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.
So let's give Head Snap credit for a scientific application. In response to a point of mine no less, the only point raised that they actually addresses. Global Warming as applied science - applied to the human "planning" sphere. So that's some serious applied science there, it applied only to one's mind. In one's mind. For planning.
And here is how that applied science works. You have that party organ the NYT. And you hire a bunch of youngsters out of journalism school with maybe a couple with science degrees, and you call them your "Climate Team" at the party organ.
So this climate team makes a video. They pick a correct "person of color" female to narrate it, because, you know, climate science is all about social justice religion nowadays even though head snap says it is pure science (here, the candidates show you why: https://inthesetimes.com/article/220...sanders-warren). Or maybe not, maybe she has a degree in a STEM field but if so they don't tell you.
This video then goes on to name two hurricanes as examples of severe disasters resulting from "climate change". One of those is Harvey. Well well, how about that. None of the forecasting during the days before Harvey mentioned that it would be exceptionally bad because "climate science" said it would vis a vis "global warming". They did tell us it would be exceptionally bad because of a high pressure cell stationed onshore, keeping the hurricane offshore to pump the trillions of gallons onto our area. Having nothing to do with "climate science"
So there you have it. The NYT used a lie to promote this science. Just as you would expect a religion would. This is lying propaganda from the NYT party organ and here it is:
The other hurricane reference in the video as an example of exceptionally bad was Florence. The video mentions that hurricanes are bringing more intense winds and so a proposed category 6 is proposed. But neither Harvey nor Florence brought intense winds or storm surges. So we have maybe not an outright lie but a big deception nevertheless.
Now I would suggest head snap come back here with proof of human-caused climate change, instead of religious drivel. As I have been challenging. One way to do it, and probably the ONLY way is prove that atmospheric H2O has been absolutely and permanently eliminated from planetary systems analysis, worldwide. This would mean that H2O vapor, ice crystals and droplets (in other words, clouds, fog) have no impact in any feedback loops in climate temperature regulation, via solar radiation ingress modulation. We already know, as "climate science" ballyhoos, that darker blue water around melting ice is a positive feedback loop causing runaway global warming by increased radiation absorption. So since they can invoke feedback loops they MUST eliminate negative feedback loops as negation of climate change. They can't say feedback loops don't exist, because they admit the dark blue water loop DOES.
This would mean, just like the ether has been absolutely banished from physics, H2O effects must have been scientifically and universally banished from any feedback role in planetary temperature regulation. Or if such a role exists, that it is negligible. This is the only way we can be certain that the greenhouse effect is the dominant driver of climate. So this is now the challenge for head snap. Provide the empirical proof that AGW is in fact a proven theory, and that atmospheric H2O has been permanently banished from any role in saving us from it.
And I would suggest that genius investor Mr./Ms. snap take a look at another investment opportunity: Charging hangars for electric airliners. 'Cuz you know after passengers disembark at the gate, every craft will need to be towed to the charging hanger, where it will charge up for a few hours, then towed to a gate for next flight.
Last edited by groovamos; 09-30-2019 at 09:42 AM..
Thank you for calming down and being a little more sober, reflective, rational, and honest. Now we’re getting somewhere. Let me make a few things clear:
2) There is no fudging of data sets, no rounding of numbers, and no circling of wagons from the real organizations involved: EPA, NOAA, NAS, UCS, IPCC, etc. Their data is extensive and compelling. Their interpretations are purposely kept conservative. If you want honest, sober estimates of what is really going to happen, check with these respected organizations. They know what they’re talking about.
But here you are wrong, dead wrong, and it seriously affects your credibility on the issue. There are literally thousands of errors in the data and they are well known - there are groups dedicated solely to calling out all the terrible data - not just by the skeptics, but also by the reasonable scientists who are trying to make real conclusions.
There is a plethora of bad data, and its very convenient that all bad data cools the older temperatures and exaggerates the more recent temperatures. If there were errors in both directions it *might* be more understandable, but conveniently all of the data skews in favor of increased warming.
And - FWIW - the IPCC is not a well respected organization, and neither is the EPA.
Anyone who thinks the EPA is well respected has their head either up an orifice that would get $%^& out, or buried deeply in the sand.
It is good kids are getting involved in this debate... they need to know some things...
