over the past 50 years have not been measured in tenths...when you scale the graphs by a degree ...there is not even a blip of movement. Furthermore it's ignorant scientist who believe that man can control the temperature of the earth...or change the temperature of the earth to move up OR DOWN.

I personally don't think that scientists have come up with difinitive evidence of man-made global warming, but I do believe we are in the midst of a global climate change.

When you repeat the lie often enough, you will believe the lie.

It tells me though, that years of spewing toxins in the air has to have a negative effect on our planet....same as the pollution in the waters and the ground have had an effect. It is pure human arrogance to think that we can treat the earth as a garbage dump and not pay for it later. Wed personally may not pay, but our descendents certainly will. We can never go back to the way we were before the industrial revolution, but we can, and should, mitigate what we can and make plans for the future.

We do pay for polluting the land, water, and air...that's why we have specific laws for clean up and containment. However, the use of toxins and humans generating waste will and must continue to sustain our lifestyles. If we believe otherwise, we will need to live like the pioneers and revert to the medicine techniques of that age too - because there will be no way for large cities or towns to handle the waste generated by humans. Maybe, that's the goal of the leftist scientist.

My understanding is (and please correct me if I am wrong) that a few degrees change in average temperature will over time change entire agricultural zones, and also effect ocean life. It will also melt enough ice to change the ocean levels.

Again, repeat the lie often enough and one will believe. Yes, from season to season the weather patterns change. Duh!
We believe that there is a four month season cycle...how do we know that the four season cycle isn't just a sub-season of a bigger cycle? We don't! Imagine the horror of the pioneers when they migrated west.... winter was six months in Colorado compared with fours months in North Carolina. I bet they thought the earth was going back into an ice age.

We are no longer nomadic people, we don't move with the slow changes in climate like our ancient ancesters did, if the climates changes drastically where we live humans will have to adapt......if we can slow the progress of that change down then we will have longer to plan how to deal with it.

Can you prove your migration claims? I would suggest that in cities where the average temperatures have risen ...is not from the humans or use of petro fuels. I would suggest the increase of temperatures are due to the use of concrete, asphalt, and roofing materials. In other words, these materials store more heat than the ambient earth - thus, growing cities and towns might see an average temperature increase. I would also suggest that reservoirs of water has change the local micro climates because of the increase evaporation.

Denver is a great example of that. It's amazing that Denver always warmer than areas twenty or more miles to the North, East, West, and South. I seriously doubt the founders of Denver selected the spot because it was the warmest part of Colorado.

At the end of day, everyone should conserve resources and make wise uses....but we don't need to legislate the conservation efforts and we certainly don't need to tax cheap energy to make the libtards and environwhacks happy.

Should it be proven that this change is not man made, and nothing we do will change it, then what have we lost? nothing. But, we will have gained cleaner air, less polluted waters, and more fertile ground to grow food for our ever increasing numbers. Seems like a win-win to me.

We are losing more fertile ground every year because the some bureaucrat makes laws to prohibit farming. In California, some of the most fertile grounds in the world lay wasted because the water has been prohibited to flow. The water prohibition is because of some "endangered" crap. In the midwest, farmers must contain the dust generated from their farming efforts. In the south, farmers can't farm their land with fertilizers so their yields are lower and makes farmer unprofitable. But hey, something is cleaner or saved because of our efforts.

The Sustainability of STUPIDITY continues.

:bravo:

RT wrote:

1) If they are currently unemployed or on entitlements, send them to another part of the state or country where Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have an extra house. Charge them reduced rent. Problem solved.

That's a good one. If they are retired, they lose their social structure, their family, people who could help them. Just put them in boxcars, why don't you, while you're at it? Saves money.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

major bean wrote: Which doctored emails have you received from the "experts" which convinced you? 100 feet? Until your post, it has always been a couple of dozen inches.
I did not know that people who study dirt and rocks are weather experts. Interesting.

There are a lot of things you have no clue about. Just a little information for you. Climatic change is not weather. Relative changes in sea level as well as changes in climate leave a signal in sedimentary rocks. The pleistocene low stand left wave cut terraces on the reefs there that are now 125 feet below sea level. Mangrove peat that forms at sea level is already 20 or more feet below sea leave in many places like Florida and Belize. Perhaps you ought to do a little research to calculate the total rise in sea level once all the ice melts.

When did this 20 foot change that you claim actually take place? It would seem that mangrove peat would disappear somewhat rapidly in an underwater environment. I haven't heard of the Crystal River nuclear power plant having any trouble due to rising water levels. I haven't heard of anyone with beach front property losing their homes due to this. 20' is a huge amount of change and would wipe out most of the Florida coast.

