Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is typical armageddonism, and I reject it completely. And if we can’t solve the problem with technological adaptation, then we should die. Paying bribes to third world countries with our hard earned money must never be on the table. And allowing the State to oppress us with carbon taxes is also a non-starter. We need free and voluntary methods of adaptation to the new warm world. Making it colder by taxation and redistribution is ludicrous, impossible, tyrannical, and we are better off extinct than going that route.
Wilfully ignoring facts is hardly a rational means of making future plans. Ignoring available technology because you don't think it is Politically Correct is nonsense.
As for "paying bribes to third world countries," what do you think we have been doing with our oil imports?
Wilfully ignoring facts is hardly a rational means of making future plans. Ignoring available technology because you don't think it is Politically Correct is nonsense.
As for "paying bribes to third world countries," what do you think we have been doing with our oil imports?
Military defense is a legitimate function of government. Stealing our money through carbon taxation and/or redistributing our wealth to third world craphole countries is not.
If climate change cannot be dealt with through free and voluntary market-driven adaptation, then it should not be dealt with at all.
Climate change cannot be dealt with through the free and voluntary market-driven adaptation.
Climate change cannot be dealt with through the free and voluntary market-driven adaptation.
That is an assertion, but it is not a fact. And, if it can’t be dealt with in that way, then extinction is preferable to tyranny. Once we are gone, we will likely re-evolve over millions of years. Hopefully we will do better next time. If not, life is a cycle.
Wilfully ignoring facts is hardly a rational means of making future plans. Ignoring available technology because you don't think it is Politically Correct is nonsense.
As for "paying bribes to third world countries," what do you think we have been doing with our oil imports?
The only future plans I want to hear about are plans that involve freedom, liberty, and private property rights. Climate change technology that requires coercion and taxation are non-starters.
As for oil imports, we are a net exporter at this point. And we should keep developing our reserves so as to remain a net exporter.
We should also increase natural gas exploration and production to keep us flush with good cheap energy.
Are you in the Northern Part of the US? If so it was covered in Ice 20,000 years ago and the Great lakes were only formed 10-14,000 years ago.
Alaskan Glaciers started receding big time around 1750 to 1900.
What caused all of that and why is now any different ?
Hi Rakin,
I think you are asking about the features of two different times and what is different today.
20,000 years ago was the maximum glaciation of the last ice age, this the result of reduced solar radiation for the high-latitude Northern summers which 100,000 years ago triggered an increase in the amount of ice-covered land/ocean in high Northern latitudes. The level of ice was amplified by the increased albedo of the ice reflecting away greater levels of solar radiation and by the reduced GHGs (CO2 & methane) caused by the cooling global climate having a net draw-down of such gases.
Thus we find the Laurentide & Cordilleran ice sheets covering mainly Canada and beyond, extending to cover the sites of today's Great Lakes. (The map below ignores changing coast lines.) It thus requires the Laurentide Ice Sheet to melt considerably before the Great Lakes can exist, their formation reportedly beginning 14,000 years ago.
We now leap forward to a time when the Cordilleran ice sheet has long gone. Over recent times the dynamics of glaciers is not always determined by local temperature. A sea-terminating glacier will likely spend most of its days slowing advancing and then, becoming unstable, undergo a short period of rapid retreat. And reduced/increased snowfall can cause a glacier to shrink/expand.
So is there evidence that "Alaskan Glaciers started receding big time around 1750 to 1900" Solomina et al (2016) who, in an analysis of global glaciers over the last two millenia, examine land-terminated glaciers in Alaska and see no sign of it. Their Fig 2 shows a GEI index indicating a fluctuation in local glacier size which peaked at about 1880AD. This would explain a "receding big time around ... 1900" but not the earlier 1750 date. Other research may give differing timings but it seems unlikely that there is any proper support for a 1750 to 1900 date. Can you provide support for this bold assertion of your's?
And "why is now any different"? The unprecedented global rise in temperatures will impact glaciers globally, including Alaska.
"farming techniques" caused a series of 12 year droughts......LOL!!!!!!!
National Drought Mitigation Center
Of all the droughts that have occurred in the United States, the drought events of the 1930s are widely considered to be the “drought of record” for the nation. The 1930s drought is often referred to as if it were one episode, but it was actually several distinct events occurring in such rapid succession that affected regions were not able to recover adequately before another drought began.
That poster stated that farming techniques of the time caused the dust bowl, not the droughts.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22
just when you think......."severe drought"
yeah farming techniques... they didn't have deep wells, pumps, and irrigation
...there was no water....dust bowl...get it?
Um, that's not how it works.
Drought does not cause dust bowls.
Drought may or may not be a contributing factor in the creation of a dust bowl. In this instance, it was a contributing factor, but not a causal factor.
There was a 16-year drought that caused the collapse of the first three Roanoke Colonies in Virginia.
That is based on testimony from the survivors of the first two colonies, the testimony of indigenous tribes in the area, tree ring data, and soil sample data.
Note there was no dust bowl.
A 14-year drought in the Southeast during the latter part of the 19th Century was devastating, but no dust bowl.
The oral histories of Plains Indians note a number of droughts, but no dust bowls.
The oral histories of the Hopi, Zuni and Navajo note a number of droughts, but no dust bowls.
Archeological evidence indicates several indigenous civilizations in the Southwest collapsed due to drought, but no evidence of dust bowls.
Written history going back 7,000 years to the first civilization in Sumer records droughts, but no dust bowls.
The Hebrews traveled from Canaan to Egypt due to a severe drought, but there was no dust bowl.
Droughts are common and have nothing to do with climate change.
It's all dependent on land usage.
The method of farming in Europe and the British Isles was designed to prevent dust bowls during droughts. However, it also resulted in depleting the soils of minerals leading to continually reduced crop yields.
That problem was solved with the three-field crop rotation farming method. It prevented dust bowls and increased crop yields.
Farming methods have nothing to do with digging wells or irrigation. It's about how the fields are prepared and maintained year after year.
Your claim also fails because when Earth gets warmer, it gets wetter, not drier.
Climate change cannot be dealt with through the free and voluntary market-driven adaptation.
Sure it will.
I've explained ad nauseum in detail. The fact you don't understand it doesn't mean it won't work.
You need not do anything, and nothing you do will change anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
The unprecedented global rise in temperatures will impact glaciers globally, including Alaska.
Nothing is unprecedented. Try science.The science is settled:
Palaeo data suggest that Greenland must have been largely ice free during Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS-11). The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today.
“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.
That is an assertion, but it is not a fact. And, if it can’t be dealt with in that way, then extinction is preferable to tyranny. Once we are gone, we will likely re-evolve over millions of years. Hopefully we will do better next time. If not, life is a cycle.
We can certainly choose extinction over a small increase in electricity prices. Based on current trends, we probably will choose extinction. We humans are showing, by our actions, that extinction is better than paying 20% more for electricity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