I hope their parents teach them the tens of thousands of things that are made from oil including anything made with plastic, tires, sports products (basketballs, tennis racquets, soccer balls...etc) , electronic products (phones, computers, Xboxes, playstations, tvs), personal products (mascara, nail polish, combs, toothbrushes, makeup)… the list goes on and on. Pretty much the majority of consumer goods. Not to mention jet fuel used for traveling anywhere on an airplane. There is no replacement for any of this. We can go back to the pre-industrial revolution days if they'd like, but are they capable of working on farms and washing their clothes by hand in a wooden bucket?
I also hope their parents teach them the reason the US has recently reduced much of its CO2 emissions is thanks to fracking allowing the US to produce more natural gas which burns 1/3 of the carbon of coal. This allows for the replacement of coal fired power plants with natural gas fired power plants. Many of the leading democrats want to ban fracking-- that will be great for increasing our CO2 emissions, driving gasoline prices up and putting the US on a path of energy dependence on the middle east. Just like the good ol' days right? Who else is excited to pay $4-8/gallon of gasoline? I hope those kids can afford it on their minimum wage jobs.
Many of the democrats mistakenly claim fracking somehow "poisons" groundwater. It would be nice if the democrats believed in science and accepted the 5-year EPA study that said this was NOT TRUE. Or if they accepted any of the many University studies that also disproved this claim. But they choose to deny science, they would rather believe some liberal filmmaker who made some movies where he hooked your kitchen sink up to a gas line and claimed "fracking caused your kitchen sink to have gas running through it! Look I can light it on fire!" That's a cool party trick, but it isn't science.
The fact of the matter is these kids are welcome to protest. Oil and gas development is not going away, not in 10 years, not in 20 years, not in 50 years. When I was young I protested all sorts of stupid stuff. Then I got a little older, did actual research, and my opinions changed on many topics. I'd wager most of these kids won't care about this subject once they finish college and get jobs.
But more power to them, a day off from school is always a fun time!
Thank goodness for those kids. At least they got there to protest. They are not buying oil company BS.
Fracking will give us plenty of petroleum products. What about water? My water bill is as high as my electric bill. And they promise more increases. But their use of water enables the petroleum industry to sell plastic bottles for water. Go figure. And dump billions of gallons of fracking water into the GOM.
A little thought and we can all reduce our use of petroleum products. I support a huge tax on gas guzzling autos. Maybe even ration gasoline.
We cut our electricity use by 15% this summer and didn't notice it.
But here you are wrong, dead wrong, and it seriously affects your credibility on the issue. There are literally thousands of errors in the data and they are well known - there are groups dedicated solely to calling out all the terrible data - not just by the skeptics, but also by the reasonable scientists who are trying to make real conclusions.
There is a plethora of bad data, and its very convenient that all bad data cools the older temperatures and exaggerates the more recent temperatures. If there were errors in both directions it *might* be more understandable, but conveniently all of the data skews in favor of increased warming.
And - FWIW - the IPCC is not a well respected organization, and neither is the EPA.
Anyone who thinks the EPA is well respected has their head either up an orifice that would get $%^& out, or buried deeply in the sand.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with bad data being corrected. That’s part of the process of science. In fact, that should give you more confidence in the latest scientific findings - because they have been repeatedly tested, corrected, and revised.
The IPCC and EPA are loathed by right-wingers because those 2 groups are environmental groups. But that doesn’t mean that the IPCC and EPA aren’t respected in the scientific community.
And if you don’t like the IPCC and EPA, that’s a great reason to turn to groups that right-wingers love: like the U.S. Army (Department of Defense) and NASA.
And here in Texas, right-wingers respect Texas A&M, Texas A&M Galveston, Stephen F. Austin University - all nationally-renowned for their expertise in agriculture, forestry, wildlife, etc.
And many right-wingers in Texas find it hard to call the likes of Rice University, University of Texas at Austin, the Houston Advanced Research Group, and other nationally-respected research institutes “liberal zealots” or “corrupt conspirators” or “kool-aid drinking crazies” or any of that shrill, Limbaugh-style hokum.
And especially in Houston, right-wingers tend to respect the scientist at the energy companies: Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell, etc.
Take your pick. Every serious research group on the planet is finding similar things about climate science.
But you can’t howl “liberal conspiracy religion” like some talking head on Fox...and then look us straight in the face and say that the scientists at A&M Galveston finding sea level rise at Pier 21 in Galveston is part of some of conspiratorial religious-like nonsense.