Uploaded with [url=http://imageshack.us:19znhoit]ImageShack.us[/url]

archer wrote: rockdoc....this subject is really no different than the Obama birth certificate issue.....they know what they know and no evidence to the contrary will change their minds.

I personally don't think that scientists have come up with difinitive evidence of man-made global warming, but I do believe we are in the midst of a global climate change. Logic tells me though, that years of spewing toxins in the air has to have a negative effect on our planet....same as the pollution in the waters and the ground have had an effect. It is pure human arrogance to think that we can treat the earth as a garbage dump and not pay for it later. Wed personally may not pay, but our descendents certainly will. We can never go back to the way we were before the industrial revolution, but we can, and should, mitigate what we can and make plans for the future. My understanding is (and please correct me if I am wrong) that a few degrees change in average temperature will over time change entire agricultural zones, and also effect ocean life. It will also melt enough ice to change the ocean levels.

We are no longer nomadic people, we don't move with the slow changes in climate like our ancient ancesters did, if the climates changes drastically where we live humans will have to adapt......if we can slow the progress of that change down then we will have longer to plan how to deal with it. Should it be proven that this change is not man made, and nothing we do will change it, then what have we lost? nothing. But, we will have gained cleaner air, less polluted waters, and more fertile ground to grow food for our ever increasing numbers. Seems like a win-win to me.

Let me be clear here. I'm not one of those scientists who believes global warming has its roots in man made CO2 emissions. The climate change involves extrinsic factors that we do not as of yet know or understand. One such possibility is sunspot activity and the position of the earth in its eccentric orbit relative to the time of sunspot activity. I favor such views because there have been many climatic changes in the geologic past that were able to take place even without man's help. I think the climatologists have done well to recognize global warming trends from the data they have examined, BUT it is arrogant to think man once again is in control one way or another. Current arguments are all about the rate of climate change with evidence gleaned from ice cores of the bast interglacial providing the focal point for their argument. A question I'd like answered is how relevant is data from an interglacial warming relative to climatic change of a much longer duration? For example, the Cretaceous Period is a time we refer to as a greenhouse world. Sea level was higher for tens of millions of years because 1) there were no ice sheets 2) a larger part of the world was covered by ocean and 3) high tectonic plate spreading rates kept larger areas of the sea floor hot and thus isostatically higher. What is even more interesting is that carbonate producing organisms (organisms that create shells or skeletal elements out of CaCO3) were very wide spread and abundant. These organisms tie up CO2 and remove it from the atmosphere as partial pressure regulates dissolution of CO2 in seawater. So theory argues that you had a greenhouse world where the average global temperature was a few degrees higher than today, but the amount of atmospheric CO2 was lower. All this still ignores the problem of Methane contributions to the atmosphere by plants. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Up until a few years ago, no one knew that all plants produce methane. And we tend to forget that plants also respire and during those periods emit CO2 rather than use it in photosynthesis.

Sorry, I got carried away. In summary, global warming is not as simple as increased CO2 emissions. There is a lot more to it than we currently realize and man's ability to regulate the observed global warming trend is akin to man regulating sunspot activity. I'm reminded of the Borg. Resistance is futile.

I've not answered all your questions, but yes, pollution will take a toll and require considerable investment by our descendants to deal with it. Yes a few degrees temperature shift will cause significant ecologic shifts. We see warm water species with distributions much further north in the Cretaceous and other greenhouse periods than are their distributions today.

residenttroll wrote:

archer wrote: rockdoc....this subject is really no different than the Obama birth certificate issue.....they know what they know and no evidence to the contrary will change their minds.

I personally don't think that scientists have come up with difinitive evidence of man-made global warming, but I do believe we are in the midst of a global climate change.

When you repeat the lie often enough, you will believe the lie.

The whole problem is with Man-made. The fact climate change is ongoing is not a point of contention other than by those who wish to deny the evidence.

My understanding is (and please correct me if I am wrong) that a few degrees change in average temperature will over time change entire agricultural zones, and also effect ocean life. It will also melt enough ice to change the ocean levels.

Again, repeat the lie often enough and one will believe. Yes, from season to season the weather patterns change. Duh!
We believe that there is a four month season cycle...how do we know that the four season cycle isn't just a sub-season of a bigger cycle? We don't! Imagine the horror of the pioneers when they migrated west.... winter was six months in Colorado compared with fours months in North Carolina. I bet they thought the earth was going back into an ice age.

