deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 28, 2011 23:08:13 GMT -5
Dezi salt water intrusion has been happening ever since major development has been happening in Florida and large water well complexes have been sucking water out of the aquifer especially along the coastal areas. so much so that major well drilling was halted in some coastal areas in Florida years ago. Can it happen faster if there is a rise in non-tidal water levels? yes because it will create higher pressures on a depleating natural aquifer level. Florida is like a honey comb under the surface. But the process of salt water intrussion has been going on for some time by loss of the fresh water aquifer. That is why some cities have and are in the process of building desalinization plants to reduce the demand of fresh water wells. Many home wells in Florida have actually gone dry from the natural aquifer loss and some cities have outlawed the drilling of home wells for lawn watering purposes.. Spent 30 years in Florida and have seen it all transpire. If you get the chance go to the University of Florida and view the sub strata make up of the state. Like I say it is like a honey comb. Like I say the supply of the fresh water from the north is drying up and a major factor in the loss of under ground fresh water. That is the scientists conclusion not mine. I believe you , I understand the problem, also why we have the sink holes here too..but as you said, if the ocean levels rise, they say they are and will and the Keys by 2100 basically gone, thats not so far off whether we are here or not. Our Grand kids may be and definitely their kids and other areas of South Florida will also be in trouble, and if part of the problem is mankind's fossil fuel use, I didn't say all, but a good part of it, why would we be poo pooing this? Granted if we start now in cutting these emissions we are really paying for it now and the ones who will benefit from it will be those who come after us, but is that wrong to do? China , who needs hugh energy sources now and are using fossil fuels and still building those plants, , however they are spending Billions on alternative energy sources for the future that will benefit those who come after them, but they are spending their hard earned wealth now for them. If they are doing so, why not us? Part of the immediate benefit would be industry and jobs for the now , not all expenses benefiting us now but a lot and the rest , for the grand, and great grand kids who could look back , if taught our sacrifice and they would honor and thank us for our sacrifice, much as we all do toward the "Greatest Generation ' who most are almost gone now , yet look how we honor them. Just about all of us, our grand and great grand parents and their generation. Is that so bad to leave as a legacy? Again, I ask you, what do you think. I'm open for any suggestion, ideas..thoughts on the matter.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jul 29, 2011 2:34:35 GMT -5
Yes, why have we hot days, were it not for evil mankind stinking up the place with his wretched CO2? Hah! Thought so. You really can't answer that one!!!! The only solution is to shut it all down. You know, return to our rural roots and grow stuff in all the wonderfully self-sustaining areas like the Imperial Valley in California and the eastern slopes of the Cascades, in Oregon. Turn the Santa Clara Valley back into its natural role as the food basket for the world.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 29, 2011 6:59:34 GMT -5
Yes, why have we hot days, were it not for evil mankind stinking up the place with his wretched CO2? Hah! Thought so. You really can't answer that one!!!! The only solution is to shut it all down. You know, return to our rural roots and grow stuff in all the wonderfully self-sustaining areas like the Imperial Valley in California and the eastern slopes of the Cascades, in Oregon. Turn the Santa Clara Valley back into its natural role as the food basket for the world. Lol, I agree. I say we start killing people off especially the runners and athletes that are making our CO2 emissions sky rocket, damn them for trying to be healthy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2011 8:34:18 GMT -5
The study also finds that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps much less heat that global warming enthusiasts have claimed. Taylor writes: [/blockquote][/quote] Once you get around the hype and look up the numbers, CO has no extra ability to retain atmospheric heat energy. (Kyoto meetings results) Dez, in your own "Al Gore" thread you said that you know nothing of the science of energy transfer and base your belief on global warming because you "feel" your belief is closer to reality. Are you looking for sheeple to convince?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2011 8:51:15 GMT -5
Now apply that to the actual amount of CO that man puts "extra" into the natural carbon cycle of the planet and come up with the percentage of extra heat retention that we're so called responsible for. Then compare it to changing energy influxes to the planets carbon cycle due to changing sunspot activity with our "contribution" absent and present. I will still stand by my statement of any extra ability of CO retaining heat as all gasses retain heat in different spectrum's.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2011 9:02:20 GMT -5
Like it or not, global warming is either a true hypothesis or it is not and all the king's horses and all the king's men will not settle it, only research. In the meantime, there are excellent, documented reasons to steer clear of excessive carbon in the Earth's atmosphere including acid rain which is destroying fisheries and particulate pollution that induces strokes and destroys lungs. I'm not really a coal guy, but wasn't the acid rain problem caused by the sulfur in the coal that was put into the atmosphere from the 1960's era coal burning power plants, not the CO?
