# Our changing planet



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Would it be too much to ask that this thread be left free of the acrimonious tossing of feces that goes on in the GHG thread, and focus simply on real, observable changes to our planet's climate and the ways in which people and governments are being affected / are coping / etc.?_

*Louisiana's Coast Is Sinking*










It’s becoming harder and harder to communicate the most urgent crisis facing Louisiana.

According to the U.S.G.S., the state lost just under 1,900 square miles of land between 1932 and 2000. This is the rough equivalent of the entire state of Delaware dropping into the Gulf of Mexico, and the disappearing act has no closing date. If nothing is done to stop the hemorrhaging, the state predicts as much as another 1,750 square miles of land  —  an area larger than Rhode Island  —  will convert to water by 2064.

An area approximately the size of a football field continues to slip away every hour. “We’re sinking faster than any coast on the planet,” explains Bob Marshall, a Pulitzer-winning journalist in New Orleans. Marshall authored the series “Losing Ground,” a recent collaboration between The Lens, a non-profit newsroom, and ProPublica, about the Louisiana coast’s epic demise.

* * *​
Using publicly available data, Galinski created a map on which areas that commonly appear as land on government issued maps—woody wetlands, emergent herbaceous wetlands, and barren land — were re-categorized to appear as water...

* * *​
On our map, the real map, the boot appears as if it came out on the wrong side of a battle with a lawnmower’s blades. It loses a painful chunk off its heel in Cameron and Vermilion parishes.

Some people might criticize us for taking out the wetlands entirely, and there are places that do exist in real life — like Isle de Jean Charles — that aren’t on our boot (although they are visible, if barely, on the map we used to create the boot). But maps are approximations, and we believe ours errs closer to the side of truth.

* * *​
On our true map, I saw something the human eye can’t perceive: I was standing on a barely visible stripe of earth far offshore, land that anyone who cares knows is in imminent danger of fading into oblivion. On our map, the beach where we stood and the road we traveled to get to it are barely holding on. The map sounds an alarm too few people have heard.

(Business Insider)


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Of course the planet is changing. It has been doing so continuously for several billion years. Current geologic history has it that almost all of the current land masses were at one time a single super continent. We did not get to where we are today without change. Nor will the world remain static simply because some fail to realize that change is normal.

With and without human interference the Mississippi delta changes at a ferocious rate. This is neither bad or good and was going on long before man came to North America. If man is to blame for some of the current changes it has a lot to do with attempts to create land from wetland.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Look, CM, you are free to start any thread you see fit on these fora. I. Don't. Care.

If you have a particular position on Climate Change or AGW or Globull Warming or whatever the nom du jour is with actual empirical data to support it, then the GHG Thread is the place for it.

However, if all you are looking for is a "safe space" (a la other Progs on these boards) on which to espouse your political _opinion_ with absolutely nothing to support it, then this place will, like the others, become open season with no bag limit.

Fair enough?

That said, I fail to see how the sinking of Louisiana's coastline (a naturally occurring geological process) can in any way be connected to mankind's contribution to the _climate_ (your word).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> _Would it be too much to ask that this thread be left free of the acrimonious tossing of feces that goes on in the GHG thread, and focus simply on real, observable changes to our planet's climate and the ways in which people and governments are being affected / are coping / etc.?_


This isn't a climate issue at all.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

**** it.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

No, seriously. Connect the dots for me.

What is the connection between Louisiana's sinking coastline & anthropogenic emissions?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> **** it.


Unless you can explain why climate is the cause of the "changing coastline," don't expect a safe harbour. It would be just as if you told us we had to take an invasion by spotted kangaroos seriously--the onus is on you to show us the kangaroos and why they are a problem.

In fact that second map excludes wetlands--and even dry land--that have always been considered part of Louisiana's land mass. It's meaningless, except as a curiosity.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> **** it.


Dont Worry our liberal leaders will help, they sent 5 million liters of human waste down the St Lawrence and then they created a carbon tax that they will pocket, in the name of helping the environment. LOL 

I believe global warming as much as I believe our provincial leader Wynne will turn itself in for the all the corruption and theft Wynne has done of tax payers money in the name of global warming.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The loss of wetlands in Louisiana should come as no surprise to anyone who has read about the activities of the Army Corp of Engineers on the battered Mississippi river over the past 100 + years. It has been damned, diverted, drained and whatever else they could think of to create more agricultural land. That is now coming back to haunt the residents of Louisiana as the mighty river is about to reclaim what once belonged to it before the intervention of man.

Thia reminds me of a man I became friends with in Fort McMurray back in the eighties who worked for the US Fish and Wildlife department. He carried a sidearm back in those days and had government permission to remain in Canada doing research on his specialty, waterfowl for the 10 years I associated with him before his retirement in 1992.

He lived in Louisiana and was a pilot who flew his US government issued float and wheel equipped Cessna 185 turbo along the migration flyway of North America from southern Mexico to the Canadian Arctic. He spent thousands of hours in the air doing counts on various species of duck and geese and studied the effect on their well being. He was closely tied to groups like Ducks Unlimited and much of the information and maps he gathered from above formed the basis for many of the DU projects started to try and save wetlands on the Canadian Prairies.

He warned me and countless other Canadians that we were destroying the habitat of waterfowl at an alarming rate right across the migration paths of millions of birds. He was convinced that the decline of the family farm was a major contributor to the habitat disappearing.

I had to concur as I recalled growing up in rural Saskatchewan in the 1950s. In those days a big farm was a section or two. A section for the curious is one mile by one mile or 640 acres or 259 hectares in today's measurements. Our farm was a mere quarter section or 160 acres and could nicely support a family for many years. Practically every small farm had a slough or wetland on it, some small, others larger where wildlife abounded.

