Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-03-2018, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
15,293 posts, read 17,681,555 times
Reputation: 25236

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncosilly View Post
Anyone guess the hottest temp in American recorded history? 1913..........Death Valley........137 degrees. ucch ouch.


I have a bone to pick with you folks that claim the seas are raising. I have a bungalow on a west coast beach in SoCal. The place was built in the thirties and I have been going to this family hut for 68 years The tides haven't changed other than high to low and low to high. Nothing other than that. Sooo....I call hogwash to the claim.
Am I an expert?...no...but got eyes....and they work. Unlike computer forecasts.........that don't
No, your eyes don't work. Maybe you need bifocals? Sea level is rising about an eighth of an inch a year. Over the last 21 years, sea level has risen 2.6". You would need pretty good eyes to see that.

Only part of sea level rise is due to melting land ice, and much melting does nothing. For instance, the North Pole is mostly sea ice, and melting it makes no difference in sea level. Greenland is land ice, and melting that makes a difference. The rest of sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of warming oceans. That will take centuries. There's a lot of water to heat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2018, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
15,293 posts, read 17,681,555 times
Reputation: 25236
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
I challenge you to demonstrate a biome that has changed in the last 2000 yrs. Borders between tundra/arboreal forest, between arboreal forest/temperate forest, between temperate forest/grassland , etc etc change cyclically, but no region on Earth has changed from one biome to another in 10,000+ yrs.
Armadillos. Fire ants. NW Europe. The whole north shore of the Mediterranean. Biomes change all the time. If you want to claim cyclic behavior, you have to come up with a cycle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2018, 03:46 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,259 posts, read 5,131,727 times
Reputation: 17752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
Armadillos. Fire ants. NW Europe. The whole north shore of the Mediterranean. Biomes change all the time. If you want to claim cyclic behavior, you have to come up with a cycle.


I haven't been to Europe in almost 40 yrs. Are you telling me NW Eu. is now grassland and not deciduous forest and the N shore of the Mediterranean is desert without trees?


No biome has changed. Boundaries fluctuate-- the Sahara Desert is becoming fertile again on the edges, for instance and Canadian farmland with borderline productivity in the colder '60s & '70s improved yields in the '90s & '00s. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...o-agriculture/


https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...=15&ajaxhist=0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2018, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Canada
14,735 posts, read 15,033,548 times
Reputation: 34871
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post

No biome has changed. Boundaries fluctuate-- the Sahara Desert is becoming fertile again on the edges, for instance and Canadian farmland with borderline productivity in the colder '60s & '70s improved yields in the '90s & '00s.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...o-agriculture/

That improvement in Canadian agriculture wasn't because of a cease in cooling or fluctuation of northern boundaries. It happened because farmers everywhere in the country started changing several of their old agricultural practices at that time, including changing types of crops and changing from till to no-till which really caused the biggest, most noticeable of improvements in yields. Why didn't the author bother to mention that?

BTW - that wattsupwiththat site is too politically biased in the extreme and it always withholds a lot of vital information that would be contradictory to the selective information provided which is slanted toward the political bias. You shouldn't count on that site as a reliable reference as much as you do because it never tells the whole truth, only the parts of it that suits the site's own purposes and political biases. And that is not good enough.
.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2018, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
16,569 posts, read 15,271,829 times
Reputation: 14591
334 posts and not one mind changed, I am sure. For what it's worth, it's been said that if humans disappeared tomorrow and someone returned a 1000 years from now, they will barely find a trace of New Your City on earth. Nature always reclaims itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 01:35 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,259 posts, read 5,131,727 times
Reputation: 17752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
changing from till to no-till which really caused the biggest, most noticeable of improvements in yields. Why didn't the author bother to mention that?

BTW - that wattsupwiththat site is too politically biased in the extreme and it always withholds a lot of vital information that would be contradictory to the selective information provided which is slanted toward the political bias. You shouldn't count on that site as a reliable reference as much as you do because it never tells the whole truth, only the parts of it that suits the site's own purposes and political biases. And that is not good enough.
.



a) No-till does not increase yield. It's a technique to minimize soil erosion, thereby maintaining yield.


2] If WUWT seems to be political, it's because the AGW movement is nothing but politics. The scientific debate there is vastly superior to the "warmist sites" which routinely ignore the fact that all their arguments are based on fantasy computer programs and "adjusted" data.