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Jul 29, 2011 11:10:48 GMT -5
Yep.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 29, 2011 21:33:08 GMT -5
Are you comparing a planet that has over a 95% CO2 composition of its atmosphere to one that has less than 0.04% [yep, that's less than 400 parts per million]?
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,809
|
Post by kadee79 on Jul 30, 2011 8:10:25 GMT -5
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 30, 2011 8:41:02 GMT -5
As one who really doesn't understand all the technicals here , a quick glance at all the graphs..and reading of the technical explanations posted, it seems that it isn't good... Temperatutres are rising, drasmatically in a short period, sea levels seem to be rising, dramatically and only a sleight rise I know will affect millions of folks along coast lines..where buildups of infrastructure, living facilitiesn and people live, and the Ice in the polor regions is decreasing.. yet so many say this is just a natural occurence, no fault of man in any way.. You all belive that?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 30, 2011 10:13:06 GMT -5
If you say so..hope you and yours not living on the coast line..blub, blub, blub...
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jul 30, 2011 10:20:40 GMT -5
Shades, of "Water World" with the smokers being the villains.......
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 10:51:52 GMT -5
As one who really doesn't understand all the technicals here , a quick glance at all the graphs..and reading of the technical explanations posted, it seems that it isn't good... Temperatutres are rising, drasmatically in a short period, sea levels seem to be rising, dramatically and only a sleight rise I know will affect millions of folks along coast lines..where buildups of infrastructure, living facilitiesn and people live, and the Ice in the polor regions is decreasing.. yet so many say this is just a natural occurence, no fault of man in any way.. You all belive that? I believe it. From the data I've seen the sea levels have been slowly rising for 200 years, then started sharply rising around 1850, 95 years before the CO2 came into the picture. So how is it that it's not natural? where did you get that there was no CO2 emissions in 1850? by 1850, England was so polluted that it blotted out the sun day and night.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 30, 2011 11:07:50 GMT -5
In my youth I could have thrown a baseball right into the water from my front yard ~ splash ~ several feet out in the bay. I remember this location from my youth and the water level is exactly where it was then. Let's be kind and just say that's over half a century ago. I visited Key West as a child and later almost forty years later and the water level and the Southern Star Hotel looked exactly as they did then. I have no doubt that the water level is changing, that the temperature is changing or that the coastline is eroding. It's just that in almost three quarters of a century it's not noticeable. What is noticeable is that weather cycles repeat given enough time and what seemed to be a disaster at the moment is in time forgotten. The recent tornado outbreak centered in Alabama seems apocalyptic today [or at least a few weeks ago], but a similar outbreak occurred in 1936 with the most notable town destroyed being Tupelo Mississippi. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Tupelo%E2%80%93Gainesville_tornado_outbreak We, all of us, really should make an effort to preserve the land we inherited [from those who took it] for the benefit of our progeny [or whatever], but those who think we can direct nature are foolish. Climate change is as inevitable as all other change and no amount of effort is going to prevent it. If we need an example I suppose that Holland [The Netherlands} is a good example ~ build dykes, but don't try to control sea level.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 30, 2011 11:25:35 GMT -5
In my youth I could have thrown a baseball right into the water from my front yard ~ splash ~ several feet out in the bay. I remember this location from my youth and the water level is exactly where it was then. Let's be kind and just say that's over half a century ago. I visited Key West as a child and later almost forty years later and the water level and the Southern Star Hotel looked exactly as they did then. I have no doubt that the water level is changing, that the temperature is changing or that the coastline is eroding. It's just that in almost three quarters of a century it's not noticeable. What is noticeable is that weather cycles repeat given enough time and what seemed to be a disaster at the moment is in time forgotten. The recent tornado outbreak centered in Alabama seems apocalyptic today [or at least a few weeks ago], but a similar outbreak occurred in 1936 with the most notable town destroyed being Tupelo Mississippi. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Tupelo%E2%80%93Gainesville_tornado_outbreak We, all of us, really should make an effort to preserve the land we inherited [from those who took it] for the benefit of our progeny [or whatever], but those who think we can direct nature are foolish. Climate change is as inevitable as all other change and no amount of effort is going to prevent it. If we need an example I suppose that Holland [The Netherlands} is a good example ~ build dykes, but don't try to control sea level.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 30, 2011 11:27:53 GMT -5
