# Gorbal Warming



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

So how are Al and Friends going to explain 30 inches of snow in Massachusetts in October?


----------



## NickT (Feb 1, 2011)

Its such bs, the environmental wackos need a outlet to justify


----------



## CS-LAWNSERVICE (Sep 3, 2011)

hmm lets see

global warming makes more glaciers melt cooling the flow of water from the Atlantic ocean causing more low pressure to move south which at the same time cause more moisture to head to the north from the south or some such stuff.

but damn for global warming why is it 29 degrees here at my house with snow on the ground


----------



## REAPER (Nov 23, 2004)

CS-LAWNSERVICE;1334109 said:


> hmm lets see
> 
> global warming makes more glaciers melt cooling the flow of water from the Atlantic ocean causing more low pressure to move south which at the same time cause more moisture to head to the north from the south or some such stuff.
> 
> but damn for global warming why is it 29 degrees here at my house with snow on the ground


They in fact do try to use this lame example. Problem is that is one reason we had the Ice Age as well when there were hardly any people on the earth yet. 

Look up "oceanic conveyor" on google and read how there is not a damn thing man can do to change the natural causes of nature.


----------



## affekonig (Aug 5, 2008)

Time for more research, boys. Science is science and somebody obviously hasn't done their homework on global warming considering the first post in this thread. 

Environmental wackos? Have you every been to a country without "enviromental wackos"? Be thankful that they're around to protect us from ourselves.


----------



## lawnboy11 (Aug 22, 2000)

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

Are you seriious? You don't believe in global warming? Really?

I bet you think the earth is flat too.

The cause may be debatale (not really, it's man) but to deny global temp rise is just silly.

How do you even know there was an ice age 10,000 years ago? Oh yeah- science.

Unreal. The lack of education in this country is a real problem.


----------



## NickT (Feb 1, 2011)

The earth goes through different cycles, look it up the temperature change is not that much, oh and scientists can't be bought to favor their data wake up global warming freaks, we really need the epa or anyone else to so call protect us???


----------



## csi.northcoast (Aug 7, 2010)

it may be that global warming is not debatable but what is the cause. we have been industrialize for around 100 year on a planet that is 3 billion years old.. we do not really know if this warming is cyclable or is man made.... we had an ice age then the glaciers retraeted ...what caused that??? 

i know that we need to protect the environment as much as possible ... but i do think it was funny when al had a global warming summit in i think mass, but it was snowed out


----------



## hosenfeffer (Nov 23, 2008)

*just my two cents flame on*

Man made or not there is some type of change going on. From personal experience fishing off shore water temperatures and even species and locations of fish are changing to a degree I have not seen in 20 years of being on the water.
What will happen is anybodies guess at this point. Water salinity and temperature changes are a very dangerous thing. Some of the basic bottom of the food chain organisms only survive and reproduce in a very narrow band of conditions. Global warming? Man made? I do not know and while I stayed in a Holiday Inn express one night I do not have a PHD in science but I do know people that do. They do not agree on a lot of things but they all agree some thing is going on.
For those of us with grandchildren it does make me stop for a minute and wonder what we will be leaving them to deal with.
I grew up with fishing stocks being decimated and family fisherman being put out of business from basically our own actions.
. We are a major impact on this planet from our waste to over harvesting everything from buffalo to birds. I do not believe in Big Government but I will continue to act locally and try to do my part even if it is just a clean up the beach/ shoreline day. 
If you hunt or fish or snowmobile or whatever just look into your local groups or clubs and see what you can do. Whether it is a small donation to a helping hand in a project to protect your own backyard it is an investment for your own grandchildren IMHO.
Hopefully enough people doing this will have in impact.
Thanks Marty


----------



## R.J.S. SNOWPLOW (Dec 9, 2009)

History always repeats itself
If its melting over there 
It's freezing over here where we won't know till it surfaces 
Earth is not on guide rails it shifts with every rotation things are going to change its al part of life
How or where who knows but time will tell


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

Let's see now, we have people (scientists) whose continued funding and existence rests on the theory of AGW vs history. 

Hmmmmmm........

BTW, for those who believe in AGW I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you may be interested in.


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

dfd9;1335838 said:


> Let's see now, we have people (scientists) whose continued funding and existence rests on the theory of AGW vs history.
> 
> Hmmmmmm........
> 
> BTW, for those who believe in AGW I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you may be interested in.


At least it's not a border State...


----------



## FISHERBOY (Aug 13, 2007)

Al gore has made millions on lies, the oceans control the earths temperature more than anything, the pacific has turned cold bac in 2007, when u cool the pacific the globes cools, plain and simple, There are more factors than just the oceans, sun spots, volcanic activity.
By spring the altantic will turn to its cold phase. 
Everyone should subscribe to weatherbell.com


----------



## jomama45 (Dec 25, 2008)

2COR517;1336204 said:


> At least it's not a border State...


:laughing::laughing:

Thumbs UpThumbs Up


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

2COR517;1336204 said:


> At least it's not a border State...





jomama45;1336512 said:


> :laughing::laughing:
> 
> Thumbs UpThumbs Up


Ditto......


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

lawnboy11;1334180 said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html
> 
> Are you seriious? You don't believe in global warming? Really?
> 
> ...


So, you live on Long Island and believe in AGW. Wouldn't it behoove you to move off an island that will be inundated with melting glaciers and rising sea levels at any minute?

Obviously you don't put much stock in what they are saying either.