Deer drank from that water, ducks and geese raised their young, cattle drank from it as did coyotes and porcupines and badgers and all forms of the normal wildlife that lived along side us on the land. Once big corporations began to get involved in farming, farm size grew to several sections and ultimately to may square miles and machinery became bigger and better, or so they thought. Farming became big business by the mid 1970s as more and more small family farms got eaten up, bought out by the big boys and unable to compete.

With that came the thirst for more and more land to cultivate and those wetlands were drained and ploughed under to gain an extra few acres for crop production. Not only did that take away the natural breeding ground of millions of birds, it also destroyed the ecosytem of the prairies and the animal life had to adapt. That is why you now see deer so plentiful around small towns on the prairies, chased out of the bush that was cleared for crops. Duck and geese hunters lost traditional hunting grounds and farm freezers no longer held antelope, moose and deer meat to supplement their beef supply over the long winters.

Now environmentalists are screaming that climate change is the cause of so much drought on the prairies and frankly they are full of s h i t as they are ignorant of what went on in the real world, caused by man himself. Had all those wetlands been left in their natural state, drought would be far less an issue in the west.

I just get so damn tired of hearing about climate change causing this and that when most of the eco-warriors out their haven't got a friggin' clue what they are talking about.

We have only ourselves to blame both here and in the southern US for terrible mismanagement of the land.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> **** it.



I understand your frustration, Mark. The climate change deniers are the same kind of low information voters that think Trump is the best candidate for President in the US. You're never going to persuade them, but I understand where you're coming from. This year has been the hottest one on record worldwide, and there are devastating results in some places. Whether the changes are caused by human activity or not is irrelevant; we as a species have a responsibility not to make things worse, and to do what we can to help. Just because we don't cause tsunamis, for example, doesn't mean we are not affected by tsunamis. All one has to do is take a look at the waterways in Rio to see that human byproducts can be devastating to nature. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Look, CM, you are free to start any thread you see fit on these fora. I. Don't. Care.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't own ehMac, FeXL. Period. You are not in charge of what or how other people choose to post. Show some respect for a change. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> The loss of wetlands in Louisiana should come as no surprise to anyone who has read about the activities of the Army Corp of Engineers on the battered Mississippi river over the past 100 + years. It has been damned, diverted, drained and whatever else they could think of to create more agricultural land. That is now coming back to haunt the residents of Louisiana as the mighty river is about to reclaim what once belonged to it before the intervention of man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a thoughtful and considered response, Don. As a species, we have much to learn still about how to treat our environment in a way that it can continue to sustain love beyond us. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> The loss of wetlands in Louisiana should come as no surprise to anyone who has read about the activities of the Army Corp of Engineers on the battered Mississippi river over the past 100 + years. It has been damned, diverted, drained and whatever else they could think of to create more agricultural land. That is now coming back to haunt the residents of Louisiana as the mighty river is about to reclaim what once belonged to it before the intervention of man.
> 
> ...


Thanks Don a much clearer explanation of one of the points I was trying to make earlier.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

As an opinion, just remember that they're like belly buttons Everybody has one.

As a fact, this is nothing more than pure bull****...



fjnmusic said:


> This year has been the hottest one on record worldwide...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Never said I did. Period.



fjnmusic said:


> You don't own ehMac, FeXL. Period.


Which is exactly why I noted right off the get go that I don't care what anybody posts.

Just don't go looking for special privileges, especially after you badmouth another thread.



fjnmusic said:


> You are not in charge of what or how other people choose to post.


Pot, meet kettle.

Earn your respect, just like everybody else on this planet. That particular process has been clearly explained to you any number of times.



fjnmusic said:


> Show some respect for a change.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Tell me, fjn, do you actually know a single person who denies that climate changes? I'd love to meet them...



fjnmusic said:


> The climate change deniers...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Look, CM, you are free to start any thread you see fit on these fora. I. Don't. Care.





fjnmusic said:


> You don't own ehMac, FeXL. Period. You are not in charge of what or how other people choose to post. Show some respect for a change.


Clearly in need of therapy for control issues.....


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

fjnmusic said:


> That's a thoughtful and considered response, Don. As a species, we have much to learn still about how to treat our environment in a way that it can continue to sustain love beyond us.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Indeed. Fascinating!

You could compare it to letting loose rabbits in Australia in the 19th century, where they had little or no natural opponents. Next, rabbits becoming an infestation, so inventing myxomatosis as a cure.

Myxomatosis got back to Europe, more than decimating the rabbit population there- which had been under control before that. Even the domesticated rabbits meant for consumption. (Not much of a meat-eater myself, but still, this was an issue).

*Ergo: high time mankind should stop playing the apprentice sorcerer with an ecosystem it does not fully understand...
*
And if you really want to drain wetlands anyhow, ask the Dutch. They've been doing that for more than half a millenium. Sic.
Hell, Amsterdam lies at 14 meters below sea level!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> **** it.


Nothing like an issue requiring scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills to pull the 'low-information' denier trolls out from under the bridge...


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

FeXL said:


> As an opinion, just remember that they're like belly buttons Everybody has one.
> 
> As a fact, this is nothing more than pure bull****...


Will Canada wide do for you, FEXL?
Remember Fort McMurray?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Nothing like an issue requiring scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills to pull the 'low-information' denier trolls out from under the bridge...


Why don't you explain how climate change--instead of the engineering disasters SINC accurately describes--caused the issues facing Louisiana. By all means, explain it with science.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Feel free to contribute some facts to the topic, Mr Amateur Psychologist.