In my youth I could have thrown a baseball right into the water from my front yard ~ splash ~ several feet out in the bay. I remember this location from my youth and the water level is exactly where it was then. Let's be kind and just say that's over half a century ago. I visited Key West as a child and later almost forty years later and the water level and the Southern Star Hotel looked exactly as they did then. I have no doubt that the water level is changing, that the temperature is changing or that the coastline is eroding. It's just that in almost three quarters of a century it's not noticeable. What is noticeable is that weather cycles repeat given enough time and what seemed to be a disaster at the moment is in time forgotten. The recent tornado outbreak centered in Alabama seems apocalyptic today [or at least a few weeks ago], but a similar outbreak occurred in 1936 with the most notable town destroyed being Tupelo Mississippi. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Tupelo%E2%80%93Gainesville_tornado_outbreak We, all of us, really should make an effort to preserve the land we inherited [from those who took it] for the benefit of our progeny [or whatever], but those who think we can direct nature are foolish. Climate change is as inevitable as all other change and no amount of effort is going to prevent it. If we need an example I suppose that Holland [The Netherlands} is a good example ~ build dykes, but don't try to control sea level. I have no problem with your thoughts if we , the humans , are not contributing in any measurable way to these changes, just so minor it isn't even worth mentioning. Then fine, I will go along with you, just sit back, [pick up the litter, possible don't build in certain areas no matter how valuable the land is, outer areas of North Carolina for example or if so, don't subsidize Insurence for those folks, let them sink or swim on their own..take a chance , fine, bites them in the butt , so be it...they suffer not the rest of us..] However I don't beleive we are not helping to contribute to these latest trends in more then just a tiny infatisamal way that shouldn't even be considered.. I think we are contributing in more of a heavy way then you are suggesting, there are just to many sources, granted possible some who are looking to save their grants , but all of them , in great #'s? Come on now , lets get real, to just dismiss those suggstions because of that so called rason, you buy it, I can't. I would like to buy it, make me feel better , but sorry, just doesn't go down nicely or smoothly..I do believe we are contributing in a big way to these problems.
|
|
txbo
Familiar Member
Joined: Apr 1, 2011 4:07:47 GMT -5
Posts: 547
|
Post by txbo on Jul 30, 2011 11:35:03 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 11:44:52 GMT -5
they have their facts wrong. Abraham Darby started the industrial revolution in the 1700's. there was plenty of pollution by 1800.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 30, 2011 11:54:36 GMT -5
Actually, air pollution did not start with the industrial revolution. Almost all heat and cooking was done using carbon based fuel sources so carbon pollution and the production of CO2 has been around virtually forever, most noticeably in the northern climes. Darwin, in his Voyage of the Beagle, noted that the equivalent of "smog" was present in Las Angeles and concluded that, despite a good harbor, that the area could never support a large population because of the "inversion" which prevented the dissipation of smoke from fires of the natives. Burning of carbon based fuels produces CO2, and, in effect, that includes respiration. The problem is the idea of when the level of CO2 is excessive and what should be done about it. Much of the blocking of the sun caused by combustion of carbon based fuel is caused by unburned carbon which produces the "black" smoke and settles on everything including the interior of lungs. The obvious solution for unburned carbon is complete combustion, which is technically feasible in industrial processes, but harder for fireplaces and Bar-B-Q grills. CO2 is a natural element in the air which tends to regulate itself through a balance between combustion and photosynthesis. The solution is balance ~ between plants and animals. [In the absence of animals the balance would be achieved by spontaneous combustion.] The problem I see with the "environmental movement" is it's tendency to seek control over the behavior of others, utilizing the power of government to coerce when its ability to convince fails.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2011 12:09:50 GMT -5
