The Watering Hole

I think things like this are the way to go: http://www.georgetownclimate.org/resources/us-department-of-homeland-security-dhs-climate-change-adaptation-roadmap

prepare now to help people who need it - certainly that's a reasonable plan. it doesn't even have to be governmental... hint for churches out there looking for something to do other than "mission trips" to Haiti...

this idea that we can control the climate of the earth is getting very close to magical thinking imo. maybe in the future, but certainly not now. science fiction at this point... but science fiction does have a way of becoming science fact over time... so, not saying it's impossible.

I read where scientists are discussing different theories on how to actually, not so much "control" but "influence" termperatures/climate.  One example was a satellite that went up, opened large panels and become a huge flat surface, then stayed directly in the path of the sun and a certain point on earth to just reduce the most direct of the suns rays.  

It is a bit scary thinking we can or should influence the weather/temperature/climate.  

My idea is much better.  I think we should put huge fans on the Canadian border.  Whenever the arctic weather tries to come down into the US, we turn the fans on and blow it back up there.  This accomplishes two very important objectives.  

1) Keeps the cold air up there where the icebergs need it to keep from melting.

2) Keeps the cold air up there where it doesn't make DTR freeze his a$$ off all winter long!  

Mitigation plans. It's definitely something we have to think about.  If we decide that we actually are experiencing more severe weather because of climate change, then being prepared is crucial.  If we believe that we've just been experiencing random, 100-year events, we don't need to worry. I'm more inclined to believe the former.

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 12, 2014I'm just an asshole, reality, facts kinda guy, what can I say?  Grin

You realize that's three different things, right?   ;D  You don't get extra credit for being all three and MANY people would actually prefer if you were only 2 out of 3.  I'll let you decide which two you think people would prefer!   ;D ;D ;D

That said, you're in left field again.  That's not the topic of this thread.  Don't be a cross-thread-polluter!  

Now, interesting that you bring up googling answers to questions.  (leaving out the part were you say I only did it AFTER the debate started, would help you get closer to that "preferred" 2/3 ratio).  HAHAHAHAHAHA      Seriously though, every place I looked for climate and weather information listed those three sources as the major "experts."  So, I then started looking for their opinions.  Interestingly enough, Charger and Tripper both dismissed one of the "sources" because it was a newspaper or whatever (the Daily).  When in fact that paper was quoting someone from one of those three main sources of expertise.  That's like saying "I don't believe you have a mesa mini rectifier because I read it at the XYZ newspaper and that is a conservative right wing paper." I'm the one in my music room every night, and I SEE it with my own eyes and even have a receipt for it.  So I DO have one.   Thing is, that paper quoted someone who knows far more about it than you and I, so weather (no pun intended)  or not he's right or wrong, I'm at least going to listen to what he says.  It seems the other side looks and finds "conservative" and immediately disregards.  Much as I disregard anything you say about God because there is nothing on that topic that we agree on.

The much more important correlation here though, is that you are not an "expert" on religion or God or any of that.  So, a more accurate comparison would be to ignore the direct testimony of say Matthew or Luke or John.  Those who were there and saw and experienced something at the highest level.  Then THEY come and tell you, all three of them, that Jesus is God and all these other things and then you say.  "oh wait, you're a Christian so I'm not going to listen to anything you say because I'm not."   Immediately disregarding someone because they are conservative or liberal for that matter, when that person was employed at one of the three main sources of expertise (not political agenda) on the topic...   You can if you want too.  LOL  I read others on the other side.  Not sure why people keep insisting I don't.  (honestly, that's just argumentative, not discussion).  I know there are others who completely are sold on the concept of global warming.  Which makes me wonder....

If you looked at my links, did you notice what I said about the one study who DID conclude that there was global warming and their survey started in 2000?  The coolest year in the last 20...   First of all, the increase since 2000 in that survey was .3 degree  1/3 of one degree.  Second, simply going back 3 years and starting that survey in 1997 would have nulled the result.  The answer would have been O change!  