The GHG Thread is near at hand.



rgray said:


> Nothing like an issue requiring scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills to pull the 'low-information' denier trolls out from under the bridge...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> This year has been the hottest one on record worldwide, and there are devastating results in some places. Whether the changes are caused by human activity or not is irrelevant; we as a species have a responsibility not to make things worse, and to do what we can to help. Just because we don't cause tsunamis, for example, doesn't mean we are not affected by tsunamis. All one has to do is take a look at the waterways in Rio to see that human byproducts can be devastating to nature.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The year is not unusually warm. And it really does matter whether the changes in weather are caused by humans. It prevents one from creating insane and expensive climate change policies that don't work.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Canada wide what?

And what about Ft. Mac?



hexdiy said:


> Will Canada wide do for you, FEXL?
> Remember Fort McMurray?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hexdiy said:


> Remember Fort McMurray?


The victim of environmental policies that stopped brush clearing. In fact, what happened in Fort Mac is normal for a forest left alone.


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

Macfury said:


> The victim of environmental policies that stopped brush clearing. In fact, what happened in Fort Mac is normal for a forest left alone.


You may have hit the nail on the spot there, too, MacFury.


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

Macfury said:


> The year is not unusually warm. And it really does matter whether the changes in weather are caused by humans. It prevents one from creating insane and expensive climate change policies that don't work.


Human kind better be vigilant.
Chances may be slim humans have caused it, but the risk is staggering!

Will that do?


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

Macfury said:


> Why don't you explain how climate change--instead of the engineering disasters SINC accurately describes--caused the issues facing Louisiana. By all means, explain it with science.


There you go, at least some pseudo-science:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...oding-natural-disaster-weather-climate-change

And some more statistics (given the recent Louisiana floodings):
Heavy Downpours Increasing | National Climate Assessment


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hexdiy said:


> There you go, at least some pseudo-science:
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...oding-natural-disaster-weather-climate-change


That doesn't explain why the coast line is supposed to be disappearing!

But whether severe rain is caused by humans or not, this is the money paragraph:



> “It’s prudent to consider that if you’re building something with a 100-year lifetime, it’s virtually certain that it will experience an increase in extreme rainfall,” Kunkel said. “We either pay now or pay later. If we build resiliency into infrastructure, we can protect life and property.”


If I had to spend a billion dollars on a greenhouse gas program that _might_ change rainfall amounts, or use it to shore up crumbling infrastructure, I would go with infrastructure every time!

(Never mind you Dutch bastards and your dikes!)


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

> If I had to spend a billion dollars on a greenhouse gas program that might change rainfall amounts, or use it to shore up crumbling infrastructure, I would go with infrastructure every time!


Go both ways and maybe be secure. The risk is too great.
And I'm not at fault for ignorant politicians. They should use better judgment and/or counsel.

Enne, MacFury, speciaal voor jou, om je Nederlands te oefenen:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watersnood_van_1953

Remember the Delta Works?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works
State of the art... I wish we had that much here in Belgium.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

rgray said:


> Clearly in need of therapy for control issues.....



I agree, especially when one feels the need to dissect every response another poster makes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

hexdiy said:


> Indeed. Fascinating!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent points, mon ami.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The year is not unusually warm. And it really does matter whether the changes in weather are caused by humans. It prevents one from creating insane and expensive climate change policies that don't work.



July was ‘absolutely’ Earth’s hottest month ever recorded

By Jason Samenow
August 17, 2016 at 11:24 AM



















https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.was...hs-hottest-month-ever-recorded/?client=safari


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

See if you can cut through all of the bafflegab. How warm was July?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The year is not unusually warm.


2016 set to be world's hottest year on record - _The Guardian_

99 Percent Chance 2016 Will Be the Hottest Year on Record - _Scientific American_


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> See if you can cut through all of the bafflegab. How warm was July?



From the article I linked, should you care to read it:

July is usually the hottest month of the year, as it coincides with the peak of summer in the Northern Hemisphere. But this July was more than 1.5 degrees above average in both NOAA and NASA’s analyses.

“July 2016 was the 379th consecutive month with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average,” NOAA said.

Most of the planet’s land and ocean areas were warmer than normal in July. Parts of the Arctic were more than 7 degrees (4 Celsius) above average.

“Warmer- to much-warmer-than-average temperatures were observed across much of all land masses, with record warmth observed mainly across parts of Indonesia, southern Asia, and New Zealand,” NOAA said.

Blistering heat scorched the Middle East. Mitribah, Kuwait, simmered to 129.2 degrees which, if confirmed, would mark the hottest temperature ever recorded in the Eastern Hemisphere.

..........

The Earth’s average temperature year-to-date ranks as the warmest on record by a hefty margin of 0.34 degrees (above 2015, the next warmest year), NOAA said.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So what was the temperature in July?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> So what was the temperature in July?



Where? There are temperatures all over the planet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

The trouble is the claims and graphs are from NOA and NASA. Both of these outfits are noted for tinkering with empirical data to make it fit their models. 

Not too many years back Alberta had a year that depending on location, varied from coldest to third coldest on record yet NASA had it pegged as slightly warmer than normal. A similar anomaly was noticed in Argentina and Chile that year.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The reporting is appalling. What was the global average temperature? What do "scientists" think it should be?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> The trouble is the claims and graphs are from NOA and NASA. Both of these outfits are noted for tinkering with empirical data to make it fit their models.


This statement requires a reference. Otherwise it will be taken as typical conspiacy theory crap. Which says, usually, the data doesn't agree with me so it must have been "tinkered with", tampered with, adjusted or outright faked. A decent reference might verify your statement.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

If I dissected every response of yours that required it, I'd have a post count akin to Dr.G.'s.



fjnmusic said:


> I agree, especially when one feels the need to dissect every response another poster makes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The average of the planet.



fjnmusic said:


> Where? There are temperatures all over the planet.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Absolute. Bull****. 

