Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote: beause minimizing global warming will cost business and business owners money they prefer to deny its occuring...... There will be big business winners and losers in the attempts to limit CO2. But one thing is for sure, it's not business that's going to be paying the cost, it's you. As an example, if your electric company has to pay more to replace coal with solar or for carbon capture, they just pass the cost along to you. Same thing with most of the other products you buy that require energy to manufacture. The manufacturer is just going to pass the cost on to the consumer. And there are companies and individuals that will make buckets of money in newly created markets, eg solar panels. We've already seen some of what happens there, when govt gets involved, eg Solyndra, Abound Solar. Apparently Al Gore has done pretty well for himself in the green energy field too. ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time. 40% of americanslive along the coasts. who will pay to relocate so many? food prices can soar if the callifornia food production caused by drought continues. and cleaner air may save everyone money. hopefully the rate of cancer causedby pollution will drop and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation |
#42
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:49:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Why would you put toast in your toaster? I only take it out. ...to reheat or make it darker. (don't make French toast in it) I do reheat leftover blueberry pancakes in it. Lucky guy. You have leftovers. |
#43
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.usenet.kooks,uk.rec.sheds
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
Right Brian you have replied to an obvious troll once too often, so Plonk.
Not that you care whether or not I see your stuff I just thought I'd let you know. On 03/04/2015 15:48, Brian Gaff wrote: But we don't live in a glass of iced water do we, |
#44
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:54:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote: ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time. What does it cost India and China? Yes. The mass alarm will cost Americans. Why should we pay the price, eh? Recycling was sold as a great idea when you were young. Went from free to a monthly bill. |
#45
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:55:02 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote: On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote: beause minimizing global warming will cost business and business owners money they prefer to deny its occuring...... There will be big business winners and losers in the attempts to limit CO2. But one thing is for sure, it's not business that's going to be paying the cost, it's you. As an example, if your electric company has to pay more to replace coal with solar or for carbon capture, they just pass the cost along to you. Same thing with most of the other products you buy that require energy to manufacture. The manufacturer is just going to pass the cost on to the consumer. And there are companies and individuals that will make buckets of money in newly created markets, eg solar panels. We've already seen some of what happens there, when govt gets involved, eg Solyndra, Abound Solar. Apparently Al Gore has done pretty well for himself in the green energy field too. ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time. Your central argument appeared to be that companies don't want to do anything about global warming because of profits. I'm just pointing out that while there are indeed companies on one side of the battle, there is plenty of profit motive and big business for those on the other side too. As to global warming costing everyone, seems rather unlikely. Just as there are people that will be negatively affected by it, there are others that will likely be positively affected. Ignoring it will only have negative consequences if: 1 - The prevailing scientific view is correct and global warming continues for many decades 2 - It's actually caused by manmade CO2. 3 - That we can slow it down substantially or reverse it by steps that enough world govts can all agree on. With folks like China, the largest emitter, saying screw you, how likely do you think that is going to be? And if anyone of the above is not true, then we will have poured God knows how many trillions down a rat hole. 40% of americanslive along the coasts. who will pay to relocate so many? Sea levels have risen about 6" in the last 100 years. Currently, they are rising about twice that rate. Seems like the prospect of Americans fleeing the coast, if it happens, is still a long way off. If it happens, IDK who will pay for it, but I won't be alive by then to worry about it. Venice has been battling flooding for centuries and somehow they've managed to maintain a city built on water. food prices can soar if the callifornia food production caused by drought continues. Maybe they will. But food prices for the world have already soared because of the massive diversion of crops to alcohol in pursuit of clean energy. Just look at a box of cornflakes or a loaf of bread. and cleaner air may save everyone money. hopefully the rate of cancer causedby pollution will drop You're mixing apples and oranges. CO2 is a normal component of the earth's atmosphere and isn't a carcinogen. and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation There weren't hurricanes and tornadoes until now? And even if you're suggesting that they are somehow worse now, there have been periods in past where hurricane activity was increased. They sometimes increase for a decade or two, then decline again. I don't even see most meteorologists trying to claim that global warming is responsible for hurricanes and tornadoes. I'm not opposed to reasonable, cost effective steps that can reduce CO2 emissions. Higher efficiency furnaces, more insulation in new homes, LED lighting, for example are all good things. But going too far, too quickly, driving up costs everywhere, putting the US at a disadvantage to places like China and India, I don't think that's a good idea. And then you have to contend with the fact that the forces that most want to limit CO2, are also dead set against much of what could be used. For example, the hippies won't allow a nuke to be built. In my world, you can't have it both ways. If global warming is caused by CO2 and 40% of Americans are going to have to flee the coast, then shouldn't we be building nukes? Instead, we're closing them down. |