Actually, air pollution did not start with the industrial revolution. Almost all heat and cooking was done using carbon based fuel sources so carbon pollution and the production of CO2 has been around virtually forever, most noticeably in the northern climes. Darwin, in his Voyage of the Beagle, noted that the equivalent of "smog" was present in Las Angeles and concluded that, despite a good harbor, that the area could never support a large population because of the "inversion" which prevented the dissipation of smoke from fires of the natives. Burning of carbon based fuels produces CO2, and, in effect, that includes respiration. The problem is the idea of when the level of CO2 is excessive and what should be done about it. Much of the blocking of the sun caused by combustion of carbon based fuel is caused by unburned carbon which produces the "black" smoke and settles on everything including the interior of lungs. The obvious solution for unburned carbon is complete combustion, which is technically feasible in industrial processes, but harder for fireplaces and Bar-B-Q grills. CO2 is a natural element in the air which tends to regulate itself through a balance between combustion and photosynthesis. The solution is balance ~ between plants and animals. [In the absence of animals the balance would be achieved by spontaneous combustion.] The problem I see with the "environmental movement" is it's tendency to seek control over the behavior of others, utilizing the power of government to coerce when its ability to convince fails.safe: i never claimed that pollution started with the IR, i claimed that there was plenty of it during that time. it was the burning of fossil fuels that did it- primarily coal. i am well aware of how CO2 is generated and disposed of in the environment. my point stands, however. if you are looking into history for a time when we changed from agrarian economies to modern fossil fuel based ones, the 1700's is it. that is where it started. not 1945.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 30, 2011 13:03:58 GMT -5
Actually, air pollution did not start with the industrial revolution. Almost all heat and cooking was done using carbon based fuel sources so carbon pollution and the production of CO2 has been around virtually forever, most noticeably in the northern climes. Darwin, in his Voyage of the Beagle, noted that the equivalent of "smog" was present in Las Angeles and concluded that, despite a good harbor, that the area could never support a large population because of the "inversion" which prevented the dissipation of smoke from fires of the natives. Burning of carbon based fuels produces CO2, and, in effect, that includes respiration. The problem is the idea of when the level of CO2 is excessive and what should be done about it. Much of the blocking of the sun caused by combustion of carbon based fuel is caused by unburned carbon which produces the "black" smoke and settles on everything including the interior of lungs. The obvious solution for unburned carbon is complete combustion, which is technically feasible in industrial processes, but harder for fireplaces and Bar-B-Q grills. CO2 is a natural element in the air which tends to regulate itself through a balance between combustion and photosynthesis. The solution is balance ~ between plants and animals. [In the absence of animals the balance would be achieved by spontaneous combustion.] The problem I see with the "environmental movement" is it's tendency to seek control over the behavior of others, utilizing the power of government to coerce when its ability to convince fails.Since it is so costly, these alternate energy sources, and we have so much easily gotten coal for example, and actually in inexpensively gotten too , over all, compared to others forms of energy, why would they push it so much, the alternative. They would be better off using the $ that would be expended for other projects, that would cause less commotion and negative vibes by folks..and still could earn them good payoffs, self enrichment's..if your going to suggest they have a ulterior motive to get on that bandwagon, why go through all that grief and ridicule ..doesn't compute to me.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 30, 2011 23:40:19 GMT -5
That's obvious. The reason that people want the government to have more control is that they believe that they will be in a position to benefit from government control. That is; they believe that they will be in a position of power. That's what has happened in all revolutions, but, of course, most of those believers are eliminated when the revolution is complete. Useful idiots survive, but not those who expect rewards, there's not enough room at the top.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Jul 31, 2011 0:13:36 GMT -5
Yes there is an relationship of CO2 and Global Warming ...
Global Warming process increase in CO2 by 500 to 1000 years.. It has done that nine times in the past 500 million years.. Sound like a trend to me..
Yes I have seen the data.. It looks correct.