And as for the alleged consensus?

http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-


----------



## pooleo8 (Nov 8, 2009)

Don't you know? Global warming causes everything! heat, cold, snow, rain, etc, etc, etc....


----------



## jomama45 (Dec 25, 2008)

Hey Plamer, care to explain to all of us what "Gorbal Warming" is anyways?????


----------



## coldcoffee (Jul 17, 2008)

I would expect that he means...Al Gore (movement) + Global Warming = Gorbal Warming

Al being the poster child/ puppet to promote the movement of other special interest groups, in order to make trillions of $, by forming a global carbon tax as a means of taxing those who contribute the most carbon, based on "their" figures. Also, using it as a vehicle to end all sovereignty, to all persons of all nations, as they will be held accountable to pay an indefinite taxation payable to said interest groups, by means of the UN, or other form of globalized govt. All while putting millions of $$ in his own pocket.
In reference to the"Copenhagen Treaty".


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

jomama45;1336757 said:


> Hey Plamer, care to explain to all of us what "Gor*bull* Warming" is anyways?????


You and Plamer misspelled it.

But hey, what do you expect from someone who lives wearing a cheese wheel on his head and is proud of it? :waving:



coldcoffee;1336944 said:


> I would expect that he means...Al Gore (movement) + Global Warming = Gorbal Warming
> 
> Al being the poster child/ puppet to promote the movement of other special interest groups, in order to make trillions of $, by forming a global carbon tax as a means of taxing those who contribute the most carbon, based on "their" figures. Also, using it as a vehicle to end all sovereignty, to all persons of all nations, as they will be held accountable to pay an indefinite taxation payable to said interest groups, by means of the UN, or other form of globalized govt. All while putting millions of $$ in his own pocket.
> In reference to the"Copenhagen Treaty".


Well then, if you want to put it that way...................

I would have to agree.


----------



## aperfcrcle (Feb 9, 2010)

Its all George Bush's fault.... lol


----------



## jomama45 (Dec 25, 2008)

dfd9;1336991 said:


> You and Plamer misspelled it.
> 
> But hey, what do you expect from someone who lives wearing a cheese wheel on his head and is proud of it? :waving:


Yea, I guess that one went right over my (cheese) head.......................


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 27, 2011)

I'm considered young by most. I have seen some crazy weather and vote right wing 99.9% of the time. Although I do think there is some impact we are having on or earth I can say that it seems there is not enough concrete data as to what it is exactly we are causing. It seems our weather pattern is getting more severe both hot and cold. It's about 2-3 times a year we are breaking some record whether it's moisture or temp. Coincidence? I do not know. I do know I try to keep my consumption down on as much as possible. I burn wood, not fossil fuels to heat my house and hot water, I use the sun for heating water during the summer and for some power. I also replant about 100 trees a year and make sure I recycle and do trail clean ups. I would hope there is still outdoors to enjoy for my Children and Grandchildren.

ussmileyflag


----------



## Bighammer (Aug 20, 2003)

lawnboy11;1334180 said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html
> 
> Are you seriious? You don't believe in global warming? Really?
> 
> ...


But Rush said it wasn't true.


----------



## DareDog (Oct 22, 2007)

yep global warming....last yr set record -37 on jan 22  tonight there calling for 15F and tomorrow 9f...its only November should not see that cold just yet.


----------



## swtiih (Nov 30, 2008)

FISHERBOY;1336475 said:


> Al gore has made millions on lies, the oceans control the earths temperature more than anything, the pacific has turned cold bac in 2007, when u cool the pacific the globes cools, plain and simple, There are more factors than just the oceans, sun spots, volcanic activity.
> By spring the altantic will turn to its cold phase.
> Everyone should subscribe to weatherbell.com


Isn't this the guy who invented the internet :laughing::laughing:


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

swtiih;1352501 said:


> Isn't this the guy who invented the internet :laughing::laughing:


He had to have a way to spread his propaganda


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 27, 2011)

The cold must be making it fun for the occupy (insert whatever) group.


----------



## coldcoffee (Jul 17, 2008)

Not nearly as cold as they will be with senate bill S1867 passing yesterday... so much for life, liberty & due process.


----------



## 2COR517 (Oct 23, 2008)

[email protected];1365953 said:


> The cold must be making it fun for the occupy (insert whatever) group.


Looks like Portland, ME is going to kick them out.Thumbs Up


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 27, 2011)

Nice, so my stockpiles of food and water would label me as a terrorist? :realmad:

So much for our freedoms The little freedoms we had.


----------



## dfd9 (Aug 18, 2010)

coldcoffee;1366024 said:


> Not nearly as cold as they will be with senate bill S1867 passing yesterday... so much for life, liberty & due process.


Amen, brother. So much for the law of the land, the Constitution.

Thank you Abraham Lincoln for starting us down this road.



[email protected];1366162 said:


> Nice, so my stockpiles of food and water would label me as a terrorist? :realmad:
> 
> So much for our freedoms The little freedoms we had.


I'm guessing you think the Constitution means something? That'll do it.

Probably have guns too? Yup

Maybe even believe in the Bible and God? You _are_ definitely a terrorist.

Time for the American Revolution Part 2 apparently.


