Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:39 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US news > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Climate Change's Heat Intensifies Drought In The USA: Roasting Texas Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jul 12, 2013 3:36:57 PM

"SPICEWOOD, Texas — In this browning patch of land in central Texas, C.J. Teare could be fined for using fresh water to keep her decades-old oak trees alive so she relies on soapy water left over from washing clothes.

"I've never seen it like this before," says Teare, a grandmother who has lived in her modest Lakeside Beach ranch for 20 years. Her community has been under emergency water restrictions since January 2012, when it became the first to run dry during Texas' ongoing three-year drought. It stays afloat with six daily truckloads of water.

Thirty miles southeast near Austin, Pete Clark had to close one restaurant along Lake Travis, and the other has lost 75% of its business since 2011. Water levels are so low that Carlos n' Charlie's, once a popular floating Tex-Mex watering hole, is no longer even lakeside.

An hour upstream along Lake Buchanan, Rusty Brandon is filing for bankruptcy. He says potential customers say "never mind" when he tells them there's no water for boating or fishing at his Hi-Line Lake Resort. Whatever its cause, he says, "I'm literally on the front line of experiencing climate change daily." "

USA Today

--And, to make matters worse, a horrible irony exists. Water is being used at ever-increasing levels to extract the hard-to-reach fossil fuels (since the easy ones have all been depleted), which is a double-whammy for areas starved of water by climate change.

"In Texas, water for fracking jumped 125% in three years and will continue to increase before leveling off in the 2020s, according to a University of Texas-Austin study this year by research scientist Jean-Phillippe Nicot.

The UT study says oil and gas drilling accounts for less than 1% of water use statewide, and one-fifth of water used in fracking is recycled or brackish. But a similar 2011 study, also by Nicot, found it accounts for at least 20% of water in some counties where fracking is big business.

Hugh Fitzsimons,a Dimmit County bison rancher, suspects fracking has depleted nearby wells so much that one of his wells is running low. "I've had trouble irrigating," says Fitzsimons, whose herd has dropped from 400 in 2007 to 100."

--The careless philosophy seems to be that the answer to a lack of water caused by climate change is to use more water to accelerate climate change even more!
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
2ovrpar
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:4,479
Points:1,268,135
Joined:Dec 2006
Message Posted: Jan 7, 2014 7:23:28 AM

4 degrees in Central Jersey today.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2013 12:27:24 AM

" If there was AGW at least some of these things should be at record high levels, but none are. "

Sounds like a classic case of all their predictions being wrong, again.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,478
Points:1,248,920
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2013 9:49:52 PM

The problem with the AGW predictions of doom are that the predictions are not manifesting. No increase in hurricane numbers or strength, no increase in droughts or severity, No increase in global temps for 15+ years. In fact we have had a record low number of tornadoes and a near record low number of hurricanes. If there was AGW at least some of these things should be at record high levels, but none are.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2013 5:55:05 PM

"One more thing about this year’s hurricane season. Not only have we had a near record late first hurricane for the season but we have only had two so far for the year. You have to go all the way back to 1982 to find a year with only two hurricanes. The two hurricanes we have had did not reach major hurricane status. You have to go back to 1994 to find a year with no major hurricanes. We have not even had a Cat two hurricane this year. You have to go back to 1968 to find a year with no Cat two or above hurricanes."

Yes, AGW was going to make more of them, they were going to be more powerful and some unknown mechanism was going to cause them to make land fall more often.
And I was crazy when I didn't believe it.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,478
Points:1,248,920
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2013 6:43:46 PM

One more thing about this year’s hurricane season. Not only have we had a near record late first hurricane for the season but we have only had two so far for the year. You have to go all the way back to 1982 to find a year with only two hurricanes. The two hurricanes we have had did not reach major hurricane status. You have to go back to 1994 to find a year with no major hurricanes. We have not even had a Cat two hurricane this year. You have to go back to 1968 to find a year with no Cat two or above hurricanes.

Yep this is a record hurricane season.

I will admit the season isn’t over until it’s over but it look like we may have a record year.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2013 5:41:16 PM

>>Were we not supposed to be hammered by hurricanes this year?<<

Bush took his hurricane machine with him when he left office.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,947
Points:3,046,395
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2013 1:58:15 PM

Thanks, johnny, I guess I just missed the paltry news coverage of Hurricanes Miley, Nesbit, Othellia, Placido, Quentin, Rosario, and Studebaker.

