Whatever your thoughts on climate change, this is BS & would cost all of us.

henapple

@JohnInCarolina.... Why didn't obama step in with that crisis? As a climate alarmist, shouldn't he have. My God, if that had been  President Bush all hell would have broken loose. 

Fred19Flintstone

JohnInCarolina said:

Fred19Flintstone said:

Steve753 said:

If you want to see what runaway carbon can do, look no further than the planet Venus.

Who says we have runaway carbon?  Plants eat carbon dioxide here on Earth.  Are there plants on Venus?  No, there are none.  The Earth continually cleans itself.  Look at the Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  That was deemed catastrophic and will ruin the ecology of the gulf along with the fishery.  That caused some problems, but barely a year later, everything is back to normal.

We have pretty good regulation already. In the US, the air is pretty clean and so is the water.  As long as we stick to the existing laws, there's no reason to shoot our economy down with more regs.  Man is not causing global warming.  The earth is not warming.  Why hasn't the mean temps gone up the last 16 years?

Let me close with another tidbit.  Did you know that parts of Greenland were actively farmed 1,200 years ago?  Frozen Greenland was farmed for about 400 years.  The crop of choice was barley.  The point is the climate was warm in that pre-industrial time and man had nothing to do with it.  It has since gotten colder and man had nothing to do with that either.

There is so much wrong with this post it's difficult to know where to start.  Every paragraph contains incorrect information and/or logical fallacies.  Well done Fred.

I'll just comment on the Deepwater Horizon spill, as I think I've addressed most of your other misconceptions before.  About a month ago, NOAA and the Deepwater Horizon Trustees released a draft plan for gulf restoration.  It is actually open to public comment until mid-December, so I encourage people who are legitimately intellectually curious to read it.  The plan can be found here:

http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan/

This is a comprehensive, 15-year plan that will cost around $10B.  It will take that long and cost that much because of the extensive damage that was done and how difficult it will be to mitigate it.  But yeah, like you wrote, everything is "back to normal."

John I thought you would stomp on me about Greenland's agricultural past because it exposes your global warming BS as the Chicken Little alarmist crap that it is.

About the oil spill:  So where is the oil spill being felt?  The fishery is back.  What are you talking about?  Obama is a global warming nut and his bureaucracy follows that lead.  That includes your NOAA thing.  They are part of the Department of Commerce.

Fred19Flintstone

Ahhhh!  Brother Buffalo!  There you are!

Sardonicus

This time, Goliath wins.
                 

JohnInCarolina

Fred19Flintstone said:

John I thought you would stomp on me about Greenland's agricultural past because it exposes your global warming BS as the Chicken Little alarmist crap that it is.

Fred if your contention is that global warming isn't real because Greenland was green 1000 years ago, then once again you're very confused.  I'll just point out that the Greenland ice sheet is estimated to be about 500,000 years old. Think about what the implications of that are for a minute, and then get back to me.  I know that's hard for you to accept when you think the planet Earth isn't much older than a couple thousand years, but science tells us otherwise.  

Fred19Flintstone said:

About the oil spill:  So where is the oil spill being felt?  The fishery is back.  What are you talking about?  

It's all there in the link I posted Fred.  All you have to do is be willing to read. If you require drawings in crayon instead, let me know and I'll see what I can find.  But at some point, I'm going to ask you to prove that you can actually walk upright before continuing to try and explain stuff to you.

JohnInCarolina

Sardonicus said:

This time, Goliath wins.
                 

"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

nolaegghead

The issue with Greenland is there was evidence of plant life below some of the ice that's earlier than thought, but a thousand years ago....nuh uh.

"Scientists who probed 2 km (1.2 mi) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said that the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants, and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest. That view contrasts sharply with the prevailing one that a lush forest of this kind could not have existed in Greenland any later than 2.4 million years ago. These DNA samples suggest that the temperature probably reached 10 °C (50 °F) in the summer and −17 °C (1.4 °F) in the winter. They also indicate that during the last interglacial period, 130,000–116,000 years ago, when local temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.[68]"

The Deepwater Horizon spill has F*CKED this area.   Fishermen, shrimpers, crabbers and sport fishermen are still feeling the effects.  When I'm out in the Grand Isle area, I see dead marsh that's covered with oil residue everywhere.  Read up on that, Fred.  They say most of the oil is still down there and it gets stirred up and creates huge dead areas that are part of the bottom of the food chain.  Our company did a lot of the testing, including biota, and we found oil and metabolites galore.

nolaegghead

John, I did see a picture of Fred where he stood upright - from the @henapple fest.  So I think you're being a little unfair there with that ad hominem.  Just a little.