----------



## coldcoffee (Jul 17, 2008)

I'm only posting this for the few that actually take the time & make the effort. I won't get involved w/ any debates, I just don't have that kind of time or interest to bring people up to speed, just way too much going on out there. If you want to increase your speed on said subject matter, I recommend exploring some "prepper" channels on the tube, as they cover these sorts of things often. If you are up to speed than you already get it.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/12...omer-lists-from-mormon-food-storage-facility/


----------



## Bighammer (Aug 20, 2003)

DareDog;1352284 said:


> yep global warming....last yr set record -37 on jan 22  tonight there calling for 15F and tomorrow 9f...its only November should not see that cold just yet.


More and more people are finally realizing that global warming IS real-- Despite the self-proclaimed "experts" whose contradicting "proof" to rising global climate averages are examples of their local weather extremes.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Bighammer;1953754 said:


> More and more people are finally realizing that global warming IS real-- Despite the self-proclaimed "experts" whose contradicting "proof" to rising global climate averages are examples of their local weather extremes.


Let me guess, you plow Michael Moore's driveway.


----------



## Midwest Pond (Jan 13, 2009)

.....and there is no such thing as world hunger because I have just had dinner


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Oh look, the latest from scientists:

Butter\milk fat isn't bad for us. 

I wonder how many of you are old enough to remember all the scares that the "experts" have pronounced:

Sugar was bad
Coffee was bad
Beer caused cancer
Red M&M's caused cancer

The list goes on and on. And all have been proven wrong at some time or other. 

And now, despite "adjustments" to the temperature records, there still hasn't been any temperature increase for 17 or is it 18 years now. 

And maybe you could explain how warm it was for the dinosaurs? The earth has been much, much warmer in the past, without the help of man.


----------



## snowngo (Nov 11, 2014)

Bighammer;1953754 said:


> More and more people are finally realizing that global warming IS real-- Despite the self-proclaimed "experts" whose contradicting "proof" to rising global climate averages are examples of their local weather extremes.


good post.


----------



## snowngo (Nov 11, 2014)

Mark Oomkes;1953891 said:


> Oh look, the latest from scientists:
> 
> Butter\milk fat isn't bad for us.
> 
> ...


what's it gonna be ? you cite scientists prowess in one thread then attack them in another. you definitely need more sleep:laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## Bighammer (Aug 20, 2003)

Mark Oomkes;1953891 said:


> Oh look, the latest from scientists:


Good idea, let's take a look at the latest from the scientists. A group of plow guys throwing around their opinions or posting "facts" heard on FOXNews or Rush Limbaugh doesn't do anything.

Here are the latest figures of global average temperature and ranking the warmest years first:

Rank.........Year.......Anomaly.......Anomaly 
...............................degrees C...degrees F
============================
1 ..............2014.........0.69............1.24
2 (tie).......2010.........0.65............1.17
2 (tie).......2005.........0.65............1.17
4...............1998.........0.63............1.13
5 (tie).......2013.........0.62............1.12
5 (tie).......2003.........0.62............1.12
7...............2002.........0.61............1.10
8...............2006.........0.60............1.08
9 (tie).......2009.........0.59............1.06
9 (tie).......2007.........0.59............1.06

NOAA National Climatic Data Center, State of the Climate: Global Analysis for Annual 2014 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13.

So where are you getting the "still hasn't been any temperature increase for 17 or is it 18 years" from?  If you look at the numbers above, the top 10 warmest years are all in the last 17 years.


----------



## CT-TILEMAN (Jan 3, 2009)

I think global warming is caused by all the liberals running around screaming the sky is falling all the time........they are just looking for an excuse to limit freedoms and tax us yet again.

Anytime I hear a politician speaking I assume 99% of the time they are lying, and since most politicians are lawyers they are bottom feeding scum of the earth.

I grew up in the 1970's sledding in all kinds of snow, blizzard of 1978 is still fresh in my mind, we all survived and that was 27 years ago.

I remember snow on Thanksgiving some years and being in a light jacket at Christmas some years.

The weather is cyclical, if you are a believer in Global Warming great for you, you volunteer to pay all the extra taxes first and see if it makes a difference, when it does nothing except empty your pockets and only make you feel better then great for you.

I think is a bunch of lies to fleece everyone out of lots of $$$$$>

But what do I know, the earth is flat, there is no GOD, and our Government only has our best interests at hand and not their own selfish interests.

BTW, if your offended you must be a thin skinned liberal.


----------



## Bighammer (Aug 20, 2003)

We do agree on a couple things: I don't trust politicians and I REALLY don't like lawyers. Thumbs Up Thumbs Up While both have a few well-meaning souls, it feels like the majority are a bunch of money-grubbing, self-serving snakes.

While there are some fanatic tree-hugging environmentalists that go too far, they are not as nearly as large of an influence as the fossil fuel industry. Just like big tobacco in the 60's protecting their golden goose, they learned that a similar propaganda campaign can be an effective stalling tactic. Production of a harmful product (with huge profits to protect) doesn't require actual science to support its safety, but casting enough doubt of scientific evidence of its dangers will maintain our habits and lifestyle. (and THEIR profits)


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Settled science...................uh huh..............