 

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 10/17/2013 1:59:07 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2013 10:25:29 PM

Obama has presided over the fewest hurricanes of any President in U.S. history.

And contrary to the propagandists' lies, they're not getting stronger, either.

[Edited by: ministorage at 10/15/2013 10:26:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,478
Points:1,248,920
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2013 9:33:32 PM

>>Were we not supposed to be hammered by hurricanes this year?<<

We are getting hammered. The press is just hiding it. Either that or they got it completely wrong. And we know that could never happen.
Profile Pic
EvPv
Champion Author Maine

Posts:3,641
Points:876,810
Joined:Feb 2011
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2013 11:17:25 AM

agreed I75at 7AM.
Profile Pic
2ovrpar
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:4,479
Points:1,268,135
Joined:Dec 2006
Message Posted: Oct 15, 2013 9:26:43 AM

Were we not supposed to be hammered by hurricanes this year?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,947
Points:3,046,395
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Sep 23, 2013 12:57:04 PM

Johnny is absolutely right about using reasonable efforts at conservation of energy. You could set up a cost/benefit analysis, hire lots of researchers, gather data, do surveys, test some consumer items such as appliances and cars, digest the data, publish the results, send them to government agencies who might then be forthcoming with regulations to help consumers make changes in their lifestyles in order to conserve energy, or you could do the smart thing and the American thing and let the market decide.

Do away with mandates, forced conservation, and regulations against certain cars or appliances, and let Americans decide which items they want to buy and operate based on the true costs. If Americans are good at anything, it is shopping. The market can be ruthless and also ruthlessly accurate as to what is good and what is not.
And we save a bunch of money on governmental and bureaucratic bungling.

Prime example:

EPA Foils Clean Fuel
"By slowing the conversion of vehicles to CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) fuel The Environmental Protection Agency is causing needless nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate, and mercury air pollution. It might just as well be renamed the Environmental Destruction Agency."

"The EPA has set up a system that adds thousands of dollars to the cost of converting a vehicle from gasoline or diesel oil to CNG, thus sapping a large proportion of the possible fuel cost savings..."

"The EPA has done so through a complex set of regulations which apply differently to older and younger vehicles. Those converting an older vehicle must perform tests, pay fees and complete EPA paperwork which add about $4 to $5 thousand to the cost of the conversion."

Nice, huh?
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Sep 23, 2013 10:42:24 AM

"This is kind of amusing to hear people who so frequently argue that there is no need to conserve at all, no point to it, tell us all the things we should be doing to conserve."

I'm not saying either of those things. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning someone else's particular form of "wastefulness", when everybody, including you, is guilty as well. We all "waste" energy on comfort and convenience, don't think you're better than the rest of us.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,478
Points:1,248,920
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Sep 21, 2013 11:48:21 PM

>>This is kind of amusing to hear people who so frequently argue that there is no need to conserve at all, no point to it, tell us all the things we should be doing to conserve.<<

I never said we shouldn’t conserve. In fact I am all for conserving, it's just a matter of how far to take it and at what cost. Its not one or the other. By cost I don’t just mean dollars although that is part of the equation. Do I think replacing coal fired power plant with undependable wind is a good idea? NO. Am I willing to give up my truck for a car with a 100 mile range that can’t pull my trailer? NO. Do I think we should be putting food into our gas tanks? NO. Do I think we should be looking at ways to improve the mileage of cars? Yes. Do I think we need to improve the efficiency of modern appliances? Yes. Do I think we need to jack the price of a light bulb up to five dollars or more by regulating the old incandescent bulbs out of existence? No. I don’t want to see the elderly having to decide between food and electricity to heat or cool their homes. In Tampa you could probably get by without heat or A/C. In St. Louis we have elderly die almost every year by freezing to death or from a combination of heat and humidity. Sky rocking electric prices promised by Obama will only make it worse. Then add in the increase in the price of food becasue food is going into gas tanks. But thats just a price of green energy.

I’m all for reasonable conservation, just not on the radical level you support. If you support it you should live it and lead by example, that’s fine if you want to, but I’m not going to let others tell me how to live and I won’t tell other how to live.