#46
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 08:47:39 -0500, Mark Storkamp
wrote: In article , "Bob F" wrote: Rebel1 wrote: I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here. An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark? In my case, it didn't. Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land. When they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right wing thinking" What is good left wing thinking then? I'll let you know if there ever is any. |
#47
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:54:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote: On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote: On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 2:39:38 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote: beause minimizing global warming will cost business and business owners money they prefer to deny its occuring...... There will be big business winners and losers in the attempts to limit CO2. But one thing is for sure, it's not business that's going to be paying the cost, it's you. As an example, if your electric company has to pay more to replace coal with solar or for carbon capture, they just pass the cost along to you. Same thing with most of the other products you buy that require energy to manufacture. The manufacturer is just going to pass the cost on to the consumer. And there are companies and individuals that will make buckets of money in newly created markets, eg solar panels. We've already seen some of what happens there, when govt gets involved, eg Solyndra, Abound Solar. Apparently Al Gore has done pretty well for himself in the green energy field too. ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time. 40% of americanslive along the coasts. who will pay to relocate so many? food prices can soar if the callifornia food production caused by drought continues. and cleaner air may save everyone money. hopefully the rate of cancer causedby pollution will drop and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation In other words, "The sky is falling!" There are many that would argue the biggest threat to our planet today resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. |
#48
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:25:13 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote: and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation In other words, "The sky is falling!" There are many that would argue the biggest threat to our planet today resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. ....when he fumbles the football "ISIS hunting Americans is like a sheep hunting a lion" -- Dakota Meyer -- Medal of Honor |
#49
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On 2015-04-03, Gordon Shumway wrote:
In other words, "The sky is falling!" These gullible maroons and useful idiots for the power brokers actually think they are going to control the earth's climate. (I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.) This is probably rooted in the old Soviet idea that the State would become so powerful that it would control the very weather. That political ideology has now been enhanced in scope in order for the State to take on the Earth's climate as a whole. It is instructive to look at the predictions made by Warmists and other environmentalists over the last 15 or 20 years. (Or the last 40+ years for that matter.) How many of their dire predictions have actually come to pass? To really understand the phenomenon of human-caused "global warming," "climate change," or whatever they choose to call it next week you have to follow the power and the money, same as always. It's really about separating you from your money, your property, and whatever is left of your freedoms. "Global warming is a bunch of hooey." -- Prof. Reid Bryson, father of scientific climatology -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#50
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article , "Bob F" wrote: Rebel1 wrote: I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here. An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark? In my case, it didn't. Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land. When they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right wing thinking" What is good left wing thinking then? Doing a little basic research, and actually thinking about all the issues involved in the problem. Not making rash conclusions and basing your thinking on that, or basing your think on the desired results. |
#51
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
If all the ice melts
|
#52
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
Mayhem wrote:
On 04/02/2015 07:36 PM, Bob F wrote: Rebel1 wrote: I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here. An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark? In my case, it didn't. Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land. When they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html Hint: If you own inland property in Florida, you'll soon have an ocean view. If all the ice melts, Florida will be gone. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ice-melted-map |
#53
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 15:48:00 -0700, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:25:13 -0500, Gordon Shumway wrote: and homeowner insurance costs are rising to cover not only coastal storms but tornadoes in the middle of our nation In other words, "The sky is falling!" There are many that would argue the biggest threat to our planet today resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. ...when he fumbles the football ....and Iran has recovered it on our 1 yard line. Our fearless leader has probably dismissed the aide with the football so he wouldn't "photo bomb" up any selfies for the prez. |
#54
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
|
#55