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/spectacular-noaa-temperature-fraud-in-michigan/


----------



## Ronald Foster (Feb 2, 2016)

:angry:
I have a news flash for the so called (Liberal) nitwits. (They are far from liberal in actual fact and want nothing to do with liberty). Since they figured they couldn't get away with Global Warming anymore and switched to so called Climate Change, the climate has been in a constant state of flux and change since the day you could call this planet Earth. There was climate change before there were fossil fuels, fossils or even life on earth. The only thing to be alarmed about is if the climate ever stops changing. Then we're in big time trouble. 
Oh yeah if they are really so down on fossil fuels, we already have an answer to power our grids and make environmentally disastrous and stupid electric cars viable (in reality electric cars mostly run on coal unless you think the tooth fairy puts electricity in the wall socket). That is Thorium fueled fission power and we already have developed it back in the 50s and 60s. This country is sitting on vast deposits of the stuff too. Easily enough to get us through to the day when fusion becomes a reality. Lookup Thorium or LFTR technology for the full story. 
The real problem is our politicians don't want anything to do with it as long as the fossil fuel industry is stuffing their pockets with campaign money to keep their worthless, scheming, scamming backsides in office. And the stupid liberal, lefty nitwits with their BA degrees in basket weaving simply don't know any better than to put their mouth in gear and repeat the idiocy they are told.

Rant over. Want to have an Ethanol discussion next? LOL



Mark Oomkes;2110957 said:


> Settled science...................uh huh..............
> 
> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/spectacular-noaa-temperature-fraud-in-michigan/


----------



## Bighammer (Aug 20, 2003)

Mark Oomkes;2110957 said:


> Settled science...................uh huh..............
> 
> https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/spectacular-noaa-temperature-fraud-in-michigan/


You have no clue who Steven Goddard is or legitimacy of the info on the webiste, but it just feels good to quote it because it goes with what you wish to believe. While you're not holding up a snowball or citing the weather in just your back yard, you're not looking at the whole picture. it's global warming, not just Michigan warming.



Ronald Foster;2111108 said:


> :angry:
> I have a news flash for the so called (Liberal) nitwits. (They are far from liberal in actual fact and want nothing to do with liberty). Since they figured they couldn't get away with Global Warming anymore and switched to so called Climate Change, the climate has been in a constant state of flux and change since the day you could call this planet Earth. There was climate change before there were fossil fuels, fossils or even life on earth. The only thing to be alarmed about is if the climate ever stops changing. Then we're in big time trouble.
> Oh yeah if they are really so down on fossil fuels, we already have an answer to power our grids and make environmentally disastrous and stupid electric cars viable (in reality electric cars mostly run on coal unless you think the tooth fairy puts electricity in the wall socket). That is Thorium fueled fission power and we already have developed it back in the 50s and 60s. This country is sitting on vast deposits of the stuff too. Easily enough to get us through to the day when fusion becomes a reality. Lookup Thorium or LFTR technology for the full story.
> The real problem is our politicians don't want anything to do with it as long as the fossil fuel industry is stuffing their pockets with campaign money to keep their worthless, scheming, scamming backsides in office. And the stupid liberal, lefty nitwits with their BA degrees in basket weaving simply don't know any better than to put their mouth in gear and repeat the idiocy they are told.
> ...


This just sounds like Rush, who never earned any degree, but fools quote him and follow what he says like he's an authority. Seriously, these statements are so old, you're sounding like a fossil yourself.

To all of you, I noticed I had previously posted a list of the warmest years. Take a wild guess where 2015 landed. (for the morons out there, take 3, but the first 2 don't count)


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Bighammer;2111416 said:


> You have no clue who Steven Goddard is or legitimacy of the info on the webiste, but it just feels good to quote it because it goes with what you wish to believe. While you're not holding up a snowball or citing the weather in just your back yard, you're not looking at the whole picture. it's global warming, not just Michigan warming.
> 
> Why don't you inform me of who he is.
> 
> ...


Bighammer, I am guessing you must live downwind from Michael Moore, but I won't hold that against you.

Anyways, that little lake to your west, and those bays that (depending where in TC you are) are to your north and west or even east, could you explain how those were formed?


----------



## jomama45 (Dec 25, 2008)

What ever happend to Palmer?? Did he fall victom to Gorbal/Global/Gorebull/Glouboull (if you're Canadian) Warming????


----------



## hbrady (Oct 28, 2003)

One question.. wasn't NYC supposed to be under water by 2015? I guess ABC new's sources were slightly off? 

I think I'll burn some tires this weekend to celebrate the snow we are finally getting here


----------



## Bighammer (Aug 20, 2003)

I have no clue where MM lives, and really don't care. That's a whole different subject, on which we might share more agreement.

Steven Goddard is really nothing more than a blogger "handle" for a climate science denier named Tony Heller. He writes as if he's a well-versed expert/authority in the field, but to borrow a quote, his mouth is writing checks his ass can't cash. He earned a bachelor's degree in geology (Arizona) and a master's in electrical engineering. (Rice) Nothing in climate, weather, etc. I run into people all the time who quote Rush, but he has NO DEGREE, he just speaks well and with the confidence and tone of a real authority.

My guess is Heartland Institute and and/or other similar ******** organization(s) wanted a spokesperson to further spread their doubt in science and made him an offer. They needed somebody bright, but going nowhere who would jump at the chance to make a ton of money. Everybody has a price, right?

I'm no expert in this stuff. I denied there was a problem for a long time, but it hit me a few years ago and I tried to take an unbiased look at what's out there as far as data. I've also seen some big changes personally as far as weather and climate. 

I probably won't change your mind, or anyone else's. (esp on here) I would hope that instead of writing me off as another tree-hugging liberal hippie crackpot, that you can also try to take that unbiased look for yourself. Sure, take in FOX and Rush and whatever other conservative views, but try to remove the blinders and open your eyes to what the other side is saying. Rush, FOX, and people like Tony Heller (who won't even use his real name) will state their view, but have no real scientific proof to back any of it up. (only money) 

We may be very different, but none of us want to be in our "golden years" with grand kids or great grand kids asking WTF did you do? why didn't you listen?