[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 9/21/2013 11:50:46 PM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2013 3:17:53 PM

"If you are still living on the grid you haven’t done everything you can to conserve. Do you have geothermal heat? Do you have solar panels that will supply all of your electricity? Do you compost your yard waste? Do you drive an all electric car? Do you grow any of your own food? If not then you are clearly not doing all you can. "

I have found that the so called believers wont do anything to "save the planet" that will inconvenience them.
Some where around 99.9% will only use the excuse of "saving the world" to justify turning a want into a need. Like buying a prius.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2013 1:52:03 PM

SS: "mini: 'climatism'

--This from the you after you objected to certain terms; upon which I acquiesced and began using (at your request) the term 'skeptic'?"

Well, Climatism is the belief that man-made greenhouse gas emissions--which make up 4% of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere--are destroying the Earth's climate. If the shoe fits....

You, OTOH were referring to people who had studied climate science and the scientists who do it for a living -- but who did not accept the man-made global warming Party Line (which is now falling apart) -- as "climate deniers" and "fossil fueled" and paid for by Big Oil. They were non-sequitur, false representations, deceptive, and highly dishonest descriptions of these people. Of course I objected. (I also realize you did not make up those terms and accusations--you were merely parroting other believers.)

But, Steve--you go ahead and call me whatever you want. It just does not matter one iota. The false paradigm you have placed your faith in is falling apart. It is shattering into a billion pieces.

So, knock yourself out, call me a "climate denier" if you like. Just remember that whenever you choose to use that term, it is YOU who--by your own admission--has no desire to learn about this stuff, no desire to learn about the dissenting data that put your beliefs at odds with reality; it is you who prefers simply to be a believer/follower in the faux 'consensus' of man-made catastrophic warming science--and which is failing you (and all of us). It is you, not me, who would much better fit a description of a "climate denier."

SS: "Careful..."

Indeed.

And, you can open your eyes whenever you want. Nobody is forcing you to keep them (or your mind) closed.

[Edited by: ministorage at 9/17/2013 2:00:06 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2013 1:18:21 PM

This is kind of amusing to hear people who so frequently argue that there is no need to conserve at all, no point to it, tell us all the things we should be doing to conserve.

***

mini: 'climatism'

--This from the you after you objected to certain terms; upon which I acquiesced and began using (at your request) the term 'skeptic'?

Careful...
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,478
Points:1,248,920
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2013 12:59:50 PM

If you are still living on the grid you haven’t done everything you can to conserve. Do you have geothermal heat? Do you have solar panels that will supply all of your electricity? Do you compost your yard waste? Do you drive an all electric car? Do you grow any of your own food? If not then you are clearly not doing all you can.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2013 11:57:32 AM

"we must be united on protecting our habitat and leaving it in the best condition we can"

Be careful, there's always someone using less energy and polluting less than you are. If your goal is doing your absolute best to not pollute and use the least amount of energy possible, you'll have to stop heating and cooling your home, start walking everywhere, quit watching TV, throw out the microwave, etc., etc., otherwise you fail.

What you really mean is you do what you can as long it's not inconvenient or uncomfortable, just like the rest of us mortals. It's ok to accept reality, your ego will recover, eventually.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2013 11:33:03 AM

"Just because you're wasting less electricity on your comfort than someone else, doesn't give you the right to judge them."

--That right is guaranteed by our freedom of speech. But really, it is more a matter of trying to convey the reasons we must be united on protecting our habitat and leaving it in the best condition we can for those who will follow us.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2013 11:12:36 AM

Southwest permanent drought weekly precipitation update

Part of a larger pattern this summer, New Mexico and Colorado should get some welcome relief over the next week from all that permanent drought that's been falling from the skies over the past couple weeks. This pattern of drought-saturated ground is caused by a type of permanent drought unlike we've ever witnessed before.

In climatism, up is down, lies are truth, and reality is irrelevant to the message. Just make it up as you go along, and whatever you do--never, ever give in and admit failure.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2013 10:31:22 AM

"Climate change is affecting the oceans around the world."

First, the article claims that some scientists think it WILL affect the oceans. They have zero evidence that it IS having any affect.