And, if it was almost anybody but you posting this crap, fjn, I would go to great lengths to illustrate precisely why you are wrong. 

However, you don't justify that investment of time and certainly haven't earned that respect.

If anyone else is interested, look at an _unadjusted_ temperature record from the 1930's. Especially 1936. Weeks of daily highs well over 100°F all over the CONUS.



fjnmusic said:


> July was ‘absolutely’ Earth’s hottest month ever recorded


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> This statement requires a reference. Otherwise it will be taken as typical conspiacy theory crap. Which says, usually, the data doesn't agree with me so it must have been "tinkered with", tampered with, adjusted or outright faked. A decent reference might verify your statement.


You have to follow this regularly as I do, to see the data altered without comment from one month to the next. as FeXL says, the original 1936 records were preserved and show much hotter temperatures during that decade.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The average of the planet.



So an average increase doesn't do it for you, hey? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Absolute. Bull****.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To earn your respect I'd have to sell out my integrity. Not interested. Go on believing whatever you want if it makes you happy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If it's an increase then it must be an increase over some other temperature.



fjnmusic said:


> So an average increase doesn't do it for you, hey?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> If it's an increase then it must be an increase over some other temperature.



True dat, and I don't know exactly what the figures are. But I will take the word of NASA and scientists who actually study climate over the opinion of some regular citizen on an Internet forum any day of the week. No offense. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I didn't ask you to take my word. I asked you to tell me what the temperature was. Certainly there should be no confusion about the temperature in July.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

rgray said:


> This statement requires a reference. Otherwise it will be taken as typical conspiacy theory crap. Which says, usually, the data doesn't agree with me so it must have been "tinkered with", tampered with, adjusted or outright faked. A decent reference might verify your statement.


That statement was fully supported in one of the GHG threads. If you want to take your time to dig it up feel free to do so.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> That statement was fully supported in one of the GHG threads. If you want to take your time to dig it up feel free to do so.



Wait a minute. Isn't the onus on the one making the statement to look it up? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Don't flatter yourself. You have neither.

Don't know what it is about Progressive musicians...



fjnmusic said:


> To earn your respect I'd have to sell out my integrity.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Do your own homework, hypocrite...



fjnmusic said:


> Wait a minute. Isn't the onus on the one making the statement to look it up?


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

Macfury said:


> I didn't ask you to take my word. I asked you to tell me what the temperature was. Certainly there should be no confusion about the temperature in July.


In Toronto? Read this.
Toronto Month Weather - AccuWeather Forecast for Ontario Canada

Seems like slightly above average. All it takes.

But that would be statistically irrelevant of course, sorry MacFury! 1 (confirm 1) reading?


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

FeXL said:


> Do your own homework, hypocrite...


I'm getting a bit fed up with you here on EhMac here, FeXl.
Were I not on another continent, I'd love to get in a bar brawl with you so you could eat a hefty knuckle sandwich of mine.

Members here ( not all members of the same party it seems, but cultivated citizens none the less) are trying to keep up an intelligent conversation, but you seem to be constantly interfering.

Please get your spark plugs checked! And do something about your irritating Harley muffler.

That being said, peace, man! Can we talk now?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Bring it! It'd be a welcome change to the pussyfooting that goes on around here. Don't be surprised when you find one coming right back at ya, followed by a boot to the backside.

What you need to do here is look at cause & effect. A civilized conversation in my books means give & take. Not take, take, take. Cultivated citizens in my books mean people defend their positions with facts. Not feelings, unicorn farts and chicken & waffle defences. Intelligent conversation in my books means asking & answering questions, not pretending to know it all & not afraid to admit when you don't.

My plugs are fine, had them checked at the last oil change. My new exhaust is a bit louder than the old one but it lets people know I'm in the neighbourhood.

Peace it is. Talk away...



hexdiy said:


> I'm getting a bit fed up with you here on EhMac here, FeXl.
> Were I not on another continent, I'd love to get in a bar brawl with you so you could eat a hefty knuckle sandwich of mine.
> 
> Members here ( not all members of the same party it seems, but cultivated citizens none the less) are trying to keep up an intelligent conversation, but you seem to be constantly interfering.
> ...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

hexdiy said:


> In Toronto? Read this.
> 
> Toronto Month Weather - AccuWeather Forecast for Ontario Canada
> 
> ...



There you go. Deniers gonna deny though. 

As for the other matter, I've come to realize that some people just don't get it. A forum with moderators or a group that actually knows how to self-moderate would not tolerate some of the things we see here. John sure didn't. Having said that, I'm glad you spoke up. There's hope yet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

Now we're talkin!

Not an expert myself, still I found this:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/c...mperature-data-sets-overview-comparison-table

Also, a very good friend of mine is collaborating with the Norwegian Polar Institute. They are investigating the Gulf Stream for the moment. If that may be of interest to you, I'll try and get some of their reports.

Moreover, something very weird has happened this year:
a Gulf stream anomaly (please Google ). E.G.:
https://robet
Getting late, but surely, the Gulf Stream is something to keep a keen eye on.

Keep you posed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That's just one city. 

You said it was the hottest July on Earth.



fjnmusic said:


> There you go. Deniers gonna deny though.
> 
> As for the other matter, I've come to realize that some people just don't get it. A forum with moderators or a group that actually knows how to self-moderate would not tolerate some of the things we see here. John sure didn't. Having said that, I'm glad you spoke up. There's hope yet.
> 
> ...


----------



## hexdiy (Dec 18, 2011)

Hey guys/gals, I don't get what you're fighting.
We're talking some scientific facts out here:

Mean temp measurements do show global warming:
Spiralling global temperatures | Climate Lab Book

And the Gulf Stream is off-course:
The Gulf Stream Myth

well, Nostromo signing off for today.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

hexdiy said:


> Hey guys/gals, I don't get what you're fighting.
> 
> We're talking some scientific facts out here:
> 
> ...