Bi
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Jul 31, 2011 0:23:25 GMT -5
Actually, air pollution did not start with the industrial revolution. Almost all heat and cooking was done using carbon based fuel sources so carbon pollution and the production of CO2 has been around virtually forever, most noticeably in the northern climes. Darwin, in his Voyage of the Beagle, noted that the equivalent of "smog" was present in Las Angeles and concluded that, despite a good harbor, that the area could never support a large population because of the "inversion" which prevented the dissipation of smoke from fires of the natives. Burning of carbon based fuels produces CO2, and, in effect, that includes respiration. The problem is the idea of when the level of CO2 is excessive and what should be done about it. Much of the blocking of the sun caused by combustion of carbon based fuel is caused by unburned carbon which produces the "black" smoke and settles on everything including the interior of lungs. The obvious solution for unburned carbon is complete combustion, which is technically feasible in industrial processes, but harder for fireplaces and Bar-B-Q grills. CO2 is a natural element in the air which tends to regulate itself through a balance between combustion and photosynthesis. The solution is balance ~ between plants and animals. [In the absence of animals the balance would be achieved by spontaneous combustion.] The problem I see with the "environmental movement" is it's tendency to seek control over the behavior of others, utilizing the power of government to coerce when its ability to convince fails.safe: i never claimed that pollution started with the IR, i claimed that there was plenty of it during that time. it was the burning of fossil fuels that did it- primarily coal. i am well aware of how CO2 is generated and disposed of in the environment. my point stands, however. if you are looking into history for a time when we changed from agrarian economies to modern fossil fuel based ones, the 1700's is it. that is where it started. not 1945. The summer where they had a year around winter was due to the volcanic activity.. A major volcano will release more CO2 then all man activities.. Bi Metal Au Pt
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Aug 1, 2011 14:56:37 GMT -5
safe: i never claimed that pollution started with the IR, i claimed that there was plenty of it during that time. it was the burning of fossil fuels that did it- primarily coal. i am well aware of how CO2 is generated and disposed of in the environment. my point stands, however. if you are looking into history for a time when we changed from agrarian economies to modern fossil fuel based ones, the 1700's is it. that is where it started. not 1945. The summer where they had a year around winter was due to the volcanic activity.. A major volcano will release more CO2 then all man activities.. Bi Metal Au Pt The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 released 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, more than that released by all human activity in all of history. geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htm
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 1, 2011 15:16:04 GMT -5
The summer where they had a year around winter was due to the volcanic activity.. A major volcano will release more CO2 then all man activities.. Bi Metal Au Pt The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 released 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, more than that released by all human activity in all of history. geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htmI have never understood that argument. Mother nature does it, so we should be able to do it to. Sounds like the logic of a child. It seems to me that regardless of how much of an impact you believe our emissions have on the environment, the fact is they have an impact. I would think a reasonable person would want to lower the impacts we have on the environment & our earth. Whether or not you believe in global warming, I don't see the logic behind the argument that pollution is acceptable.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 1, 2011 15:32:26 GMT -5
I have never understood that argument. Mother nature does it, so we should be able to do it to. Sounds like the logic of a child. IMHO, you're right about one thing...you don't understand the argument. It's not a typical P&M "well bush did it, now it's my turn" type of argument here. This is more of a "Mother nature has done and will continue to do more damage to our atmosphere than man ever has." Of course comparing SO2 emissions of volcanoes to CO2 emissions of humans is an apples / oranges comparison, IMHO. If "CO2 pollution" is not acceptable, then we all better quit breathing. We should also sue the government mandating pollution with catalytic converters.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Aug 1, 2011 19:01:51 GMT -5
Actually air is cleaner today than 100 years ago. Remember history where thousands died in Europe from stagnant air that hung over cities caused by all cooking, heating, and manufacturing that was powered by coal suffocated many and lung diseases were rampant. London was reminiscent of the black death with bodies piled on carts waiting to be buried. I remember in the forties when you could not play in the snow in cities because it was black from coal dust from all the furnances belching black smoke.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Aug 1, 2011 23:07:46 GMT -5
surfacestations.org/Probably because over 90% of the temperature stations used are spitting out junk. You know what they say you get out when you put shit in. Is that the new liberal argument since it's been pointed out that we had the little ice age up until the 1800's. Move the trend line back far enough and you'll get the desired graph? Just don't pull a Mann and you'll be okay.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 2, 2011 10:16:07 GMT -5
It's an interesting article, Ed. Most people don't realize that AGW climate science is model- rather than data-driven. The release of new data helps keep their enthusiasm in check from time to time. I'm not on my PC, but when I get back home I'll perhaps pitch in a battery of good articles I've collected over the past two years that catalog the endless chain of model-data disparities that have climate modelers playing damage control.
|
|