Second, it would take a few thousand years for the ocean to even begin to be acidic, considering it's over a full point to the alkaline side now (as of 1994 it's 8.104, 7.0 is neutral), and it's shifted 0.074 supposedly since 1751. I say supposedly because, as the writer of the article points out, the PH scale wasn't invented until 1909.

Third, corals survived when the atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times what they are today. Also from the article linked above: "This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era – nearly 500 million years ago – when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today."

Also of note in the article: "In 1954, the US detonated the world’s largest nuclear weapon at Bikini Island in the South Pacific. The bomb was equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT, vapourised three islands, and raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. Yet half a century of rising CO2 later, the corals at Bikini are thriving. Another drop in pH of 0.075 will likely have less impact on the corals than a thermonuclear blast. The corals might even survive a rise in ocean temperatures of half a degree, since they flourished at times when the earth’s temperature was 10C higher than the present."

I think the corals will be just fine.

[Edited by: HotRod10 at 9/16/2013 10:32:19 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2013 11:13:57 AM

"In this volcanic region, pure CO2 escapes naturally through cracks in the ocean floor, altering the water's chemistry the same way rising CO2 from cars and power plants is changing the marine world."

The article points to the real reason, but then goes all anti-science in attempting to blame atmospheric CO2 added by human activities. Natural, under-ocean volcanic CO2 in 100% concentrations is different from the 4% of atmospheric CO2 attributed to humans. Purely natural, CO2-laden, 2000 degree volcanic vents are known affecting coral reefs, not the .0016% of all the atmospheric gases that are attributable man.

As the heavily-skewed models of predicted warming continue to fail, I expect more alarmism like this in the coming months. It is always best to separating WAG alarmism from empirical science. Better yet, I suggest government scientists and a complicit media stop with WAG alarmism altogether.

THIS is what atmospheric CO2 actually does.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:22,919
Points:890,635
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2013 9:15:01 AM

Climate change is affecting the oceans around the world.

Sea Change.
Profile Pic
Primetime57
Champion Author Long Island

Posts:2,210
Points:595,770
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Sep 14, 2013 6:31:27 AM

I believe we are messing up the climate with cars, factories etc.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 5:44:52 PM

WeatherStreet: Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, rains through Monday. (And what's coming out of Mexico, it looks like more rain throughout next week--and a lot of it--practically the entire country of Mexico will be having rain by 8pm Monday night, and it is headed northward.)
Glide mouse over blue calendar bar below the map

[Edited by: ministorage at 9/13/2013 5:46:28 PM EST]
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 10:54:23 AM

"There has even been 1 or 2 that made it as far inland as newmexico.

We in newmexico can also get "monsoon" according to the farmers, that's what they call it when mess from a typhoon makes it here from the west coast."

The winds die when the hurricanes and typhoons move a hundred miles or so inland, but the moisture makes it several hundred miles farther. We regularly get a couple inches of rain here in Wyoming due to storms that landfall in the Gulf and ones that landfall on the west coast.

"Yes my part of drought stricken newmexico saw as much as 4 inches locally on some farms."

We're almost there locally as well; we should hit the 4 inches for this month by tomorrow morning. Northern Colorado has had more than they can handle; roads, bridges, houses, cars, boulders, and entire hillsides have been washed away from Boulder to Ft. Collins.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 5:25:31 AM

"Associating both the drought in TX and the supposed increase in the number of hurricanes with global warming, shows just how ridiculous this whole global warming scam is."

I wish they would make up their mind. This is why no one believes in it any more, they are so desperate they will come out with a study to prove anything even if it contradicts other seemingly creditable studies.
They will say that global warming will cause less and less snow to fall in more southern areas, then when snow is in the ground in all 50 states at the same time for the first on record they blame global warming.

If you look at land falling hurricane/TS paths for the last 100 they plow right into texas. It happens every few years and they are drought breakers. There has even been 1 or 2 that made it as far inland as newmexico.
We in newmexico can also get "monsoon" according to the farmers, that's what they call it when mess from a typhoon makes it here from the west coast.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Sep 13, 2013 5:08:17 AM

This is hurricane peak week. In the 1990s I remember by now we would have 2 or 3 maybe 4 named storms with 2 or 3 more brewing some where between the gulf of mexico and the Atlantic cost of Africa.