Read Dr. Harper's final quote in this summary of a recent debate. It pretty well sums up the warmists' rhetorical tactics, given their lack of science. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/...art-d-summary/


"“Mr. Tamblyn has produced not so much a response to my Statement, as a primer on global-warming alarmism, a whole list of scary talking points and computer-generated graphs, with occasional asides to deplore how obtuse I am for not understanding the gravity of this supposedly existential threat to the planet or how ignorant I am of basic physics.”"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 08:27 AM
 
1,109 posts, read 1,251,642 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
2] If WUWT seems to be political, it's because the AGW movement is nothing but politics. The scientific debate there is vastly superior to the "warmist sites" which routinely ignore the fact that all their arguments are based on fantasy computer programs and "adjusted" data.
Really..

I think this page was either poor science or intentionally deceptive and left me with a very poor opinion of WUWT. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/...ing-the-earth/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 03:57 PM
 
1,109 posts, read 1,251,642 times
Reputation: 1710
That WUWT link I just gave has pages of discussion after the article. First, I have to take back what I said about that web site as the fact that it allows for discussion on both sides does give it credibility. It has a definite bias for dismissing human generated green house as causing our current warming and I think mostly inaccurate - but I am an amateur myself so maybe in no position to judge. There are also some good discussion in the comment section that natural factors are also significantly influencing what we are experiencing and that its not just CO2. Actually somewhat nice to read a discussion where there didnt seem to be the intense political bend on things that you might see in a forum like this.


This subject has given retired guy hours and hours of interesting reading..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2018, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,163,062 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
The warming is either due to human caused green house gasses (CO2) or natural variations such as the 60 year cycle or an increase in solar energy to the planet.
Nope.

Temperatures fluctuate wildly on Earth for reasons that are simply not understood.

One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

[emphasis mine]

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages ? What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

As you can see, temperature changes fluctuate wildly, jumping as much as 20°F within a few years for no apparent reason, and scientists are at a loss to explain why.

The IPCC has no interest in those facts or the reality, because its constitution mandates that it study only man-made global warming to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

That would be tantamount to cancer researchers limiting their research to only benzene as the cause of cancer, while excluding the possibility, and the fact, that other organic compounds, like unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine cause cancer, that there are genetic causes of cancer, and that there are environmental and life-style factors that can cause cancer.

The reality is that if you never burned a single ounce of fossil fuels, you would still be experiencing global warming, and the Greenland Ice-Sheet would still nearly melt in its entirety, causing sea levels to rise at least 30 feet.

That is what always happens during an Inter-Glacial Period.

You are subscribing to the false belief that during an Inter-Glacial Period, the average global temperature should be 56.8°F.

There isn't a single shred of evidence to support such a false belief.

The historical record of Earth's climate provides irrefutable proof that average global temperatures are significantly higher than present, during an Inter-Glacial Period.

If the average global temperature increases another 7.8°F, there is absolutely nothing abnormal about that, because it already happened.

And if the average global temperature increases another 15.3°F, there is absolutely nothing abnormal about that, either, because it, too, has already happened.

What is perfectly normal is for the average global temperature to increase to a point where it falls in the range 7.8°F to 15.3°F, because that is historically what happens.

And contrary to the false Doom & Gloom claims of the global warming crowd, a warmer Earth does not result in the massive destruction of habitat or expanding desertification.

It's exactly the opposite.

As Earth becomes warmer, it becomes wetter, not drier.

When the average global temperature of Earth was in excess of 90°F, the entire Earth was a lush tropical rain forest. Tropical rain forests covered all of Africa, all of Europe, all of Asia including Siberia, all of Alaska, Canada and the United States down into Central and South America.

We know this to be true, because the fossil record of tropical flora and fauna proves it.

Primates evolved in African tropical rain forests and migrated throughout Europe and Asia, but not the Americas.


Then there was a massive volcanic eruption on the scale of the Deccan Traps lasting about a Million years. It created a land-bridge between Scandinavia and Canada, and primate species crossed this land-bridge, populating the tropical rain forests in Alaska, Canada, the US, and Central and South America.


We know this to be true, because the fossilized records of various primate species have been found in Alaska, Canada and the US, and because there are still 8 primate species living in the jungles of Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Brasil.