Never let facts get in the way of a good story! In this case, the story is a conspiracy theory courtesy of climate change deniers. Regardless of what's causing it, she's a-heating up out there, and we ignore it at our own peril. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We're not talking about facts, hexdiy. If I claimed that 2016 was the warmest year ever, but that can only be supported by altering the data from 1918 and 1936, what sort of facts have I presented? If I have a graph that fluctuates wildly up and down, but then eliminate the spikes for the sake of "data smoothing" to create a frightening slope, what sort of fact have I achieved?

If I have a data measuring point that once sat in a cornfield, but now sits on asphalt near the parking lot of a shopping mall, can I expect the 2016 data to be accurate, while writing off the 1950 data as inaccurate?

Supposing I read a tree ring proxy study that proves the opposite of what the study author is trying to show about warming. What do you say to the author who declares that trees mysteriously stopped responding accurately to climate in 1960, therefore he is still right about warming.

Few people argue that the climate does not change. Almost everyone accepts that humans have at least some tiny effect on climate. Demonstrating any significant effect has been problematic at worst, impossible at best.

You don't have facts, you have theories--and most often these theories are not supported by temperature data.



hexdiy said:


> Hey guys/gals, I don't get what you're fighting.
> We're talking some scientific facts out here:
> 
> Mean temp measurements do show global warming:
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nobody threw you a lifeline fjn. You're sill unable to provide a July temperature, because you don't understand the bafflegab you're reading.



fjnmusic said:


> Never let facts get in the way of a good story! In this case, the story is a conspiracy theory courtesy of climate change deniers. Regardless of what's causing it, she's a-heating up out there, and we ignore it at our own peril.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Nobody threw you a lifeline fjn. You're sill unable to provide a July temperature, because you don't understand the bafflegab you're reading.



Well, you go ahead and believe whatever you'd like. I provided a link to an article for you to consider. You don't like it. That's fine. I've noticed an increase in temperature this year where I live. 'Nuff said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> . I've noticed an increase in temperature this year where I live. 'Nuff said./QUOTE]
> 
> 'Nuff said indeed. This is exactly the sort of personal weather "data" that climate scientists will tell you is not climate.
> 
> Thanks for providing the article, but it's a shame that it doesn't present information that could be used to answer some very simple questions--like "what was the temperature in July."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The weather must be different in Sherwood Park. We had only a single day in July that it got to 30 degrees. July here was cooler than normal.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A lot of people are very suggestible, SINC. They read about record temperatures and then they imagine they're sweltering.



SINC said:


> The weather must be different in Sherwood Park. We had only a single day in July that it got to 30 degrees. July here was cooler than normal.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Keep your eye on the pea.

The claim was that July 2016 was the warmest ever. There has been significant evidence provided in multiple locations here that illustrate otherwise. Period.



hexdiy said:


> Hey guys/gals, I don't get what you're fighting.
> We're talking some scientific facts out here:


I've never heard of Climate Lab Book before &, by the look of it, there's a reason why. Whatever...

Yes, temperature record sets do show recent global warming. In an unadjusted temperature set, around 0.8° C since 1880. I don't know a single person who doesn't acknowledge that the planet has warmed the last 150 years or more. After all, we are/were coming out of the Little Ice Age. The unanswered question is, how much of that 0.8° C is man responsible for?

That said, HadCRUT4.4 has been adjusted so much as to be complete garbage. Just reading the FAQ 1 makes me LOL. There was massive global cooling between the 40's & 70's. Take a look at NCAR's temperature graph from 1974. And FAQ 3 is so vague as to be completely indefensible. What period of time? A decade? A century? A millenium? And mankind is responsible for _all_ the warming? Bull****. Apparently these guys have never heard of natural cycles.



hexdiy said:


> Mean temp measurements do show global warming:


I don't understand your point.



hexdiy said:


> And the Gulf Stream is off-course:


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Warmist climate science at it's finest.

fjn, weather, not climate.



fjnmusic said:


> I've noticed an increase in temperature this year where I live.


The iron...



fjnmusic said:


> 'Nuff said.


You are so far out of your depth here, fjn, it isn't even funny. Save yourself the embarrassment. Ask questions if you want. But don't try to bring facts to shore a warmist's position. There are none.

Jes' sayin'...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Insults and condescension: that's all you got. And you wonder why people don't like to talk to you. The average temperature in July and most of this year has been warmer than average where I live. That's a fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Must be Globull Warming, then, 'cause there's no possible way it could be _weather..._



fjnmusic said:


> The average temperature in July and most of this year has been warmer than average where I live.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Must be Globull Warming, then, 'cause there's no possible way it could be _weather..._



I never said it wasn't weather. I said it's been warmer than average. Stop assuming. Weather changes that are consistent over a longer period of time can be evidence of a change in climate. Take a look at Cooking Lake sometime if you don't want to take my word for it. Take a look at the increasing number of annual blue-green algae blooms in Alberta lakes, like Pigeon Lake. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

On a platter!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> I never said it wasn't weather. I said it's been warmer than average. Stop assuming. Weather changes that are consistent over a longer period of time can be evidence of a change in climate. Take a look at Cooking Lake sometime if you don't want to take my word for it. Take a look at the increasing number of annual blue-green algae blooms in Alberta lakes, like Pigeon Lake.


Or you could do some research and find out that blue-green algae is totally unrelated to climate change and directly related to man using too much fertilizer near lake shorelines. Sylvan lake for example is free of algae this year, not to mention Pigeon lake is on the mend too after town officials banned the use of fertilizers. Sometimes the truth is easier to believe than the climate change bunk. 