In fact, a great field trip for any of us would be to get in our car, drive to Texas A&M Galveston, or to HARC or UT or Rice or Exxon wherever you want, and arrange a quick meeting with any of these scientists over lunch. Look them in the eye. Tell them that they’re corrupt or incompetent or quasi-religious or deluded. Quote your internet blogs and your favorite TV talking heads like Hannity. See how you feel after that meeting.
So let's give Head Snap credit for a scientific application. In response to a point of mine no less, the only point raised that they actually addresses. Global Warming as applied science - applied to the human "planning" sphere. So that's some serious applied science there, it applied only to one's mind. In one's mind. For planning.
And here is how that applied science works. You have that party organ the NYT. And you hire a bunch of youngsters out of journalism school with maybe a couple with science degrees, and you call them your "Climate Team" at the party organ.
So this climate team makes a video. They pick a correct "person of color" female to narrate it, because, you know, climate science is all about social justice religion nowadays even though head snap says it is pure science (here, the candidates show you why. Or maybe not, maybe she has a degree in a STEM field but if so they don't tell you.
This video then goes on to name two hurricanes as examples of severe disasters resulting from "climate change". One of those is Harvey. Well well, how about that. None of the forecasting during the days before Harvey mentioned that it would be exceptionally bad because "climate science" said it would vis a vis "global warming". They did tell us it would be exceptionally bad because of a high pressure cell stationed onshore, keeping the hurricane offshore to pump the trillions of gallons onto our area. Having nothing to do with "climate science"
So there you have it. The NYT used a lie to promote this science. Just as you would expect a religion would. This is lying propaganda from the NYT party organ and here it is:
The other hurricane reference in the video as an example of exceptionally bad was Florence. The video mentions that hurricanes are bringing more intense winds and so a proposed category 6 is proposed. But neither Harvey nor Florence brought intense winds or storm surges. So we have maybe not an outright lie but a big deception nevertheless.
Now I would suggest head snap come back here with proof of human-caused climate change, instead of religious drivel. As I have been challenging. One way to do it, and probably the ONLY way is prove that atmospheric H2O has been absolutely and permanently eliminated from planetary systems analysis, worldwide. This would mean that H2O vapor, ice crystals and droplets (in other words, clouds, fog) have no impact in any feedback loops in climate temperature regulation, via solar radiation ingress modulation. We already know, as "climate science" ballyhoos, that darker blue water around melting ice is a positive feedback loop causing runaway global warming by increased radiation absorption. So since they can invoke feedback loops they MUST eliminate negative feedback loops as negation of climate change. They can't say feedback loops don't exist, because they admit the dark blue water loop DOES.
This would mean, just like the ether has been absolutely banished from physics, H2O effects must have been scientifically and universally banished from any feedback role in planetary temperature regulation. Or if such a role exists, that it is negligible. This is the only way we can be certain that the greenhouse effect is the dominant driver of climate. So this is now the challenge for head snap. Provide the empirical proof that AGW is in fact a proven theory, and that atmospheric H2O has been permanently banished from any role in saving us from it.
And I would suggest that genius investor Mr./Ms. snap take a look at another investment opportunity: Charging hangars for electric airliners. 'Cuz you know after passengers disembark at the gate, every craft will need to be towed to the charging hanger, where it will charge up for a few hours, then towed to a gate for next flight.
So let’s quickly give you credit for another piece of fruit that is so low-hanging that it’s touching the ground; the New York Times is a rag. Yes. And so what? I see occasional articles in the New York Times that I find informative - but I also see garbage in there. And yes, the NYT is often a shameless organ for the Democratic Party, which itself has been ripe with corruption for years. Ultimately, the goal of the NYT is to sell subscriptions/advertising for the NYT. It’s not an academic journal. It’s not a trade publication. Especially in this age where the media industry has descended into a carnival due to the internet increasing competition, even the NYT often prints whatever it thinks will grab people’s attention. So you see something in the NYT that hypes or misinterprets or exaggerates Climate Change? That’s sad, but it has nothing to do with the science of Climate Change.
A beach where the high tide mark has moved inland?
I know that there are tons of scientific publications out there that say sea level is rising BUT: Have you ever seen a ocean beach like perhaps Mission beach in California or on the North Shore of Hawaii etc where the high tide mark has moved inland over the last century. By claiming that sea level has risen only 4 inches over the last 116 years it is nearly impossible to measure that small of a rise. That little of a rise would be difficult to detect at any beach and would be indistinguishable. The rise is caused by the earth heating up due to a very slight change in the climate and the reason for the change is unknown.