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On 4/3/2015 5:12 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:54:13 -0700 (PDT), bob haller wrote: ahh ignoring global warming will cost everyone big time. What does it cost India and China? Yes. The mass alarm will cost Americans. Why should we pay the price, eh? It will cost everyone. The one thing that may be different, in the US we build expensive homes as close to the water as we can. I really don'r care if you wnt to buld a $10million five feet from theovean, but pay the premium and don't ask me to bail you out. Recycling was sold as a great idea when you were young. Went from free to a monthly bill. No bill here. We get free pickup. Trash to energy makes a lot of sense to reduce volume. Nor everything should be recycled. No can we keep digging holes in the ground and fill them with trash. |
#56
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:40:23 -0400, Rebel1 wrote:
I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here. An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark? In my case, it didn't. R1 Now do this again, but substitute a good whiskey or other hard liquor for the water. Now put a mark at the "whiskey" level and wait until the cubes all melt. I'll bet that the level in that glass will have gone down at least 75%, and you'll be seeing TWO glasses! What this proves: If we fill all the oceans with booze, we'll have nothing to fear! (except possibly liver damage) |
#57
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 17:01:00 -0700, "Bob F" wrote:
If all the ice melts, Florida will be gone. No big loss...... Florida is the PENIS of the United States...... It sticks out, ready to FU_K other countries. And that also explains while all the old people go to Florida. Old men no longer have their own usable penis. Old women no longer have a penis to satisfy them! [LOL] |
#58
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
|
#59
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
|
#60
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:54:45 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Mark Storkamp wrote: In article , "Bob F" wrote: Rebel1 wrote: I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here. An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark? In my case, it didn't. Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land. When they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right wing thinking" What is good left wing thinking then? Doing a little basic research, and actually thinking about all the issues involved in the problem. Not making rash conclusions and basing your thinking on that, or basing your think on the desired results. Is that what lib Arizona congressman Raul Grijalva was doing a couple weeks ago when he sent letters to universities where there were scientists who had done research that cast doubt on global warming, demanding all their records, papers, emails going back years? |
#61
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 2:41:02 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2015 23:24:56 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote: No bill here. We get free pickup. Trash to energy makes a lot of sense to reduce volume. Nor everything should be recycled. No can we keep digging holes in the ground and fill them with trash. There is a bill, they just hide it in your property taxes and that bill went up when they started recycling. The only thing that actually makes economic sense to recycle is metal and the "scrappers" actually will pick that up for free, There is really no reason why we can't keep throwing stuff in a land fill (the overall area used is insignificant) but burning what you can to create energy makes more sense. With things like p[aper and plastic, it probably makes more sense than recycling them in most places. They were shipping plastics over 1000 miles from here to the recycling plant. How is that ecologically sound? Without the tax payer subsidy it would not have happened at all. IDK what the overall economic equation is regarding recycling today. At least with newspapers, even 40 years ago, it was marginally profitable to recycle them, most of the time. Prices paid fluctuated though, so sometimes it wasn't. Plastics, IDK. They do turn most of that into carpet, whether it could entirely survive on it's own economics, IDK. Here for example, they collect it separately together with newspaper, paper, cardboard, glass, cans, etc. It all goes to a sort facility. I think the sort facility is private, the pickup is the township. Township might be paying the sort facility something though. But if they had to dispose of it a landfill, that would cost as well. Burning it was a big battle fought here and lost in the 80s. County wanted to build an electric generation facility at the landfill site. It made sense to me. Turn the trash into electricity, generate energy that gets sold, save landfill space. You know what happened. The usual hippies that are against anything and everything got it killed. So, the landfill is filling up.... |
#62
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 5:23:55 AM UTC-4, wrote:
This thread has already had far too much politics and political name calling in it. I personally HATE politics, politicians, and most of all, people who turn every goddamn thing into a political discussion on the internet. Forgot about all the politics for one moment and look at the facts. We as humans are dumping a lot of crap into the environment and many of them are not natural substances. burning wood or paper is fairly natural, but plastics and manmade chemicals are not. Although oil itself is natural, it's buried deep in the ground and would not be burnt if we did not pump it out. Burning as much oil as we use daily, MUST have an impact on our planet. If I light a match, flush a toilet, or buy a sofa, it MUST have an impact on our planet. Having an effect is not the issue. The question is what the effect is, what's the extent of it, does it require more immediate action. Anyone who can not understand this is either stupid or very foolish, or they spend too much time listening to politicians who are nothing but a bunch of liars, and who dont have a clue what is really happening. I'll listen to scientists who get their facts from actual science, not those who kiss ass to the government. See above. Initially, the phrase "global warming" was not exactly accurate, because when one part of the planet gets warmer, another part gets colder. Climate change is a far more