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

First off, I stopped listening to that blowbag a long, long time ago. His analysis is brilliant, but I have a hard time respecting a drug addict who can't hold a marriage or 3 together. Or 4, I have no idea. Also, he is not a true conservative and not even close to being a libertarian. 

FOX, I read as much of them as I do any other news outlet.

Last, you didn't answer my question about Lake Michigan and Traverse Bay.


----------



## Bighammer (Aug 20, 2003)

hbrady;2111815 said:


> One question.. wasn't NYC supposed to be under water by 2015? I guess ABC new's sources were slightly off?
> 
> I think I'll burn some tires this weekend to celebrate the snow we are finally getting here


Florida is having some issues with it, and one of the largest naval bases, Norfolk, VA, is also having trouble with rising sea levels. They might not rising as quickly as some predicted, but some of the other events are accelerating more quickly than expected.


----------



## fhafer (Jan 31, 2014)

Bighammer;2111968 said:


> Florida is having some issues with it, and one of the largest naval bases, Norfolk, VA, is also having trouble with rising sea levels. They might not rising as quickly as some predicted, but some of the other events are accelerating more quickly than expected.


I live in Norfolk,VA. Have for the last 19 years. I first pulled in here back in 1982. We don't have a flooding problem, we have a government problem. The government is so addicted to tax revenue and spending they approve building permits where no sane person should build, but they do it anyways to get that income stream. There is much debate about temperature sensors and the climate change crowd refuse to address the discrepancies. I'm highly skeptical.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Still waiting for an answer....


----------



## Bighammer (Aug 20, 2003)

Answer about the lakes? 

The info I always heard was glaciers scraping away softer rock, etc. Sounds like a bit of a reach to me. How/why would superior be so deep? West Grand Traverse Bay (and East bay as well) is really deep in places. I can go out from our beach to an island just a mile away, and the bottom drops to around 600' deep. 

The idea I like is separation of plates or crust. (whatever you want to call it) Most of Canada pulled away from the rest of what's now the US, and left a whole chain of lakes and network of waterways. When you look at a map, it makes much more sense, at least to me.

I wasn't there at the time. I'm curious about your thoughts on it.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Bighammer;2112062 said:


> Answer about the lakes?
> 
> The info I always heard was glaciers scraping away softer rock, etc. Sounds like a bit of a reach to me. How/why would superior be so deep? West Grand Traverse Bay (and East bay as well) is really deep in places. I can go out from our beach to an island just a mile away, and the bottom drops to around 600' deep.
> 
> ...


Huh, what happened to those glaciers?

The folks who tell us this are experts in their field, correct? Why wouldn't you believe them?


----------



## Camden (Mar 10, 2007)

I want to participate in this but I'm on my phone so don't do anything to get it locked until I get back. Thanks


----------



## Camden (Mar 10, 2007)

Since my college days in the early 90s I've been intrigued by the topic of Global Warming. I remember taking a class at the U of MN instructed by a well known "expert" on the topic. The book for the course was written by him (of course!).

So one day he was lecturing us on the fact "warming" gases were on the rise and that doomsday was closer than any of us thought. As a natural skeptic, I raised my hand and asked the professor how they measure gases and what data do they have available to compare numbers to.

This is where it gets good IMO. He proceeded to write an equation on the chalkboard that looked similar to this [β3χφε-987987987χ(69879+87987)]τ

So none of that stuff meant anything to me and he was talking WAY over my head. But do you see that little "T" at the end of the equation? That's an important number in their calculations because it stands for UNKNOWN VARIABLES. Let me bring that home a little better. Scientists have no way of knowing how much "greenhouse gas" is naturally occurring (from volcanoes, methane bubbling up from ocean floor cracks, etc) so what they do is they take an educated  guess and insert a number there that works for them.

I may not have been able to completely follow along with my professor from start to finish but I definitely realized that he could insert ANY number into that equation to get his desired results.

Okay, so my BS meter was already going off and then there was the question of "Where's the old data that you compare current data to?". Their old data isn't very old at all. I find that interesting because the earth - according to the same scientists - is billions of years old. What if we're actually WAY cooler now than we were even 5000 years ago and temps are now finally returning to where they were? MIND BLOWN!

There's a lot of money to be made by scaring people. Liberals figured that out a long time ago....


----------



## Ronald Foster (Feb 2, 2016)

As if Gore were some kind of an authority. Baaah, baaaah, baaaah, moooo.

None of these clowns are ready to turn off the lights, park their cars and live in a cave. And somehow more taxes are supposed to be the answer and be all, end all solution for problem when in fact they do nothing useful.

I offered up a promising real solution, did you have the smarts to even look it up? You could use it to replace the heat source for every existing power plant out there and build more as needed. I suspect not.



Bighammer;2111416 said:


> You have no clue who Steven Goddard is or legitimacy of the info on the webiste, but it just feels good to quote it because it goes with what you wish to believe. While you're not holding up a snowball or citing the weather in just your back yard, you're not looking at the whole picture. it's global warming, not just Michigan warming.
> 
> This just sounds like Rush, who never earned any degree, but fools quote him and follow what he says like he's an authority. Seriously, these statements are so old, you're sounding like a fossil yourself.
> 
> To all of you, I noticed I had previously posted a list of the warmest years. Take a wild guess where 2015 landed. (for the morons out there, take 3, but the first 2 don't count)


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Bighammer;2112062 said:


> Answer about the lakes?
> 
> The info I always heard was glaciers scraping away softer rock, etc. Sounds like a bit of a reach to me. How/why would superior be so deep? West Grand Traverse Bay (and East bay as well) is really deep in places. I can go out from our beach to an island just a mile away, and the bottom drops to around 600' deep.
> 
> ...