"New Mexico, west Texas getting more rains again, and again. All this rain has become a pattern.It continues. It's not cherrypicked single weather events. "

Yes my part of drought stricken newmexico saw as much as 4 inches locally on some farms. It tried to rain here again today, had real thick gray over cast (more unusual than the rain its self), but did not succeed at producing rain my house I am sure it rained some where very near by due to the sound of thunder.
And they are calling for rain tomorrow and my back yard is a mud pit.
This latest rain came out of the south, which is normal for here this time of year(past few soaking storms came out of the north and that's not normal according to farmers who have lived here 60+ years).
If this rain keeps up we are going to see first hand where the prehistoric lake used to be.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2013 10:24:50 AM

Perhaps the absence of hurricanes is one of the reasons for drought conditions. Hurricanes bring a lot of moisture, not only to Texas, but many times we get soaked all the way up here in WY from hurricanes that make landfall in the north or west of the Gulf.

Associating both the drought in TX and the supposed increase in the number of hurricanes with global warming, shows just how ridiculous this whole global warming scam is.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2013 6:15:13 AM

"This hurricane season has about the same number of storms as an average one at this point. "

It's well below average, although NOAA predicted an above-average hurricane year. HERE is the current hurricane tally compared to recent years as well as the average. This is the longest stretch without a major hurricane since the 1800s.

Bbbbbut speaking of droughts -- Drought stricken Colorado continues to be pounded with more rains a pattern seen repeated again and again this year.

New Mexico, west Texas getting more rains again, and again. All this rain has become a pattern.It continues. It's not cherrypicked single weather events.

The D.C. based U.S. drought monitor still stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the greening of these regions in the west over the past year.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,478
Points:1,248,920
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Sep 12, 2013 1:40:41 AM

Just a little clarification to the statement about named storms.

This hurricane season has about the same number of storms as an average one at this point. The fun fact is that Hurricane Humberto just missed being the latest first hurricane in the Atlantic on record just a few hours.
I just can’t wait until the church of manmade global warming tries to spin this into a effect of manmade global warming.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Sep 11, 2013 11:02:34 PM

What ever happened to the more frequent and powerful hurricanes that were going to make "events like Katrina a regular occurrence"?
link

We are 4 days away from the peak of hurricane season and how many named storms have there been?
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 2:29:24 PM

theTower: "Aint freedom grand?"

Semisteve: "--It's a double-edged sword."

Yeah, 'cause there's always some jerk out there who will condemn you for exercising that freedom in a way they wouldn't.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Sep 4, 2013 2:16:32 PM

"Actually I DO drive the most efficient vehicle I could find for my purpose"

You're telling me you drive the most fuel efficient vehicle that can get you where you need to go? I highly doubt that.

"Now while I do use electricity to heat and cool my home I bought the most efficient heat pump..."

Just because you're wasting less electricity on your comfort than someone else, doesn't give you the right to judge them.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 30, 2013 11:38:10 AM

"It appeared that he simply WANTED it."

theTower: "Aint freedom grand?"

--It's a double-edged sword.

"I'll bet you don't drive the most fuel efficient vehicle that you could be either. Do you use electricity to cool your house?"

--Actually I DO drive the most efficient vehicle I could find for my purpose; and I have purposely changed my driving habits to become a hyper-miler, regularly getting far more miles per gallon than my car is rated to get.

Now while I do use electricity to heat and cool my home I bought the most efficient heat pump I could justify, along with as much insulation as I could manage, AND I use it very sparingly, usually setting my thermostat at 80 for summertime days. I only put on a light in the room I am in and the bulbs are all high-efficiency flouro or LED. I dry things on a line and do all I can to reduce MY carbon footprint. I am continually seeking new ways to do more with less.

I happen to CARE about our environment and habitat and desire to leave a legacy I can be proud of so that future generations can enjoy that planet as much as I do.

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 8/30/2013 11:39:54 AM EST]
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,478
Points:1,248,920
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Aug 29, 2013 7:10:45 PM

>>>But he had a big V8 engine, of course. Why he thought he needed it was entirely unclear.<<<

He had it for the same reason people have Mustangs, Comoros, Chargers, BMWs, Cadillac’s and other less than efficient cars. He wanted it. I have a truck myself and I use it as a truck but I also want it.