I am looking for an example like. In Galveston they have had to move the seawall back several times because the high tide keeps creeping up on the shore due to sea level rise.
I know that there are tons of scientific publications out there that say sea level is rising BUT: Have you ever seen a ocean beach like perhaps Mission beach in California or on the North Shore of Hawaii etc where the high tide mark has moved inland over the last century. By claiming that sea level has risen only 4 inches over the last 116 years it is nearly impossible to measure that small of a rise. That little of a rise would be difficult to detect at any beach and would be indistinguishable. The rise is caused by the earth heating up due to a very slight change in the climate and the reason for the change is unknown.
I am looking for an example like. In Galveston they have had to move the seawall back several times because the high tide keeps creeping up on the shore due to sea level rise.
I know that there are tons of scientific publications out there that say sea level is rising BUT: Have you ever seen a ocean beach like perhaps Mission beach in California or on the North Shore of Hawaii etc where the high tide mark has moved inland over the last century. By claiming that sea level has risen only 4 inches over the last 116 years it is nearly impossible to measure that small of a rise. That little of a rise would be difficult to detect at any beach and would be indistinguishable. The rise is caused by the earth heating up due to a very slight change in the climate and the reason for the change is unknown.
I am looking for an example like. In Galveston they have had to move the seawall back several times because the high tide keeps creeping up on the shore due to sea level rise.
The good news for you in this is that beaches aren’t vertical in slope. So with 4 inches of sea level rise, that could be 4 feet or even 40 feet of encroachment onto the beach, depending on the slope. The Texas Gulf coast has a very shallow slope.
I have a hunch that if we searched the internet for old photographs of Pier 21 in Galveston from circa 1900, and estimated the size of the beach then, and compared it with the size of the beach today, we’d see a difference. The only factor we can’t know is how much sand they’ve trucked in over the years and how many other counter-erosion efforts have been undertaken. Also I guess the time of the day, high tide or low tide, would make a difference.
The Sea Aggies (TAMU Galveston) probably have lectures and magazine articles about stuff like this. There’s probably some sort of nonprofit foundation in Galveston that has educational workshops on combatting beach erosion.
I’m glad to see that we’re now talking verifiable specifics, right here in our area. There’s no better way to get to the bottom of an issue, in my opinion, than to see it up-close and hear first-hand from the folks who study it all day long for a living. There’s something meaningful about knowing how Climate Change affects us right here at home in the Houston area. Ultimately, that’s what matters most to us. We don’t care as much what happens to the polar ice caps or the Amazon Rainforest. But right here - that means something. It’s our home. It’s always good to know more about where we live.
I have a hunch that if we searched the internet for old photographs of Pier 21 in Galveston from circa 1900, and estimated the size of the beach then, and compared it with the size of the beach today, we’d see a difference. The only factor we can’t know is how much sand they’ve trucked in over the years and how many other counter-erosion efforts have been undertaken. Also I guess the time of the day, high tide or low tide, would make a difference.
There is far more to that equation than just tide level though. Beach Erosion is a naturally occurring event, as is the displacement of river sand/sediment into our bays. As more Sand is washed downstream through our rivers and bayous it is deposited into our shallow bay system. The climate change folks often do not take into account the volume of sand/sediment that is being washed into the bay on a continuous basis.
There are so many variables that it is disingenuous to pick one thing like beach erosion, or tide level as proof of your climate change theory. Look at how much beach was washed away during Hurricane Ike on Bolivar, completely unrelated to climate change.
I don't know how you can protest climate change. The climate has always changed. I had a naive coworker last week say during a convo with a few people that "we have to do something before climate change happens". It's like the media has successfully edited out global warming from most people's vocabulary, and substituted it with climate change. Our effect on the earth's climate is very little. When you ask people how did the Medieval Warm Period happen, or what about the Little Ice Age that happened just before America gained its independence and you get blank stares. How are we going to stop the sun from inching closer to the Earth as it goes through a natural phase of its own life cycle?
We should burn less fossil fuels and plant more greenery, but at the end of the day it won't do much at all.
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.
. Or maybe not, maybe she has a degree in a STEM field but if so they don't tell you.
A beach where the high tide mark has moved inland?