Mark Oomkes;2112068 said:


> Huh, what happened to those glaciers?
> 
> The folks who tell us this are experts in their field, correct? Why wouldn't you believe them?


Come on Bighammer, answer the question.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Bighammer;2112062 said:


> Answer about the lakes?
> 
> The info I always heard was glaciers scraping away softer rock, etc. Sounds like a bit of a reach to me. How/why would superior be so deep? West Grand Traverse Bay (and East bay as well) is really deep in places. I can go out from our beach to an island just a mile away, and the bottom drops to around 600' deep.
> 
> ...


Becuse it was was a valley bottom,
The sawtooth mountains were scrubed away by ice that was miles thick.
The stubs are still there, lutsen is located on one of them.

These mountains /volcanos spewed out the duluth Garbo complex and a basalt flow up the shore. What we see left bedind are the lava it flows of this very hard and old rock.
Lake Superior and the upper mid west sits on one on the most stable plates on the earth.

Is man influencing a change, this could very well be..
As was said the earth has been Warner with more co2 in the atmosphere than it has now.

At one time we didn't have a ice cap, the plates shifted closing off the natural convection from the hot equaterail water. This caused cooling in the winter, with out the flow it froze over,

The Q, how was all that co2 scrubed from the atmosphere,
And will it happen again at the tiping point?
Or do we need a big impact from a meteorite?


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Mark you mean the glaciers that formed when the atmosphere was so thick
From co2 and volcanic ash, or from a big impact with a meteorite ?

I thought we heated up from greenhouse gas?
Maybe that's just temporary?

The cold air couldn't keep it all suspended and gravity pulled it down,
The insuring rain also washed the air.
The earth warmed back up , melting them.


A fyi
Coal beds have been buring under ground sence it could burn.
They still burn unchecked all over the world and even right here in the usa.
Unlocking more co2 than we do every year,

And let's not even talk aboot the natural venting of methane gas or Nat gas. 



It's all the theory......


----------



## Ronald Foster (Feb 2, 2016)

Exactly, their so called climate history isn't history at all but a mere blink of an eye geologically speaking. For example there are trees 100' deep in lake Tahoe showing that for many many years, the lake was so low that trees were able to grow on its shoreline back then. However, the loony left insists that droughts in California are something new. NOT!! I've seen several of them myself since 1975 when I moved to the state. It's a cycle that has repeated over and over and will continue to repeat the same as the El Nino/ La Nina cycle

Anyone who has worked with any kind of mathematical models know they very rarely work in the real world. Not with any significant variability included and nothing is more variable or more complex than climate.

These alarmists never have anything to offer in the way of real solutions, just more babble about the sky falling and give me some more money to study the problem further.

BTW They quit talking about Global Warming and switched to Climate Change simply because their data base weren't supporting their argument. As I said in another post the climate has always been changing and it always will so it's safer to say Climate Change and not look completely stupid as most of them are.



Camden;2112413 said:


> Since my college days in the early 90s I've been intrigued by the topic of Global Warming. I remember taking a class at the U of MN instructed by a well known "expert" on the topic. The book for the course was written by him (of course!).
> 
> So one day he was lecturing us on the fact "warming" gases were on the rise and that doomsday was closer than any of us thought. As a natural skeptic, I raised my hand and asked the professor how they measure gases and what data do they have available to compare numbers to.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Ronald Foster;2112529 said:


> As I said in another post the climate has always been changing and it always will so it's safer to say Climate Change and not look completely stupid as most of them are.


I believe the latest terminology is "climate disruption".

It used to be warm enough for dinosaurs to roam the earth. Did man cause that global cooling that wiped them oot?

I know why Bighammer won't answer, it's because it blows his theory to bits. According to the experts, the glaciers started retreating long before fossil fuels were being burned. Most of us on this board would be under a couple miles worth of ice if it hadn't warmed, and it had nothing to do with man.

But now all of a sudden we are the cause.

The next argument will be "it's not the actual increase that's worrisome, it's the rate of increase that is the problem". Of course, because when one's argument is proven faulty, one must come up with yet another argument.

I don't care who Steven Goddard is. What does matter is that the information he provides is factual.

BTW, I believe Al Bore predicted the flooding of numerous ocean front cities by now. Seems like the glaciers were going to be gone. Sea ice.....vanished. The world was going to end. AGW is as much a religion as Islam. And just as false.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

California,,,all except the mountainous areas is,,
Basically a desert, it was man who brought in the water,
And then thought, hey,
Let's build city's in the deserts (cheap land)
And bring in water.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Ronald Foster;2112529 said:


> Exactly, their so called climate history isn't history at all but a mere blink of an eye geologically speaking. For example there are trees 100' deep in lake Tahoe showing that for many many years, the lake was so low that trees were able to grow on its shoreline back then. However, the loony left insists that droughts in California are something new. NOT!! I've seen several of them myself since 1975 when I moved to the state. It's a cycle that has repeated over and over and will continue to repeat the same as the El Nino/ La Nina cycle
> 
> .


The reason there are trees under water is not from EB & flow.