So, you want to know what I think of it?  I'll tell you.  All the ALARMISM on global warming is a bunch of political BS!  ABSOLUTE BS.  The global increases over the last 100 or so years have been very small.  (yes, I just admitted that overall the earth is warming some, that IS fact, the alarmism is political BS!).  First, I think that it is happening so slowly that EVEN IF it's a continuing trend and not a cycle, science will come up with some way to slow or stop it before it ever becomes a major threat.  They are already working on more than one thing.  

And, what I DO think is a far bigger concern is the raising ocean temperatures.  They ARE happening at an alarming rate, per the chart Charger linked and the ones I saw.  So, why?  If the temperature is raising extremely slowly, why is the water temp rising so fast?  You're a fisherman.  What warms the water? Two things.  The air, and the SUN.  I HAVE NOT RESEARCHED THIS, SO DO NOT START ANOTHER BASHFEST...  my first thought is it might be back to the ozone layer.  The suns has the same rays it always had, but more of them are getting through to the water now.  This is actually the thing I was reading about when I made the volcano comment, because they claimed the one big blast a few years back did more harm to the ozone layer than 10s of years of human cause damage.  (I know you have switched to pump hair spray, so you're off the HOOK on this one, so to speak).  

Now, if my initial theory is correct, and again, it is not yet backed by anything, then once again the focus should shift to the ozone layer.   Warming oceans will mean eventually warming earth.  Could that even be THE REASON for the slight increase we've seen in overall temperatures?  Don't know, but at this point it makes sense to a fisherman. Example....

I go kayaking all the time.  There was a day last year, where it got up to 70 in march, and rained for a couple days.  Two days later, it was down to 50 but the lake was HIGH with all the run-in and that water was from the WARM rain we had.  That day I took my digital thermometer out on my kayak.  At the car, 50 degrees.  Out on the water 57 degrees.  Two weeks before that, we went out one day when for the first time it had warmed up to 60 degrees.  Beautiful sunny day 60 at the dock.  We weren't out for 5 minutes and Amy needed gloves and was already commenting on being cold.  Digital thermometer out in the middle of the lake said 50 degrees!  

I realize this is small scale.  Just making points.  Water temp that's far different from the "land temperature" will warm or cool the air over and around that body of water.  The oceans warming are cause for much more alarm, than are the air temperature changes we've seen in our lifetime, and MAYBE even the cause of it. If we want to alarm people about something, perhaps it should be that instead of the 1/3 of a degree overall temp increase!   Again, this is an OPINION.  

Your mileage may vary.  Consult your physician for erections lasting over 4 hours.  Or, as Mr. Z put it "Shut up and play yer guitar!"  

Now that first part was funny as hell. (as if their were one)  ;D ;D ;D

Look. I'm not anti-god. I can't be, they don't exist. I'm pretty much agnostic leaning atheist, probably a 70/30 ratio sounds right. If we can't agree on anything about God or that topic, you care very little for science/truth. It would suggest you have very little value on evidence/facts. We wouldn't have disagreement if you would raise your values. Care and understand the process some. But understand, we really disagree on how to determine if something exist or not. It's more fun to debate religious stuff, cause we win every time, but it's how we think that really is the real issue. And we win again.  ;D ;D

Not one time have I ever claimed I was an expert. And.... I freely admit, and have admitted in the past, that My Home is in Alabama.  (Born there)  ;D

I have a problem with you calling it Alarmism. In the science world, it isn't alarmism at all for all their factual evidence based reasons ...... and I feel that if something is harmful to our planet to the point of destroying it in 500 years, maybe..... since we could only do our planet a favor.... just maybe we should try to do one thing to help out with that. (500 years, just stuck a # in there,) Even if you don't think the earth is warming.

You lost me on the next one. I couldn't finish that paragraph after I read, "I had not researched this.....

I think your weather story was interesting.

You have wonderful theory's and I'm glad you feel comfortable sharing your opinions too.

;D ;D

(I bet it's the asshole part, right?)