Eventually, tectonic plate action and natural processes destroyed the land-bridge, and Earth's climate also cooled. That destroyed the tropical rain forests of Europe, most of the rain forests of Asia, all of the rain forests in Alaska, Canada and the US, and most of the rain forests in Central and South America, resulting in the extinction of dozens of primate species. Had that not happened, it's quite possible both great apes and hominids would have evolved in the Americas.

The point is that when global temperatures rise, it results in the destruction of the ice-sheets, glaciers and pack, increasing the sea levels.

The increase in sea levels also results in a corresponding increase in the surface area of the oceans.

The increased surface area of the oceans does not cause the rate of evaporation to increase, but it does result in more water being evaporated. That water vapor is precipitated out as rain.

Rising temperatures are beneficial, not harmful.

You can look forward to that, and this:

CP - Abstract - How warm was Greenland during the last interglacial period?

8.5°C corresponds to 15.3°F warmer.

7.5°C corresponds to 13.5°F warmer.

At the end of the last Inter-Glacial Period, there was neither an ice-sheet nor a glacier on Greenland; it was nearly totally ice free. All that was left was a very large "snow bank" that snaked along the west side of the mountains on the east coast.

I used to post an image of what is left of the Greenland Ice Sheet, but people didn't like it and kept reporting it, and so it kept getting deleted, but you can see it here:

https://img.purch.com/rc/300x200/aHR...5kX2FnZS5qcGc=
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2018, 09:12 AM
 
1,109 posts, read 1,251,642 times
Reputation: 1710
Regarding the last post..

First, I searched through the post to see what reasons were given that human caused green house gas is NOT what is causing or at least involved in the current rapid temperature rise we are seeing. This is all I found..

Quote:
The reality is that if you never burned a single ounce of fossil fuels, you would still be experiencing global warming, and the Greenland Ice-Sheet would still nearly melt in its entirety, causing sea levels to rise at least 30 feet.
Thats it.. nothing more. OK then....

I would like to point out something about ice and inter ice ages.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0807134127.htm

Ice ages occur about every 100,000 years and are due to Milankovitch cycles (variations in the orbit) that have different overlapping cycles of around 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years

Quote:
The ice-age ice masses accumulate over tens of thousands of years and recede within the space of a few thousand years
Note that it takes thousands of years to recede. Local temperature changes of course can change much faster but the global change takes thousand of years which is much longer than what we are currently experiences.

You mentioned the IPCC along with some stuff about them you made up. But here is what the IPCC says about the current time frame of rate of temperature change.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...n/faq-6-2.html

Quote:
A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature.

So.. it looks like the poster knows the rapid temperature rise just cant be due to a human influence and found a web site here https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/sur...t-causes-them/

This web site is likely accurate and notes that ice cores have shown rapid changes of temperature in the past. Of course no one was actually there to witness or measure what may have caused those rapid and most likey local changes. Those rapid changes were likely at just one location on the planet and did not correlate to a global change. I said likely because that is what I have read elsewhere, please prove this wrong with a reference.

I tried to verify what this web site said.. could not find anything else.

So the poster made the conclusion that since temperatures have changed rapidly in the past (based on the Utah Geology side only), that this must be what is happening now. Even though there is no explanation why this happened in the past, we must just be going through some unexplainable and random wild temperature fluctuation that cant be explained by all the things that are known about the climate. As far as I can tell, the poster came to this conclusion on his own. You opinion is as good as mine but we dont share the same opinion.

Finally, it keeps getting mentioned that the planet climate was more extreme both cold and hot in the past. Sure.. we get that. What concerns me at the moment is what is happening now. We have had somewhat of a stable period where things had time to balance before our major human population bloom made possible by burning fossil fuel. If you have been around long enough in one location, you have seen some changes in the climate that maybe are good or bad.. What got me personally interested in this subject in the moment living in Colorado is forest fire. In the last few years, we have had one fire about 2 miles away, one fire about 10 miles away and other about 15. Those are only the close ones. So its certainly interesting but I really dont care at the moment that it may have been hotter or colder 10000 or a million years ago. Sure and things were way different in many other aspects (like there not being billions of people dependent on a more and more fragile infrastructure). Its the present time that Im concerned about and what will happen in my kids and grand kids lifetimes or even farther out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top