JohnInCarolina

nolaegghead said:

John, I did see a picture of Fred where he stood upright - from the @henapple fest.  So I think you're being a little unfair there with that ad hominem.  Just a little.

I know.  I'm just trying to reconcile that evidence with Fred's posts on climate, which are akin to poo being flung on my screen.  

nolaegghead

From LSU Ag:

Marine Fisheries

In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill had several effects on marine fisheries. Marine fisheries grounds were almost all reopened in 2011, and all marine fisheries saw an increase in landings in 2012 and 2011 compared to 2010. Landings in 2013 were down slightly from 2012 levels. Marine finfish landings for food are varied and complex, with about 60 different species being landed for a total of 12.4 million pounds in 2013, excluding menhaden. This was a 10 percent decrease from 2012, when 13.8 million pounds of marine food finfish were landed in Louisiana. Excluding menhaden, the five most-valued species landed in 2013, by decreasing value, were red snapper, yellowfin tuna, black drum, king mackerel and sharks. Total saltwater food finfish landings, excluding menhaden, were valued at $19.2 million in 2013, down from $21.2 million in 2012.

Landings of menhaden, a low-value but high-volume nonfood finfish species, were 849 million pounds in 2013, down from 1 billion pounds in 2012. The catch was valued at $84.9 million, up significantly from $64.9 million in 2012. Menhaden value increased in 2013, with it selling for approximately 10 cents per pound compared to 6.32 cents per pound in 2012. Menhaden oil and meal are sold on the world market for industrial purposes, animal feeds and omega-3 dietary supplements, among other uses, and the prices received for menhaden products is a function of the world supply of oils and meals, particularly those produced by the fisheries for the anchovetta of the Pacific Coast of South America.

Oysters increased slightly in value and landings in 2013 compared to 2012, and above 2010 and 2011 levels, years heavily affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and record-level flooding from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers. In 2013, 11.34 million pounds of oysters were landed, less than 1 percent increase over 11.25 million in 2012. Nonetheless, this is still down from 14.7 million pounds of oysters harvested in 2009. The price in 2012 was approximately $3.98 per pound of oyster meat. To calculate prices per sack, assume 6.47 pounds of shucked oyster meat per sack ($25.77 per sack). According to US-NOAA-NMFS, the gross value of oysters harvested during 2013 was $45.2 million – up from 2012 but down from $50 million in 2009.

Blue crabs constitute nearly all of the Louisiana crab harvest, with stone crab claws making up less than 0.01 percent. Louisiana hard crab landings normally range from 40 to 50 million pounds. Hard-shelled blue crab landings were 38.8 million pounds with a gross value of $51 million in 2013. This was a 15 percent decrease from 45.4 million pounds in 2012, but an 18% increase in value of $43.1 million in 2012. This was also lower than when fishers harvested 51 million pounds in 2009 or the 43.8 million pounds in 2008, when two hurricanes caused damage to gear and infrastructure.

In 2012, production of soft-shelled crabs (7,996 pounds) and peeler crabs for the shedding business (131,719 pounds) was down from 2012. In 2009, production of soft-shelled crabs (35,484 pounds) and peeler crabs for the shedding business (171,656 pounds) had increased from the lowest ever recorded in 2008 due to many shore-side shedding facilities being damaged or destroyed by the 2005 and 2008 storms. Hurricane Isaac in the fall of 2012 may have affected shedding facilities, too.

Louisiana shrimp landings in 2013 consisted of six species: white shrimp, brown shrimp, sea bobs, rock shrimp, pink shrimp and royal red shrimp. White shrimp historically have provided 50-60 percent of the harvest by weight and around 70 percent by value. In 2012, white shrimp contributed about 58 percent (56.9 million pounds) of total weight and 71 percent ($127.4 million) of total value. In 2013, brown shrimp landings totaled 39.4 million pounds with a value of $49.6 million dockside. The weighted-average price for shrimp was $1.81 in 2013, up from $1.45 in 2010-2012. Total shrimp landings in 2013 were 96.8 million pounds, a decrease from 2012 when 101.7 million pounds were harvested, but an increase from 90.5 million pounds harvested in 2011. By comparison, 74.2 million pounds of shrimp were harvested in 2010, 114 million pounds in 2009, 89.7 million pounds in 2008 and 109.5 million pounds in 2007. Shrimp landed in Louisiana had a gross value of $178.4 million in 2012, up from 2010 through 2012.

In 2013, marine fisheries landings in Louisiana were valued at $328.7million at dockside, up from $271.9 million in 2012. Value added for marine fisheries was estimated to be $320.4 million in 2013. That means the total value of all marine fisheries, including value added, in 2013 was estimated to be $649.1 million to the state’s economy.

