NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[The_Doc_Man]

Actually, I understand the comments about how the dams were built assuming certain weather conditions that are no longer applicable. I understand that the climate is changing and have never denied the localized changes, only the claimed cause.

The USA is seeing a lot of flooding this year with levees being overtopped by rising waters, not only in the area of the southern Gulf of Mexico states but in the region we call the mid-west - which are inland by a few hundred miles. Even New York and New Jersey had unexpected levels of flooding.

The flooding caused by Katrina was in a way an example of shoddy workmanship but ALSO an example of putting too much stress on the levees such that they failed. Had the water not risen high enough to exert that stress on the tops of the levees, they would not have failed or would have only partly failed, reducing the effect of the high water. Our brush this year Hurricane Barry turned into a non-event because we had better levees - either built or repaired in the 14 years since Katrina.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Two things come to mind regarding levees and climate.
1. Levees have been breaching their banks since Pharaoh walked the earth.
2. If you live near one you have chosen to live below the water table, nothing to do with climate, just bad building decisions.

 

[Mark_]

The flooding caused by Katrina was in a way an example of shoddy workmanship but ALSO an example of putting too much stress on the levees such that they failed. Had the water not risen high enough to exert that stress on the tops of the levees, they would not have failed or would have only partly failed, reducing the effect of the high water. Our brush this year Hurricane Barry turned into a non-event because we had better levees - either built or repaired in the 14 years since Katrina.

I was under the impression that the hundreds of millions of dollars diverted from maintaining them had something to do with it. After all, wasn't it far more important to upgrade that non-used commercial canal than to safeguard the city? Only one was politically connected, so we know it couldn't have been the poor people protected by the levees...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mark_, the consensus we heard locally was that there were three major factors:

1. Katrina was a nasty storm that dropped too damned much water.

2. The levees were constructed in a negligent way with insufficient oversight to detect that they were sub-par. Maintenance of the levees wasn't the issue so much as initial construction using shoddy materials and practices. (But lawsuits against the Army Corps of Engineers failed due to federal protection and exclusionary laws limiting liability.)

3. Flood-control support people cut and ran rather than staying behind to get the pumps running again quickly, which would have spared the city the prolonged flooding in some areas. (Like mine, which though not deep, was flooded for 3 weeks.)

Been there, lived through it, but didn't care for the T-shirt so didn't buy it.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Is this woman for real?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez In Congress

https://youtu.be/dRv8OcSLKYA

The relevance to this thread is she is asking the guy if his bank is responsible for global warming caused by a pipeline!

 

[Insane_ai]

Is this woman for real?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez In Congress

The problem isn't how crazy she is, it's how many people support her brand of crazy.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

At last! A sensible article from a reputable source!

I love the Term:- "Doomsday Porn"

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...te-change-will-not-end-the-world-in-12-years/

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

The essence of the problem with global warming isn't that it's happening, it's that everyone thinks they understand it. They say, it's this, it's that or the other causing it. This person did this, this country did that. In other words its negative. People want to identify who's responsible for global warming, they want somebody to blame. And that's easy, that's why people think like that. What they're really saying is somebody else did it, it's not me! If you can't see how stupid that is, how you are trying to lay the blame, then it's never going to get fixed.

Hence the link to the YouTube video, where the Jordan Greenhall states his diagnosis - to paraphrase:- People are moving away from doing their own thinking, and more and more into running a script.

https://youtu.be/zQCTeGKHsVc?t=108

I wonder if it's because lots of people work in call centres now?

 

[Galaxiom]

People are moving away from doing their own thinking, and more and more into running a script.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

(Often attributed to William James but the original source is not clear.)

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Here's a very interesting article on global warming, it seems at the Sun has got a lot to do with it!

Climate change culprit? Short answer: the Sun

 

[NauticalGent]

Very thoght provoking post, Tony. Thanks for sharing...

 

[Mike375]

I thin science can be broadly put into two categories. First up is the 2+2 = 4 stuff. This is definite and not a political thing. For example at standard atmospheric pressure water boils at 100C/212F. However, if when the water boils the thermometer says 95C or 105C we know the pressure on the water is lower or higher than standard atmospheric pressure and someone could calculate that pressure on the water based on temperature it boiled.