It's becuse thay built a dam.
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Lake+Tahoe+Dam&groupName=General

Even tho I agree there is a drought is cycle.


----------



## R75419 (Feb 11, 2012)

What about the acid rain that was going to kill everything in the 80's? I also know of a book in my parents library that spoke of a coming ice age. That was a book from their college days in the early 70's. It's always something with the "earth" people because it's a religion that funds them.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

At the height of the acid rain problem, sulfur dioxide from burning coal drifted into the atmosphere and lowered the pH of rainwater. When this acidic rain fell to the ground, it leached calcium from the soil, depriving plants of a key nutrient. Acid rain also dissolved aluminum-rich minerals, freeing the metal to further poison plants.

To combat the problem, the U.S. Congress imposed strict emission regulations on industry in 1970 through the Clean Air Act, which was strengthened in 1990. By 2003, sulfur dioxide raining down on the northeastern United States had decreased by as much as 40%. But were soils improving, too?

To find out, Gregory Lawrence, a biogeochemist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Troy, New York, and colleagues tested soils in six spruce forests. The sites included the Adirondack Park in New York, the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, Groton State Park in Vermont, and two research reserves in Maine. Buried below the forest floor, soil mixes with rocks that, as they weather, slowly leak calcium. The researchers reasoned that if they dug beneath the surface, they might find one early indicator of recovery: rising calcium concentrations in soil. They had first tested the soils in the region in 1992 and 1993. Eleven years later, they went back and tested again.

There were modest signs of improvement, the team will report online next month in the Soil Science Society of America Journal. Calcium levels in the soil were still low, but aluminum in surface soils had begun to disappear-at least in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine; New York soils still sported high levels of the metal. "The way the soils were recovering was not really the way we expected," Lawrence says.

Lawrence suggests a two-step explanation. First, less acid rain means less aluminum dissolving from minerals and circulating in the soil. Second, surface soils are being replenished by decaying plant matter, which has low levels of aluminum and is essentially diluting the concentration of the metal in soil. "This is a response to the declining acid rain levels," Lawrence says. "It's just being driven more by the plants than it is the geology."

Calcium is not rebounding in the soil because the rocks at these sites, which are typical of the region, are not rich in the nutrient and weather very slowly, says Lawrence. That's one reason the soils take so long to recover. In fact, calcium can buffer soils against some of the worst consequences of acid rain, but now-because there is so little calcium left to stand in the way of harmful chemical reactions such as the ones that mobilize aluminum- these soils "are actually more sensitive to acid rain today than they were 25 years ago," he says. On their way to recovery these soils are hanging by a precarious thread.

The study "is the first to hint that the deterioration of northeastern U.S. soils from acidic deposition has finally bottomed out," says Brenden McNeil, a biogeochemist at West Virginia University in Morgantown, who was not involved in the work. He points out, however, that the impacts of acid rain extend beyond northeastern spruce forests to areas where the extent of the damage and the status of the recovery remain unknown. A 2012 global acidification assessment reports, for example, that in Canada and Western Europe, sulfur dioxide emissions have declined at about the same rate as in the United States, but in places like China, sulfur dioxide emissions are now reaching levels that haven't been seen in the U.S. since 1970. Even in the region studied, McNeil says, the subtle improvements in soil are "not near as dramatic as the reductions in emissions"-a sign that clearing the air of sulfur dioxide is just the first milestone on a long road to recovery.http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/acid-rain-thing-past

Are we entering a ice age,
Close but no cigar.
To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today's conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale - they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth's orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.
It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=24


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

I recived a message that reminded me that Lake Tahoe is a naturaly formed lake.
And this is true,
It also had a dam.

Back to these trees now being reviled.

How could there be any trees in this naturaly formed lake when this is how it was formed. After it naturally formed ( there could have been trees at this point) it was then scraped clean by a glacier then refilled with melt water from said glacier as it melted.

"
The Lake Tahoe Basin was formed by geologic block (normal) faulting about 2 to 3 million years ago. A geologic block fault is a fracture in the Earth's crust causing blocks of land to move up or down. Uplifted blocks created the Carson Range on the east and the Sierra Nevada on the west. Down-dropped blocks created the Lake Tahoe Basin in between. Some of the highest peaks of the Lake Tahoe Basin that formed during this process were Freel Peak at 10,891 ft (3,320 m), Monument Peak at 10,067 ft (3,068 m) (the present Heavenly Valley Ski Area), Pyramid Peak at 9,983 ft (3,043 m) (in the Desolation Wilderness), and Mt. Tallac at 9,735 ft (2,967 m).

Snow, rain, and streams filled the southern and lowest part of the basin, forming the ancestral Lake Tahoe. Modern Lake Tahoe was shaped and landscaped by the scouring glaciers during the Ice Age (the Great Ice Age began a million or more years ago). Many streams flow into Lake Tahoe, but the lake is drained only by the Truckee River, which flows northeast through Reno and into Pyramid Lake in Neva"

If there are tress that are coming to the surface, they are there becuse of said dam or from a landslide or from being washed into the lake from any of its contributories.


----------



## Ronald Foster (Feb 2, 2016)

Lake Tahoe is basically a natural lake. The dam they put there in the early 1900's only adds about the top 10' of the over 1600' depth. If you've ever seen it, it's a dinky little dam too. You hardly notice it as you cross the bridge over the stream bed that crosses just below the spillway. 
The reason they say the trees are down there is because the lake level was that low for eons due to lack of water from precipitation and that was the level of the shore line back then. 
Once water flows into lake Tahoe it stays for about 700 years which makes it a good gauge for long term trends, not the silly few decades the alarmist all talk about and want us to pay taxes for. As if taxes could or would fix anything. They just want the money to piss away and nothing else.
"That government is best which governs least."