Sylvan Lake News - Sylvan not affected by blue-green algae discovered in nearby Central Alberta lakes


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Or you could do some research and find out that blue-green algae is totally unrelated to climate change and directly related to man using too much fertilizer near lake shorelines. Sylvan lake for example is free of algae this year, not to mention Pigeon lake is on the mend too after town officials banned the use of fertilizers. Sometimes the truth is easier to believe than the climate change bunk.
> 
> Sylvan Lake News - Sylvan not affected by blue-green algae discovered in nearby Central Alberta lakes


SINC, if the blue-green algae disappeared they would realize that they actually loved it and say that global warming killed it.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

The premise of this thread is how mankind is adapting to changes brought about by climate change. Why are you discussing weather?

You noted that it has been warmer _this summer_. That hardly qualifies as a "longer period of time". Climate is generally considered a period of no less than 30 years. You're only 29 years short.

In addition, what empirical evidence do you have that this summer-long Sherwood Park warming streak is due to mankind's contributions to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

As far as Pigeon Lake is concerned, SINC has nicely turned your HOLI (high opinion, low information) talking point into pigeon crap.

Have a nice day.

PS You might be able to BS your way through a "soft" topic like politics & make it superficially appear like you know something about the topic. Out here in the world of science, where empirical evidence rules, you don't stand a chance. Opinions & feelings don't count. I warned you a couple of posts up. You took that little piece of rope that was intended as a lifeline & promptly hung yourself with it.

Jes' sayin'.

PPS BTW, that's two strikes on two pitches to you on this thread already...



fjnmusic said:


> I never said it wasn't weather. I said it's been warmer than average. Stop assuming. Weather changes that are consistent over a longer period of time can be evidence of a change in climate. Take a look at Cooking Lake sometime if you don't want to take my word for it. Take a look at the increasing number of annual blue-green algae blooms in Alberta lakes, like Pigeon Lake.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> On a platter!


A jewel encrusted, silver one, no less.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

SINC said:


> Or you could do some research and find out that blue-green algae is totally unrelated to climate change and directly related to man using too much fertilizer near lake shorelines. Sylvan lake for example is free of algae this year, not to mention Pigeon lake is on the mend too after town officials banned the use of fertilizers. Sometimes the truth is easier to believe than the climate change bunk.


Ironic, really the way the low-information denier trolls are always telling us to do our research. 

If they did real research they might realise that the man made fertilizer seepage caused algae bloom is exactly an example of an anthropogenic climate event when you stop to consider the knock-on effects of the algae.

Algae changes the colour and hence the reflectance of the body of water which affects the local micro climate which feeds into the general climate. The algae depletes the oxygen in the water and affects light penetration so that other residents die and increases emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, etc.

Deniers are guilty of cherry-(turd-)picking the research for what supports their position while denying the bulk of the evidence.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

rgray said:


> Ironic, really the way the low-information denier trolls are always telling us to do our research.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice one, rgray. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> Ironic, really the way the low-information denier trolls are always telling us to do our research.
> 
> If they did real research they might realise that the man made fertilizer seepage caused algae bloom is exactly an example of an anthropogenic climate event when you stop to consider the knock-on effects of the algae.
> 
> ...


When fertilizer removed, no algae, nothing to do with climate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Ironic, really the way the low-information denier trolls are always telling us to do our research.
> 
> If they did real research they might realise that the man made fertilizer seepage caused algae bloom is exactly an example of an anthropogenic climate event when you stop to consider the knock-on effects of the algae.
> 
> ...


Even if one accepted full out the scenario that you've presented, it isn't climate change. It's only pollution. The deaths of a few lake denizens would not result in any statistically significant change in the balance of the atmosphere, and we still haven't gotten around to proving the CO2--or methane--have a statistically signifcant effect on climate.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Desperately grasping at straws in a feeble attempt to have your argument remain relevant, much?

C'mon, rgray. If I had presented this convoluted scenario as some sort of evidence in any argument, you would have (rightfully) laughed YAO.

And why am I not surprised that HOLI Guy is in complete agreement with you...



rgray said:


> If they did real research they might realise that the man made fertilizer seepage caused algae bloom is exactly an example of an anthropogenic climate event when you stop to consider the knock-on effects of the algae.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Even if one accepted full out the scenario that you've presented, it isn't climate change. It's only pollution. The deaths of a few lake denizens would not result in any statistically significant change in the balance of the atmosphere, and we still haven't gotten around to proving the CO2--or methane--have a statistically signifcant effect on climate.



Do you think climate is only measured by air quality? "Only pollution" does not change the seriousness of the problem. The fact is that blue green algae has been increasing, and warmer weather helps the bacteria grow. No one talks about algae blooms in the winter. Think it through, amigo. And the pollution in this case is absolutely man-made and difficult to control, given the prevalence of fertilizer and septic tanks. Also, you haven't mentioned your pet theory as to why Cooking Lake is drying up. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

WTF????

OK, let's go through this line by line...

I don't even know WTF this means. Can anybody explain it?



fjnmusic said:


> Do you think climate is only measured by air quality?


This thread is allegedly about climate change, not pollution. Red Herring...



fjnmusic said:


> "Only pollution" does not change the seriousness of the problem.


Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. Show us some empirical data that shows blue green algae has been increasing on a worldwide level (remember, "global" warming), that it is, in fact, due to an increase in global temperatures and not increased use of fertilizers, then provide evidence that mankind is the cause of that warming.

That's how science is done. Not idle speculation about a lone example from your school coffee klatch...



fjnmusic said:


> The fact is that blue green algae has been increasing, and warmer weather helps the bacteria grow.


Nor mosquitoes. Talk about a complete absence of thought...



fjnmusic said:


> No one talks about algae blooms in the winter. Think it through, amigo.