It seems to sick in your craw, but people have the right to buy whatever car they can afford. At least until the government starts issuing regulations on what kind of car each person can own based on government perception of need.
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 3:57:40 PM

"It appeared that he simply WANTED it."

...and your excuse for your vehicle of choice is...only different as a matter of degrees. I'll bet you don't drive the most fuel efficient vehicle that you could be either. Do you use electricity to cool your house? Yeah, I thought so.

[Edited by: HotRod10 at 8/28/2013 3:59:07 PM EST]
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,490
Points:564,370
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 12:30:32 PM

"It appeared that he simply WANTED it."

Aint freedom grand?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Aug 28, 2013 12:20:12 PM

I saw a pickup truck the other day with a Texas license plate. It had what had to be the largest diameter tailpipe I have ever seen. It must have been custom made. I kid you not. This tailpipe had to be a foot in diameter.

It was, in a word, ridiculous.

All shiney and waxed up chrome. Truck had a lift kit on it so the whole thing sat above most cars. There was a trailer hitch receiver in the normal position and the (normal sized) exhaust had been routed to a tapered fitting which flared out into this absurd giant tailpipe which sat just under the receiver.

It was almost like a political statement. As if this guy was PROUD of his exhaust spewing into the atmosphere, proud of his enormous carbon footprint.

He wasn't hauling anything. The truck was empty. And it didn't look like he used it very to haul much. It was all detailed out. But he had a big V8 engine, of course. Why he thought he needed it was entirely unclear. It appeared that he simply WANTED it.

What a waste.

If he really wanted to have the biggest carbon footprint he could manage I suppose he could purposely use up all kinds of other power needlessly. But then at some point that would cut into most budgets. He would be limited by how much money he had.

I guess if he wanted to release even more carbon he could become an arsonist and start forest fires.

It wouldn't change how much respect I have for his ways.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 9:55:45 AM

mini: "As a former believer what is difficult for me to understand, however, is that when the data are laid out before some believers, it either goes ignored or extreme rationalization ensues. "


That's because you were, as you say, a believer in the cause itself. Those in power in the left aren't believers in the sense that you were. AGW is merely a tool, a means to an end. What they believe in is that end, nothing else. They don't care one bit about the truth or fiction of the tools that they use; all that they care about is that the tool be effective. The truth that is coming out now threatens the effectiveness of what they thought would be a tool of vast power, and in fact could destroy AGW completely as a tool before its work is done. That's why they are getting all bent out of shape.


mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 8/23/2013 9:58:19 AM EST]
Profile Pic
HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,619
Points:61,195
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Aug 23, 2013 9:42:53 AM

"If your goal was to discuss the OP, then you should have left out your opening lines mocking btc - or at least learn how to segue better."

I can't be held responsible for your lack of reading comprehension, NickHammer. I separated mocking btc1 (this isn't a basketball game after all, some of us are trying to have a scientific debate, to which his cheerleading added nothing) and my comments on the OP by putting them in different paragraphs, with a blank line in between. If that wasn't enough, that's too bad, for you anyway.

[Edited by: HotRod10 at 8/23/2013 9:45:37 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 22, 2013 7:02:24 AM

mudtoe: "The left is getting ever more desperate as the climate data not only shows that no warming has occurred in 15 years despite a steady increase in CO2 concentrations, but now is starting to shows signs of cooling."

The sign began 12 years ago; AGW scientists have been perplexed. This was not expected. It wasn't expected at all.

mudtoe: "Therefore I guess it's understandable that they are starting to come unhinged and are having trouble maintaining their composure when someone presents them with increasingly inconvenient truths, which if had been kept under wraps for just another couple of years, wouldn't have mattered once government had the power over energy they were seeking."

I have noticed the rhetoric has been turned up a few notches.

But I try to separate out unwitting believers from the leaders. Most people are good and decent folks who want to be good stewards of the planet (as do I) -- and if they're told something repeatedly for years, it is perfectly understandable they believe it. It would be odd if they did not; we have a veritable bonanza of information to keep on believing it for a very long time into the future--the PR campaign and communication about AGW has permeated every fiber of our lives, from our governments, institutions of learning, to the MSM, Hollywood, it reached saturation a long time ago.