You display your ignorance here. Firstly, climate change is not seasonal change or relative changes measured on a local scale as you seem to believe, but long-term average changes recorded over periods of tens and hundreds of years across our globe.

We are no longer nomadic people, we don't move with the slow changes in climate like our ancient ancesters did, if the climates changes drastically where we live humans will have to adapt......if we can slow the progress of that change down then we will have longer to plan how to deal with it.

Can you prove your migration claims? I would suggest that in cities where the average temperatures have risen ...is not from the humans or use of petro fuels. I would suggest the increase of temperatures are due to the use of concrete, asphalt, and roofing materials. In other words, these materials store more heat than the ambient earth - thus, growing cities and towns might see an average temperature increase. I would also suggest that reservoirs of water has change the local micro climates because of the increase evaporation.

Denver is a great example of that. It's amazing that Denver always warmer than areas twenty or more miles to the North, East, West, and South. I seriously doubt the founders of Denver selected the spot because it was the warmest part of Colorado..

We are not talking about man migration or settlement. We are talking about temporal ecologic shifts of life on earth both in the sea and on land. We are not talking about local aberrations (i.e. Denver relative to other parts of the state), but the migration of tropical species thousands of miles further north as the earth warms a few degrees as evidence by paleontologic records. The migration is at a pace much faster than any plate migration that would move a continent through different climatic zones as is seen in Australia's Great barrier reef.

We are losing more fertile ground every year because the some bureaucrat makes laws to prohibit farming. In California, some of the most fertile grounds in the world lay wasted because the water has been prohibited to flow. The water prohibition is because of some "endangered" crap. In the midwest, farmers must contain the dust generated from their farming efforts. In the south, farmers can't farm their land with fertilizers so their yields are lower and makes farmer unprofitable. But hey, something is cleaner or saved because of our efforts.

The Sustainability of STUPIDITY continues.

[/quote]

Your closing statement is a double edged sword. No one political group is solely guilty of STUPIDITY. It would be helpful to keep that in mind.

You should state your reservations about "global warming" much earlier. Whenever you use the term "global warming" you are stating more than just the phrase. To qualify it now is rather very late. It is as if you say "Communism" and then later say that you do not mean communism as it is meant but rather.............

major bean wrote: You should state your reservations about "global warming" much earlier. Whenever you use the term "global warming" you are stating more than just the phrase. To qualify it now is rather very late. It is as if you say "Communism" and then later say that you do not mean communism as it is meant but rather.............

My position has not changed one bit. I'm not hedging on global warming or the rise in sea level. I'm simply going to supply a little data on mangrove peat that I promised to supply. You are right, if I have reservations I need to state them. I have stated that I think man's contributions to global warming are insignificant.

Here is the sea level curve based on peat note, we are not talking about a rise in sea level of 20 feet during our life time. Currently, the earth is in an interglacial period, which marked the beginning of the Holocene epoch. The current interglacial began between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago, which caused the ice sheets from the last glacial period to begin to disappear. Sea level has been rising ever since as shown by the graph. Melting ice so far has elevated sea level bout 82 feet relative to where it was 10,000 years ago (the last ice age).

Uploaded with [url=http://imageshack.us:1u9g6g0s]ImageShack.us[/url]

Anyone truly interested in the geologic evidence for sea level rise can peruse my library. I've many books and articles dealing with sea level changes. I've other SL curves for the Western Atlantic and Bermuda, so it is not just a local phenomena. Note the two data points that lie well off the curve. One might want to investigation the role of tectonic events on these data points.

Also, many of you only know how to think on a human time scale. It is not like sea level is rising at a rate of feet per year, rather we are looking at numbers like 3 feet per thousand years during the rapid rise. As you can see from the slope of the curve, the rate of sea level rise has declined over the past 5000 years, so we are looking at a matter of a foot to half of a foot per thousand years. Given the Gulf Coast is flatter than a pool table, even a few feet rise in se level can inundate the coastline many miles.

There's another facet of climate change, isn't there, Doc, regarding melting polar ice?

Now we're seeing the polar ice melting so much that it is possible to navigate a true "Northwest Passage" by ship, from the Atlantic to the Pacific... and with much less polar ice reflecting the sun's rays, the Earth is absorbing more solar radiation (heat) than it did previously. The melting ice is also releasing methane (a warming gas) trapped in the Arctic tundra. Greenland glaciers are moving into the sea almost twice as fast as 10 years ago.

http://zfacts.com/p/222.html