And the connection to global warming is...what, again?



fjnmusic said:


> And the pollution in this case is absolutely man-made and difficult to control, given the prevalence of fertilizer and septic tanks.


Nor have you provided any evidence as to why it is, either.



fjnmusic said:


> Also, you haven't mentioned your pet theory as to why Cooking Lake is drying up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Climate is only measurable as climate.

Of course algae likes to grow in summer--it has been that way for millions of years--it just didn't have access to this much fertilizer. We saw this in the 1970s with phosphate-containing laundry detergents.

I have never heard of Cooking Lake. Why is it drying up?




fjnmusic said:


> Do you think climate is only measured by air quality? "Only pollution" does not change the seriousness of the problem. The fact is that blue green algae has been increasing, and warmer weather helps the bacteria grow. No one talks about algae blooms in the winter. Think it through, amigo. And the pollution in this case is absolutely man-made and difficult to control, given the prevalence of fertilizer and septic tanks. Also, you haven't mentioned your pet theory as to why Cooking Lake is drying up.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Do you think climate is only measured by air quality? "Only pollution" does not change the seriousness of the problem. The fact is that blue green algae has been increasing, and warmer weather helps the bacteria grow. No one talks about algae blooms in the winter. Think it through, amigo. And the pollution in this case is absolutely man-made and difficult to control, given the prevalence of fertilizer and septic tanks. Also, you haven't mentioned your pet theory as to why Cooking Lake is drying up.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Nope that's the Mannly way of thinking. 

Us so-called deniers are well aware that CO2 emissions are not nearly as serious as just about any other source of pollution you care to name. Things like dumping raw sewage into rivers lakes and oceans, disposable diapers, plastic packaging, K-Cups, Uranium mining and nuclear waste, politicians spouting BS from both ends.......

Incidentally the term denier seems to have been coined to attack individuals who dared question the mathematical veracity of some of the Holocaust tales. When it was pointed out that the cremation ovens used at Auschwitz simply could not have handled the volume claimed falling short by orders of magnitude, why were the individuals pointing this out attacked, called deniers and even jailed? It's a cowardly form of debate and counter to the very concept of free speech. Full stop! 

When part of your narrative fails to hang together it deserves the closest, most skeptical scrutiny possible. If the narrative is accurate it will withstand the close examination. If it is indeed in error it should either be abandoned or modified to fit the facts. Known facts should not be altered to fit the narrative. Calling those who challenge the official narrative "Deniers" is equivalent to admitting that the tale cannot with stand close examination.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I have never heard of Cooking Lake. Why is it drying up?


Why, Globull Warming, you silly!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Nope that's the Mannly way of thinking.
> 
> Us so-called deniers are well aware that CO2 emissions are not nearly as serious as just about any other source of pollution you care to name. Things like dumping raw sewage into rivers lakes and oceans, disposable diapers, plastic packaging, K-Cups, Uranium mining and nuclear waste, politicians spouting BS from both ends.......
> 
> ...



For some reason your critiques are much more digestible than FeXL's. His for some reason are really condescending and assoholic in nature. I can take criticism from someone who isn't an asshole about it. So, thank you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Climate is only measurable as climate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know why it's drying up, but 30 years ago it was a lake where people could swim and boat and what not. This summer a plane got stuck trying to land on it because it was too shallow. Maybe there's not enough sources of water feeding it. Maybe the water table has changed. Why has all the snow and ice in Greenland melted? 

"Climate is only measurable as climate." Interesting. And how do you measure climate? Considering climate refers to terms like "tundra," "desert," and "tropic," and climate is defined among other things by average weather of a region over a long period of time, and one of the ways we measure weather is by temperature, it seems to me your avoidance of temperature as an indicator of climate is strange. 

And this thread is not about global warming, it's about observable changes in climate. It's a pretty big frigging development for climate to change for a long period of time, like an ice age, or the wobble in the earth's tilt, but nonetheless there are indicators. In addition to natural climate change, there are a host of other environmental consequences we need to be concerned about, such as the aforementioned pollution. 

I'm concerned that the nuclear meltdown from Fukushima continues to dump nuclear ****e into the ocean and kills or mutates the sea life. I honestly don't see why some of you continue to get your panties in a bunch whenever someone speaks up about environmental concerns, as though they're not important. This is the only planet we have. Have you seen the water in Rio? Or the islands of plastic in the oceans? These are not naturally occurring phenomena. As humans we have a responsibility to be cleaning up after ourselves a whole lot better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Why, Globull Warming, you silly!



Ever heard of Assoholics Anonymous?

https://youtu.be/iXvk2FqEmaE


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> I don't know why it's drying up, but 30 years ago it was a lake where people could swim and boat and what not. This summer a plane got stuck trying to land on it because it was too shallow. Maybe there's not enough sources of water feeding it. Maybe the water table has changed.


I checked it out and these lakes have been fluctuating for centuries. As some of the lakes recede, there are old stumps still rooted in the mud bottoms, proof that the lake levels have been much lower for much longer. Naturalist Dick Decker (_Prairie Water: Wildlife at Beaverhills Lake, Alberta)_, notes that algae blooms have been observed for a century. Cooking Lake was once part of an interconnected watershed, but drying began in the 1920s and continues today. He also notes that heavy fluctuations in level are essential to a healthy lake ecosystem. 



fjnmusic said:


> Why has all the snow and ice in Greenland melted?


Believed to be geothermal:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04...ice-flow-and-subglacial-melting-in-greenland/



fjnmusic said:


> "Climate is only measurable as climate." Interesting. And how do you measure climate? Considering climate refers to terms like "tundra," "desert," and "tropic," and climate is defined among other things by average weather of a region over a long period of time, and one of the ways we measure weather is by temperature, it seems to me your avoidance of temperature as an indicator of climate is strange.