As a former believer what is difficult for me to understand, however, is that when the data are laid out before some believers, it either goes ignored or extreme rationalization ensues. Information is denied, rejected, the 'cherry-picking' meme is used. It is key to label folks like me--who has spent ~8,000 hours over six years reading, researching and studying everything possible to understand the science behind all this, a "denier." Things are upside down.

But the reason they believe is understandable. They've been frightened (as was I) that the carbon dioxide from their tailpipes--and from already massively regulated, already scrubbed coal plants are causing the earth to heat up. It's emotional--it is very big on rhetoric. They're afraid for their grand kids. The believe.

Disillusionment can be a long process. Switching gears is not an overnight thing. It wasn't for me. The moment I realized things weren't as I had believed, I had a sour, sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I was all-in with my concern for runaway global warming. Now I know now that warming will not occur (at least from any kind of trapped heat caused by carbon dioxide--which continues to be a non-starter as heat is escaping into space as it always has).

But even after two years and reading lots of scientific papers--and I was *still* looking for holes in the skeptics' arguments, because I simply couldn't accept that all those scientists were barking up the wrong tree (a tree I later found has its roots at the UN). I just couldn't accept that CO2 had been scapegoated for perfectly natural climate variation of slight warming in the 20th century.

This is just the beginning. They may ignore it now, demonize it, call folks like me a denier, a liar, whatever pejoratives suit their fancy. Climate Reality is not dependent upon what they believe. :-)

IMHO



[Edited by: ministorage at 8/22/2013 7:12:33 AM EST]
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,639
Points:3,176,470
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 11:31:08 PM

>>NickHammer quotes the last part, ignores preceding sentence where I returned to the OP...<<

I ignored it, HotRod, because you were commenting on btc's post commending me for pointing out a global warming denier doing exactly what you claimed to be a trait of "global warming believers". Naturally, I assumed you were talking about my post. If your goal was to discuss the OP, then you should have left out your opening lines mocking btc - or at least learn how to segue better.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 9:19:10 PM

mini: "I'm going to ask you just once to stop with calling me a liar. It is uncalled for. "


The left is getting ever more desperate as the climate data not only shows that no warming has occurred in 15 years despite a steady increase in CO2 concentrations, but now is starting to shows signs of cooling. If the climate starts cooling that will be the final nail in the coffin of their scam and they know it. They've put so much time and effort into this scam and it came ever so close to giving them more power and money than they could ever dream of in the form of full government control of energy and the initiation of carbon taxes, that they could smell the aroma of victory and just about taste it, when suddenly the real world data started seeing the light of day and the scam started unraveling around them. Therefore I guess it's understandable that they are starting to come unhinged and are having trouble maintaining their composure when someone presents them with increasingly inconvenient truths, which if had been kept under wraps for just another couple of years, wouldn't have mattered once government had the power over energy they were seeking.

mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 8/21/2013 9:20:25 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 8:56:09 PM

Michaelphoenix: "...it shows not only how your lie of global cooling originated But shows, with real data points, that global temperatures are rising. "

(Actually, it does not show what you claim. Your chart ends at 2001. It cannot show what it leaves out. The earth has been cooling since 2001.)

Michaelphoenix: "In this case, you are making a flat out LIE to bolster your own case."

Michaelphoenix: "So please, stop the lies."

Michaelphoenix: "ministorage please stop with that outright LIE that the earth is cooling."

Michaelphoenix: "you continually spew that ficticious claim that the earth is cooling."

Michaelphoenix: "Please stop with the outright lie about global cooling."

I'm going to ask you just once to stop with calling me a liar. It is uncalled for.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/21/2013 9:02:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 8:39:39 PM

Michaelphoenix: "You can see right there your spike in temp."

SO, you posted a graph that shows 1 degree C warming over the past 150 years. Big deal! Tell me what you find so alarming about the warming in your chart from 1978 to 2001, that you do not find alarming about the warming from 1910 to 1942. Is it because your source colored the latter trend in alarming red?

They are BOTH spikes--one from the arbitrary "safe" period when CO2 was below 350ppm and the other from the satellite period after 350ppm.