;D ;D

ok, you're going off topic again.  So, you take as "fact" the report of one man on a given topic.  You take as fact the story of one man on a historical event.  Yet you deny the direct story of 4 men, and then many more, as made up, and fiction.  I'm guessing you didn't do well in history in school, where much of what you are taught as fact, is the story one man tells of an event.  Some times others collaborate.  Some times others tell a different story altogether, but you are taught it as fact.  4 different guys tell the same story, and it's a story you don't want to believe though, and you write it off as fiction, even though all four guys confirmed it as fact. I see how that works.   ;)  Just be glad that wasn't on your tests!   ;D ;D

I'm not talking about the Bible here--at all.  

But just think about this.

I saw a guy downtown on my main drag the other day.  He looked right at me and said "I wish those damn helicopters would stop following me." All the validity I can assign to one witness is summed up by that.  But take another example.  Joseph Smith.  He alone saw a bunch of golden pages, written in Egyptian heiroglyphics, that he was then able to translate into an entire religious text, with the help of the angel Moroni.  No one else ever saw these plates, and Smith claimed he was never able to move the plates, because the angel prevented him.  That's also a good validity test for why a single witness is inherently unreliable.

Again, I'm not saying anything about the Bible here.  What I am saying is that one person can say anything they want.  It can sound like the rantings of a lunatic, or fairly reasonable.  But there is no inherent reason to believe that.  It's like when I say my Epiphone Valve Jr. sounds great.  You don't believe it... why would you?  It sounds crazy.  Without me posting actual samples, or without a second witness, it's only something you can take at face value.

charger — Mar 13, 2014  I saw a guy downtown on my main drag the other day.  He looked right at me and said "I wish those damn helicopters would stop following me." All the validity I can assign to one witness is summed up by that.  

You ran into Mel Gibson?  :D

well, I was going to say something else here but I don't think there is a way to accomplish anything without pissing someone off... so I'll just say this: read Bart Ehrman with an open mind and be careful about building your faith on a rug that can be pulled out from under you.

without ASSuming, I would NEVER get pissed off at conversation like this.  It's that dang Hookbender that is making me want to smack him.   :P  (J/K! and he knows it)  

Ok, a quick google serach indicates that the statement probably was directed at me. So, go ahead and say whatever you wanted to say.  

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 13, 2014ok, you're going off topic again.  So, you take as "fact" the report of one man on a given topic.  You take as fact the story of one man on a historical event.  Yet you deny the direct story of 4 men, and then many more, as made up, and fiction.  I'm guessing you didn't do well in history in school, where much of what you are taught as fact, is the story one man tells of an event.  Some times others collaborate.  Some times others tell a different story altogether, but you are taught it as fact.  4 different guys tell the same story, and it's a story you don't want to believe though, and you write it off as fiction, even though all four guys confirmed it as fact. I see how that works.   ;)  Just be glad that wasn't on your tests!   ;D ;D

What "one man" are you referring to? But the answer is simple. I take the word of science and it's findings. That usually includes many, many people. What one man on a historical event? What historical event are you referring too? I never said anything was made up or fiction. You implying that I was a failure in school now? That's a baseless, void of any facts or evidence, claim on your part and I'd like to see evidence of your claims in the future, if you don't mind. It's resembling something said by a insane person. ;D

Now I'll judge your post, if I may. It was a waist of your time. It makes claims I said things that I'm unaware of saying. It also suggest that I went to school and learned nothing in history, which I think is irrelevant  first, as we're talking about science and global warming. And I'll point out, since you do all the time, that was a personal insult in a debate about global warming. Now, the way I see it, is you've decided that it's ok to attack someone on a personal level during a debate. I thought you didn't like that? Didn't you just start a entire thread basically crying in your frosted flakes about people doing just that? Yes you did. And..... if what you've obtained from my post is typed out in your post, I suggest a few reading comprehension courses for yourself.  ;) That would probably help you when trying to find a credible source to back the claim or claims you made previous to knowing what the hell your talking about, which is one of my points. If you research what you dream up before you post about it, it would cut down on the amount of abuse you suffer. So, if you don't want people to be mean to you, be smart. That would put you in control of how your viewed and how people respond to your statements. Nick Saban, Alabama's coach is all about the process. Talks about it at almost every media event he has. Or, a lot anyway. That's what your missing. The process and the ability to comprehend what you read.  ;D ;D