Sardonicus

JohnInCarolina said:

Sardonicus said:

. . .

This time, Goliath wins.
                 

"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNbd8pUmWko

fishlessman

during this discussion the earths temp rose by 0.0000000000000000000007 degrees F and the ice in antarctica is 2.4 inches thicker the temp increase came from the heat dissipated from all those servers whizzzing away during this thread

HeavyG

Fred19Flintstone said:

...  Look at the Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  That was deemed catastrophic and will ruin the ecology of the gulf along with the fishery.  That caused some problems, but barely a year later, everything is back to normal.

That's likely to be the funniest stuff I'll read on the webs today!

lousubcap

Hard to believe this thread lasted as long as it did.  Mods definitely in a different space...til today.
Oh well, all the experts are now in Paris to solve the climate change issue.  I'm sure nothing controversial will come from that cluster fvck 

Legume

It's those pesky authoritarians who are all conservative and always ignore new information and never interested in ideas and science.

GATraveller

She knows exactly how @nolaegghead feels.

fishlessman

Legume said:

It's those pesky authoritarians who are all conservative and always ignore new information and never interested in ideas and science.

i can see that, got my first flip phone maybe 4 years ago, still dont like carrying a phone

this one baffles me.....why is this so much better

Davec433

Just because someone is asking for a butt ton of money doesn't make it legit. I wonder what happens to all the oil fields that naturally rupture and end up spilling into the ocean.

Climate Depot.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/29/skeptical-climate-documentary-set-to-rock-un-climate-summit-film-to-have-red-carpet-premiere-in-paris/

The film is the first climate documentary to profile scientists who have reversed their views from supporting the so-called “consensus” position to a conversion to skepticism. The film also profiles politically left scientists who have now declared themselves skeptics of man-made global warming and United Nations scientists who have now turned against the UN for “distorting” climate science.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/29/skeptical-climate-documentary-set-to-rock-un-climate-summit-film-to-have-red-carpet-premiere-in-paris/#ixzz3t0jCCbpV

Legume

Davec433 said:

Just because someone is asking for a butt ton of money doesn't make it legit.

This is 100% correct.

Legume

...but of course, no solution ever legitimizes a problem.  Good solution or bad, expensive or cheap, has nothing to do with existence of a problem or not.

Same again with politics or politicians.

nolaegghead

Maybe if we get all the politicians, private citizens and corporations who deny the science to sign an agreement to pay for out of their corporations or estates any damage to people from any anthropogenic climate change everyone would feel better.  It's not happening, right?  I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Davec433

Can't remember where I was saw this originally. Basically any warming naturally or otherwise causes water to evaporate which in turn causes cooling. Kind of how our bodies regulate our temperature just on a massive scale.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/paper-finds-evaporation-of-water-causes.html?m=1

henapple

Maybe we get all the alarmist to pony up what they say they believe? Aaahhgh the sky is falling.... I'll deal with that when I get back from my beach house... Which I got to in my private jet. 

JohnInCarolina

Davec433 said:

Can't remember where I was saw this originally. Basically any warming naturally or otherwise causes water to evaporate which in turn causes cooling. Kind of how our bodies regulate our temperature just on a massive scale.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/paper-finds-evaporation-of-water-causes.html?m=1

I'm sure the thousands of scientists with doctorates in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Geophysics, Environmental Engineering, etc. - that they've all somehow managed to overlook something as basic as evaporation.  That really does sound plausible, amirite?!?!?

nolaegghead

Whatever water evaporates it will eventually condense, releasing the same amount of heat it removed.  Plus water is a greenhouse gas.  BAM!  Muthafkn science!

Davec433

Why aren't those thousands explaining the almost 19 year Global Warming standstill? Answer, there is no money, grants and prestigious awards in it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

JohnInCarolina

Davec433 said:

Why aren't those thousands explaining the almost 19 year Global Warming standstill? Answer, there is no money, grants and prestigious awards in it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

You know that Google can be used for more than just searching for crackpot theories, right?  

nolaegghead

Davec433 said:

Why aren't those thousands explaining the almost 19 year Global Warming standstill? Answer, there is no money, grants and prestigious awards in it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

Au contraire mon ami.  There is money for SCIENCE.  THERE IS NO SIDE.  READ THIS PLEASE.

nolaegghead

http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7

Davec433

JohnInCarolina said:

Davec433 said:

Why aren't those thousands explaining the almost 19 year Global Warming standstill? Answer, there is no money, grants and prestigious awards in it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

You know that Google can be used for more than just searching for crackpot theories, right?  

But you didn't refute what I said.