While I'm not familiar with your "http://classwarinamerica.files.wordpress.com/" source, which ends at 2001, I am VERY familiar with NOAA, NASA, HadCRUT, RSS and UAH data--ALL the satellite, land and radiosonde data from agencies around the globe that collect, analyze and report climate data. There is nothing you can tell me about the temperature data, proxies, spikes, cooling periods. You'll just have to trust me on that.

So, just in case you are still in doubt, I recognize the warming of the last 130-150 years, which, depending on the source, ranges from .8 to 1 degree C over the past century and a half. According to NOAA, the warming during that period has been .8 degrees. No "denial" here.

That is well within the IPCC's own recognized margin of natural variability.

michaelphoenix: "While yes the earth is cooler than that single year its has been steadily climbing for a very long time now."

The overwhelming preponderance of satellite data show no warming for 15 to 17 years. The leader of the UN IPCC admitted that earlier this year (he said 17 years). So if I'm lying, so is he. The earth *has* been cooling since 2001-2002. You don't have to believe me; you may ignore that and call me a liar or any names you wish. El Sol and Mama Gaia don't care what names you call people--it does not change the facts one iota.

Now, MichaelP, NickH, SSteve, btc1--anyone who wants to join in...

Take a look at THIS image of two charts representing the two cycles over the last century from the UN IPCC's very own data--from the UN's Hadley Research Climate Unit--and tell me WHICH trend you think is the natural one from the first half of last century (when CO2 levels were supposedly "safe") and which trend is the one from the second half of last century (and was caused by human activity and therefore unsafe).

The data are real, I assure you. There is no manipulation; it's cut straight from HadCrut.

The solar system has been in a period of overall warming for the last 11,000 years, with natual cooling cycles throughout the overall trend.

Tell me what you see in those two trends that is so frightening and clearly differentiates one as being human-caused from the other the result of natural, normal climate variation. I'll await your response.



[Edited by: ministorage at 8/21/2013 8:48:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
michaelphoenix2
All-Star Author Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 8:30:20 PM

A trend line in this case is completely relevant. it shows not only how your lie of global cooling originated But shows, with real data points, that global temperatures are rising.


When you pick an anomalous data spike in which to base your preconceived result, without looking at the data set as a whole, you are not being either intellectually or factually honest. In this case, you are making a flat out LIE to bolster your own case.


If you want to argue the causes, whether you believe its CO2, solar activity, or cosmic rays, that's fine. We can debate about that.


But for you to continue spreading misinformation and complete fabrications based on your cherry picked data sets, then you need to come up with real numbers. Not a cherry picked one that starts out on an anomaly year.



So please, stop the lies.
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,303
Points:1,128,315
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 7:43:22 PM

Michaelphoenix: "Please stop with the outright lie about global cooling."

You probably also believe that although you stopped growing around the age of 18-20, that if a trend line is used to show your growth from birth to present age, that the upward trend is proof that you're still growing.

[Edited by: ministorage at 8/21/2013 7:47:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,082
Points:2,321,935
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Aug 21, 2013 6:38:24 PM

The Continuing Collapse of the Global Warming Hoax

Snippet: <<<"While the nation tries to come to grips with the cascade of scandals involving the Obama administration, a significant phenomenon has been occurring. It is the demise of the global warming/climate change hoax that has driven national and international policies since the 1980s.

Directed from within the bowels of the most corrupt international organization on planet Earth, the United Nations, the hoax originally generated the Kyoto Protocols in December 1997 to set limits on the generation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The UN’s climate charlatans claimed that CO2 was causing the Earth to dramatically warm. It was a lie. The U.S. Senate unanimously refused to ratify it and, in 2011, Canada withdrew from it.

As reported by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, fast-forward to the recent UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany, and news that Russia, joined by Ukraine and Belarus, blocked the adoption of the agenda of the “Subsidiary Body for Implementation”, part of the standard fast-tracking toward a 2015 Climate Treaty scheduled to be adopted and signed in Paris. Part of the treaty is a scheme to redistribute the wealth of developed nations to those less developed.">>>

--In short, this well written piece goes on to demonstrate how the global warming scheme was concocted, and why, and what results they hope to glean from their success at creating the fraud that surely would have made Barnum Bailey proud.
Post a reply Back to Topics