Climate is largely about temperature and precipitation. So a tundra is defined by temperature and precipitation records. I'm certainly not avoiding temperature, but I recall you were unwilling to tell me what the temperature was in July. I guess you were avoiding it.



fjnmusic said:


> I'm concerned that the nuclear meltdown from Fukushima continues to dump nuclear ****e into the ocean and kills or mutates the sea life. I honestly don't see why some of you continue to get your panties in a bunch whenever someone speaks up about environmental concerns, as though they're not important. This is the only planet we have. Have you seen the water in Rio? Or the islands of plastic in the oceans? These are not naturally occurring phenomena. As humans we have a responsibility to be cleaning up after ourselves a whole lot better.


Pollution, not imaginary AGW, deserves our attention.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I checked it out and these lakes have been fluctuating for centuries. As some of the lakes recede, there are old stumps still rooted in the mud bottoms, proof that the lake levels have been much lower for much longer. Naturalist Dick Decker (_Prairie Water: Wildlife at Beaverhills Lake, Alberta)_, notes that algae blooms have been observed for a century. Cooking Lake was once part of an interconnected watershed, but drying began in the 1920s and continues today. He also notes that heavy fluctuations in level are essential to a healthy lake ecosystem.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A fair response. Thanks for some of the background information, particularly about Cooking Lake. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I actually enjoy researching these things, so it gives me a slight natural advantage.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

It hasn't. Do your homework & go find some data.



fjnmusic said:


> Why has all the snow and ice in Greenland melted?


Those are regions, not climates. Ever heart of a tundra climate? Me, neither.



fjnmusic said:


> Considering climate refers to terms like "tundra," "desert," and "tropic,"...


Who said it was?



fjnmusic said:


> And this thread is not about global warming, it's about observable changes in climate.


Why? The climate has been changing for 4.6 billion years. It ain't gonna stop tomorrow.



fjnmusic said:


> It's a pretty big frigging development for climate to change for a long period of time, like an ice age, or the wobble in the earth's tilt, but nonetheless there are indicators.


Why do we need to be concerned about natural climate change? There's nothing we can do to alter that. Adapt & move on.

As far as pollution is concerned, there is far less pollution in the atmosphere now than there was even as little as 30 years ago.



fjnmusic said:


> In addition to natural climate change, there are a host of other environmental consequences we need to be concerned about, such as the aforementioned pollution.


Again, you're off topic. That said, the only one with his panties in a wad about the environment is you. Most of the rest of us acknowledge the issues but we're willing to deal with them in a calm, thoughtful, rational fashion.



fjnmusic said:


> I honestly don't see why some of you continue to get your panties in a bunch whenever someone speaks up about environmental concerns, as though they're not important.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Seeing as you're too thick to figger it out, here's a free tip for you, fjn.

It doesn't matter how nice or how polite I am to you. You're always going to find something to be critical of in my posts. Even after I quoted to those 4 posts & asked you to point out the alleged "abuse" and you couldn't find any, you still managed to come out & say something about an underlying negativity or anger or some such & then call me names.

I've shown those posts to half a dozen people over the last coupla days. None of them could find anything abusive or with an underlying anger. These are people I trust & they have no problems speaking what's on their mind. They're not ass-kissers nor "yes" people.

There is no way I can please you. Fine. I can live with that. However, that doesn't provide much motivation for me to be polite to you if I'm going to get dogged no matter what I say. Comprende?

You've made your bed. Now sleep in it.

As far as your AA is concerned, no, I haven't heard of them before.

I didn't click on the link but I'm guessing that you are not only a Charter Member, but the Lifetime President...



fjnmusic said:


> Ever heard of Assoholics Anonymous?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I actually enjoy researching these things, so it gives me a slight natural advantage.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Regions hey? National Geographic Society would beg to differ, speaking of doing research.



> Climate also influences where and when a civilization constructs housing or other buildings. The ancient Anasazi people of southern North America built apartments into tall cliffs. The sheltered, shady area kept residents cool in the hot, dry desert climate.
> 
> The development of agriculture was very dependent on climate. Ancient agricultural civilizations, such as those in Greece and India, flourished where the climate was mild. Communities could grow crops every season, and experiment with different types of foods and farming techniques.
> 
> ...


http://nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/climate/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Lessee, how does that go? Ah, yes

** YAWN **


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Lessee, how does that go? Ah, yes
> 
> 
> 
> ** YAWN **



Well apparently you have no idea what the word "climate" actually refers to, so it's hard to take your input very seriously. You're out of your depth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

FJN, don't flatter yourself.

All this does is confirm that a blind squirrel, indeed, can occasionally find a nut, too...



fjnmusic said:


> blah, blah, blah...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

FeXL said:


> FJN, don't flatter yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> All this does is confirm that a blind squirrel, indeed, can occasionally find a nut, too...



I don't recall ever saying "blah, blah, blah." Also, it's pretty important if "climate" and "climate change" is the subject of conversation, that we be damn sure we're in agreement on something as basic as the terminology. 

As Macfury explained, climate is primarily a reflection of temperature and precipitation in a given geographical region over a lengthy period of time. Temporary spikes or dips do not necessarily mean climate change, but a continual increase or decrease over years or decades could pose a potential problem. Even a degree difference globally can be big. It remains to be seen how much of an effect man-made greenhouse gases change the equation, when a volcanic eruption can create more CO2 in a short period of time than we could create. 

However, either way, we have to adapt to the changes. Just like market fluctuations in the price of oil, we can dismiss it by saying oh there's always booms and busts; it'll come around again. Perhaps so, but in the meantime we have a lot of people out of work who were relying on those oil prices. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

