[7SierraTango]

Here's what I want to know...

We're looking in the Port Charlotte area for a lot or existing home and see all of these ugly telephone poles with power lines, etc drooping in front of every house. Besides ugly, why don't all of the power lines get buried so there is a lot less chance of power loss during storms???

[LKJ1988]

Originally Posted by 7SierraTango

Here's what I want to know...

We're looking in the Port Charlotte area for a lot or existing home and see all of these ugly telephone poles with power lines, etc drooping in front of every house. Besides ugly, why don't all of the power lines get buried so there is a lot less chance of power loss during storms???

It would cost too much and make powers bills go up jill.

[kmarc]

Originally Posted by 7SierraTango

Here's what I want to know...

We're looking in the Port Charlotte area for a lot or existing home and see all of these ugly telephone poles with power lines, etc drooping in front of every house. Besides ugly, why don't all of the power lines get buried so there is a lot less chance of power loss during storms???

I would think it might have something to do with the water table in the area.

[movingvanmorrison]

WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Science is science. If some are on the take to get grants, okay I might buy that; but thousands of them? I don't think so.

[LKJ1988]

All anyone has to do is look up all the above normal temps in FL since 2011 and do the math kath. Look at the above vs below normal and do the figs. The answer is there.

[beach43ofus]

Originally Posted by LKJ1988

All anyone has to do is look up all the above normal temps in FL since 2011 and do the math kath. Look at the above vs below normal and do the figs. The answer is there.

8 years of history out of Millions that Earth has been here...comical.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by movingvanmorrison

WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Science is science. If some are on the take to get grants, okay I might buy that; but thousands of them? I don't think so.

Science - knowledge - means repeating the same set of circumstances over and over and over and over again, even thousands of times, and getting the same result every time. Every time.

I heat a pot of water on the stove at 212 degrees or higher and it boils every time. Every time. I know that. We all know that.

We do not even have a clear and agreed definition of so-called "climate change" or "global warming" and we can not set up an experiment to test any such hypothesis, then set up the same experiment again, and again, and again, and again ... even after millions or billions of years of Earth history long before humans were present and long after they are gone ... much less get the same result.

So-called "climate change" or "global warming" as framed by these so-called "scientists", is simply not science by definition. It is, at best, an educated guess.


In parallel, there are more than 12,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC alone. More than possible, then, that there are thousands of so-called "scientists" on the payroll of lobbyists and their overlords with an agenda.

Now that's science.

Originally Posted by beach43ofus

8 years of history out of Millions that Earth has been here...comical.

[LKJ1988]

Originally Posted by beach43ofus

8 years of history out of Millions that Earth has been here...comical.

But that 8 years tell us something bra. I have been keeping records longer than you have been alive and the ramp up is getting faster and faster.

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by bale002

Science - knowledge - means repeating the same set of circumstances over and over and over and over again, even thousands of times, and getting the same result every time. Every time.

I heat a pot of water on the stove at 212 degrees or higher and it boils every time. Every time. I know that. We all know that.

We do not even have a clear and agreed definition of so-called "climate change" or "global warming" and we can not set up an experiment to test any such hypothesis, then set up the same experiment again, and again, and again, and again ... even after millions or billions of years of Earth history long before humans were present and long after they are gone ... much less get the same result.

So-called "climate change" or "global warming" as framed by these so-called "scientists", is simply not science by definition. It is, at best, an educated guess.


In parallel, there are more than 12,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC alone. More than possible, then, that there are thousands of so-called "scientists" on the payroll of lobbyists and their overlords with an agenda.

Now that's science.

The new player in the game is mans use of 100 million barrels of fosil fuel per day,scientists say there are consequences to this course of action which results in extreme weather events ,NOAA uses these methods to collect data and come to its conclusions =

The National Centers for Environmental Information contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer. Among the diverse kinds of data platforms whose data contribute to NCEI's resources are: Ships, buoys, weather stations, weather balloons, satellites, radar and many climate proxy records such as tree rings and ice cores. The National Oceanographic Data Center contains the subsurface ocean data which reveal the ways that heat is distributed and redistributed over the planet. Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future. And, for climate information that extends from hundreds to thousands of years, paleoclimatology data, also available from the National Centers for Environmental Information, helps to provide longer term perspectives.

What data do you use to come to your conclusions?

[bale002]

Originally Posted by jambo101

The new player in the game is mans use of 100 million barrels of fosil fuel per day,scientists say there are consequences to this course of action which results in extreme weather events ,NOAA uses these methods to collect data and come to its conclusions =

What data do you use to come to your conclusions?

Can we do a series of independent experiments with that 100 million barrels of fossil fuels?

These "scientists" are, at best, spewing out educated guesses.

I am not saying we should not hedge the risk, because this is a risk management issue, but it is not science. We simply don't know the future nor any one specific cause of a complex outcome.