The other area of science could be such things as climate change,
palaeontology and evolution. In this case research can often be done to get a result that means extra funding. Or it might come the other way where funding is done to get a desired result.

Even if we accepted man made climate change and the temperature will increase by 2C, what that would cause is very open to discussion. It is a bit like diet and smoking with health. The problem is you change one thing but that change does not happen in isolation, you are bound to change other things.

The demonising of smoking is an interesting one. It is very much pushed by the Pharmaceuticals and age care business and the age care business extends way beyond, a long way beyond, nursing homes. Smokers are bad for business. On average they die much faster from any disease/illness than non smokers. Heart attacks and strokes are more likely to be fatal. Not good for the Pharmaceuticals and age care business.

There is a push to get older smokers to quit under the "it is never too late". Life long smokers age 65 and over who are in good shape for their age often do very poorly when they stop smoking. The culprit is all the other things they will change. This in turn makes them customers for the Pharmaceuticals and eventually the age care business.

Do you remember in the late 1970s the big push started on the low fat, low cholesterol diet etc. and the Pritikin diet. Soy bean consumption became a big thing etc. These days things are different. Big increase in obesity etc. and etc.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Oh ! This is an eye-opener!

https://youtu.be/M7j75L38PlI

The coral reefs are OK, but don't tell anyone, as you will get the sack!

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[Galaxiom]

Here's a very interesting article on global warming, it seems at the Sun has got a lot to do with it!

Climate change culprit? Short answer: the Sun

Willie Soon's papers have been widely and thoroughly discredited as nonsense.

From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.

Notice how all the graphs end before 2000. No way he could fit what has happened this century. He has arbitrarily chosen to compare Arctic surface temperatures rather than global temperature because that better suits what he is trying to show.

Solar output is thoroughly integrated into the climate models and it is clear that changes in the output are not the cause for the temperature rise.

Anyone who finds Soon's work "thought provoking" aught to forget about commenting on climate change science since they obviously haven't a clue.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Dr Patrick Moore, (not the British Astronomer)

Fascinating insight!

https://youtu.be/S6sKPSKkvVs


He shows that it's not CO2 that is causing the warming, but it is water vapour. Exactly as I suspected, The amount of Carbon attributed to causing the warming is such a minuscule amount it is obvious that CO2 could not be responsible, as I have repeatedly stated in this thread.

 

[Galaxiom]

Dr Patrick Moore, (not the British Astronomer)

Zero credibility, denier-for-hire. His claims on climate are not supported by any real science. He has reached the point of claiming global warming will improve the planet.

The amount of Carbon attributed to causing the warming is such a minuscule amount it is obvious that CO2 could not be responsible, as I have repeatedly stated in this thread.

Repeating yourself does not render the errors in your understanding correct. You have demonstrated that you don't comprehend the science and have no interest in critically assessing the fossil fuel industry propaganda that you are dispersing.

 

[AccessBlaster]

LOl, climate change is literally the only place where left the wing drops to their knees at the altar of science. Otherwise science doesn't matter, for example late term abortion.

 

[Steve R.]

Dr. Moore presented very interesting insights since he discussed climate change in a historical context not limited to human presence. In fact one can conclude that the so-called adverse effects of climate change don't really exist since they are a manifestation reflective of a self-centered human viewpoint. If one (hypothetically) eliminates the presence of humans from the Earth, there are no adverse effects.

PS:

LOl, climate change is literally the only place where left the wing drops to their knees at the altar of science. Otherwise science doesn't matter, for example late term abortion.

The left wing also ignores science in terms of gender/sex and culture.

 

[Galaxiom]

In fact one can conclude that the so-called adverse effects of climate change don't really exist since they are a manifestation reflective of a self-centered human viewpoint. .

Hilarious misanalysis. It is the effect on the the ecosystem that is most devastating because, in the face of such rapid change, so many species don't have the ability to move or the time to evolve.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Hilarious misanalysis. It is the effect on the the ecosystem that is most devastating because, in the face of such rapid change, so many species don't have the ability to move or the time to evolve.

Then nature has selected them and us for extinction. We are a natural organism on this planet, the things we create are an extension of that.

As long as liberals get to frame the arguments they will win. Take the Prime Minster of Canada Justin Trudeau, what conservative could survive 3-4 instances of black face, answer none! They set the rules we all live in, including climate change.