With Love and Respect

Your friend and asshole

Hookbender

;D

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 12, 2014So, I then started looking for their opinions.  Interestingly enough, Charger and Tripper both dismissed one of the "sources" because it was a newspaper or whatever (the Daily).  When in fact that paper was quoting someone from one of those three main sources of expertise.  That's like saying "I don't believe you have a mesa mini rectifier because I read it at the XYZ newspaper and that is a conservative right wing paper." I'm the one in my music room every night, and I SEE it with my own eyes and even have a receipt for it.  So I DO have one.   Thing is, that paper quoted someone who knows far more about it than you and I, so weather (no pun intended)  or not he's right or wrong, I'm at least going to listen to what he says.  It seems the other side looks and finds "conservative" and immediately disregards.  Much as I disregard anything you say about God because there is nothing on that topic that we agree on.

The Daily Caller is a propaganda machine, not a news source. That is the point. And we already explained the issues with the source they used for their bullshit-spew of a story. So don't act like all scientific opinions have equal validity. They are measured on the evidence that supports them and/or the ability to replicate their claims.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Basing your research for a good discussion on actual, factual analysis instead of a bunch of political spin is probably a better path. I know that's tough because you seem to be of the opinion that sometimes positions not based in facts or evidence carry similar weight. Roy Spencer's demonstrations are nothing more than a presentation of a piece of the story but acting as though it's the whole story. It's scientific dissembling. On many of these issues, he starts from a position and finds evidence for it instead of starting from the evidence and explaining it. It's the opposite of how science works. That's the objection I have to Dr. Spencer's work on this topic. It fundamentally invalidates his credibility as a scientist because his ideological bias is determining his findings.

Tripper

I was going to challenge the whole "four guys" thing... but I don't want to argue about the historicity of the Bible - I'm not an expert. the textual criticism is very persuasive, though, so I mentioned Ehrman who is more qualified as a reference and thought it best to leave it at that. sola scriptura doesn't work for me but I'm pretty sure it does for you so getting into all that wouldn't serve any purpose.

from the other direction... I'd also recommend Antony Flew's "There Is A God". he arrives at belief in God almost the same way I do.

You have a great grasp on the english language, Trip. I've noticed that with Charger as well. Just thought I'd compliment you on that.

Sheep, I was just having some fun with Hook there.  

Hook you know those things they put on the racehorses eyes so they can only focus straight ahead????  I'm on Amazon now looking for some of those for you.  What size do you wear?   8-)

Hookbender — Mar 13, 2014You have a great grasp on the english language, Trip. I've noticed that with Charger as well. Just thought I'd compliment you on that.

I appreciate that, Hook. I love words, and love stringing them together in sequence. Preferably sequences that make sense. That's part of the reason my posts tend to be so damn long. I can't stop stringing words together. :)

Tripper

Methinks Trip's just stringing Hooky along...  ;D

"Can you feel the love tonight?"  

Actually, now thinking about them both being recently divorced, that JOKE takes on a whole new, and disturbing meaning....   :o ;D

DreamTheaterRules — Mar 13, 2014"Can you feel the love tonight?"  

Actually, now thinking about them both being recently divorced, that JOKE takes on a whole new, and disturbing meaning....   :o ;D

I doubt they think about other men the same way you do Howie.  ;)

CraigBert — Mar 13, 2014[quote author=DreamTheaterRules link=1394125373/100#118 date=1394739276]"Can you feel the love tonight?"  

Actually, now thinking about them both being recently divorced, that JOKE takes on a whole new, and disturbing meaning....   :o ;D

I doubt they think about other men the same way you do Howie.  ;)



Ya'll are killing me.  ;D ;D Think I'll go grab a six pack and a copy of that their Dally Caller.  ;D

I doubt they think about other men the same way you do Howie.  Wink

And that's what scares me!  ;)

re: that ocean temperature graph

not sold on the data before 2005. thankfully, we won't have to deal with that from here on out.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ <- that's awesome

Interesting...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/climate-change-worse_n_4523828.html


The report...


http://www.ipcc.ch/

About IPCC

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

;D ;D