SnoFarmer;2112541 said:


> The reason there are trees under water is not from EB & flow.
> 
> It's becuse thay built a dam.
> http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Lake+Tahoe+Dam&groupName=General
> ...


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

why didn't you say .....................................

This botanic relic is one of several medieval trees, ranging from 68 to 100 feet tall, standing upright at the bottom of the lake. They grew during a 200-year megadrought in the Sierra Nevada between the 9th and 12th centuries, when precipitation in the area fell to less than 60 percent of the average between 1969 and 1992. Fallen Leaf Lake dropped about 150 to 200 feet below its current level, allowing the trees to grow above the lower shoreline. In the wetter years that followed, the lake quickly refilled, drowning the trees and sealing them in a liquid catacomb, safe from insects and fungi in the deep, low-oxygen water. There are also three older trees, which drowned between 18 and 35 centuries ago, standing upright on the lake floor, which suggests that severe droughts struck even further back in time.

The medieval trees' existence adds to the body of research documenting the Sierra Nevada's past megadroughts. Researchers have found stumps of long-dead trees in rivers, lakes and marshes in the region, indicating not one, but two medieval megadroughts -- the other lasting about 140 years in the 13th and 14th centuries, dwarfing the 20th century's Dust Bowl. Such megadroughts are a frightening prospect, and it's possible they could strike again.

this i can belive.


----------



## Bighammer (Aug 20, 2003)

I'm guessing Lake Tahoe was a lot lower before people decided to irrigate all the crops, golf courses, and lawns on what used to be desert. Diverting that much water and constantly spreading it out over a huge parched area would raise humidity and change weather patterns.


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

Bighammer;2114681 said:


> I'm guessing Lake Tahoe was a lot lower before people decided to irrigate all the crops, golf courses, and lawns on what used to be desert. Diverting that much water and constantly spreading it out over a huge parched area would raise humidity and change weather patterns.


Still ignoring the formation of the Great Lakes by retreating glaciers, eh? As well as ignoring completely natural global warming and cooling cycles.


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Bighammer;2114681 said:


> I'm guessing Lake Tahoe was a lot lower before people decided to irrigate all the crops, golf courses, and lawns on what used to be desert. Diverting that much water and constantly spreading it out over a huge parched area would raise humidity and change weather patterns.


How could drawing out water raise the level of the lake?

from the info that i found that backs up Ronald Foster as to why there are trees submerged in said lake,(posted above)

"it was lower during during a 200-year mega-drought "

i guess water levels fluctuate from natural events,


----------



## Mark Oomkes (Dec 10, 2000)

SnoFarmer;2114803 said:


> How could drawing out water raise the level of the lake?
> 
> from the info that i found that backs up Ronald Foster as to why there are trees submerged in said lake,(posted above)
> 
> ...


It's a global warming thing...........temps rising equals more blizzards. More record cold, more record heat, more record drought, more record rainfall, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes.

So it makes perfect sense that removing water would increase the lake level.


----------



## Ronald Foster (Feb 2, 2016)

Then you wouldn't have done all that research and convinced yourself. LOL

Warming trends and droughts are nothing new although the alarmists try to make them seem as if they are. They remind me of the witch doctors of old. Well maybe not so old afterall.



SnoFarmer;2114617 said:


> why didn't you say .....................................
> 
> This botanic relic is one of several medieval trees, ranging from 68 to 100 feet tall, standing upright at the bottom of the lake. They grew during a 200-year megadrought in the Sierra Nevada between the 9th and 12th centuries, when precipitation in the area fell to less than 60 percent of the average between 1969 and 1992. Fallen Leaf Lake dropped about 150 to 200 feet below its current level, allowing the trees to grow above the lower shoreline. In the wetter years that followed, the lake quickly refilled, drowning the trees and sealing them in a liquid catacomb, safe from insects and fungi in the deep, low-oxygen water. There are also three older trees, which drowned between 18 and 35 centuries ago, standing upright on the lake floor, which suggests that severe droughts struck even further back in time.
> 
> ...


----------



## SnoFarmer (Oct 15, 2004)

Mark Oomkes;2114807 said:


> It's a global warming thing...........temps rising equals more blizzards. More record cold, more record heat, more record drought, more record rainfall, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes.
> 
> So it makes perfect sense that removing water would increase the lake level.


 your right, Why wouldn't it.


Ronald Foster;2114925 said:


> Then you wouldn't have done all that research and convinced yourself. LOL
> 
> Warming trends and droughts are nothing new although the alarmists try to make them seem as if they are. They remind me of the witch doctors of old. Well maybe not so old afterall.


..Thumbs Up

The megs-drought must have been a regional thing?
as the Great Lakes dont show that kind of history.

no trees, just a barren lake bottom scattered with beer cans, sunken boats and a few barrels....


----------



## Ronald Foster (Feb 2, 2016)

Must be that prehistoric man drank a whole lot of beer. Maybe they knew something we don't since I suppose they didn't have global warming either. Could this be the answer, stay home, drink more beer and eat more meat?



SnoFarmer;2114963 said:


> your right, Why wouldn't it.
> 
> ..Thumbs Up
> 
> ...


----------