accurate phrase. Oh please. It was perfectly clear what global warming meant. It was changed to climate change because it's more dramatic and easier to instill fear in people. And because the global temp has been going sideways now for 15 years. And it's obvious we are changing the climate with all the crap we are dumping into the air, water, landfills, and so on. Really, exactly how is this climate change cause and effect obvious to you? Where you alive in say 1900 and have a great memory for comparison? Even the big climate change proponents say the earth has warmed about 1 deg in the last century. And the temp has been going sideways now for the last 15 years. It's just a matter of HOW MUCH impact we are causing. After all, there is really nothing to base the changes on. Then how did you just say that the fact that we're changing the climate is obvious? Our recorded history of weather and climate changes mostly only go back to the late 1800's. However scientists can determine weather and climate impacts based on carbon, layers of ice, rings on trees, and much more. That's true, to some extent. Some of it is sound science. Some of it is more like tea leave reading. For example, do you really think typical thermometers in the late 1800s that were recording the temperature in central park were accurate to .01 deg? The typical one today isn't that accurate. Do you think anyone was recording the temperature all over the globe then, or even 50 years ago. So, to make up for all that, you have to make "adjustments" to create a continuous data stream for comparison. How you do the adjustments varies and you don't think personal bias, the fact that your funding is coming from govts that say global climate change is real, can bias the outcome? If you find global climate change is occurring fast, you get more money, promotions, accolades. If you publish a paper that casts doubt on it, even doubt about how fast it's occurring, you get Congressmen demanding all your emails, records, contacts, ie a witchhunt. And you don't get promoted or get fired. Think that might have an effect? I've seen several of those PBS documentaries on global warming, and I will tend to believe then before any politicians, since there are real scientists involved. There are real scientists on the other side too. BTW, who funds PBS? Think about that. According to them, we are seeing the glaciers melting faster than they were in the past. Yet, even they admit it's not 100% certain if these changes are caused by human related pollution or just another change in the earth's "cycles". Apparently there have been other major changes in the earth's environment going back hundreds or thousands of years. But we dont know enough from way back in history to really know the actual patterns. It's obvious that there have been major changes ever since the earth began, but how much is natural patterns of change and how much is caused by humans, is the question which is not fully answered. Now it sounds like you're saying there is merit to the arguments that you spent the last 5 paragraphs disparaging. Although humans have existed on earth for many years, so have other species. All living creatures create waste products, and all of them create methane gas as a byproduct. But this is a natural process, as well as the burning of wood and other vegetation. It's our industrial age that has existed for less than 200 years, which is the concern. Never before was oil pumped from the ground, burned in massive amounts, and turned into plastics and unstable or even harmful chemicals. Since we dont have thousand of years of history to base our change, no one really knows exactly how much change we are causing to the planet. But one thing that is obvious, is that we are dumping a lot of pollution, and must of it has never occurred on earth. That makes it pretty apparent that we are having a negative impact to some degree. You do realize that global warming is attributed to CO2, which is a natural component of the atmosphere? It's only recently that the EPA managed to call it a pollutant. It's kind of like saying if I produced pure water and released it into the atmosphere that it's a pollutant. Therefore, it only makes sense to do as much as possible to eliminate as much pollution as possible. It's aparent how badly air pollution once affected Los Angeles, and none of that is good for us, and for the planet. Again your conflating CO2 with pollutants like NO2, CO, particulates, which are toxic. A big part of the problem is that we're going about much of this all wrong. We want to control and eliminate this pollution, yet we are producing more of it than ever. We are supposed to recycle, and that is a good thing, but MORE than half of the problem is to STOP MAKING GARBAGE, before we have to recycle it. Packaging is one of the biggest problems. Every goddamn thing we buy in the store is encased in plastic and has paper tags, labels, and so much more. Most of that packaging is NOT needed. Worse yet, we consumers are paying for all that garbage, and then we pay again, to get rid of it. For example, I used to go to a store to buy a plumbing washer. It was in bulk containers and the price was about half a dollar. Now, they are wrapped in a clamshell, with a cardboard insert which has a picture of it and some words. Final cost $2.00, for the same items that used to cost 50 cents. That's $1.50 for the package. Then we have to spend 10 minutes fighting to open the ****ing thing, and finally have to dispose of it, and are supposed to recycle it, which often requires 20 pages of information to determine if it's recyclable plastic or not, and then we may have to either pay to get it removed by garbage collectors, or we have to burn gas to drive to a recycling place. If the government is so concerned about pollution, how come they never go after the INPUT side, meaning those who produce all the garbage, especailly those in the packaging industry. It appears they are only concerned abotu the OUTPUT side, meaning the trash we have to get rid of. They got it all wrong. They have gone after the input side. The ban on light bulbs, the CAFE auto standards, low flush toilets, rebates for energy efficient furnaces, reqts for more insulation in new houses, low water usage washer standards are some examples. We even have more concentrated laundry detergent that's 2X what the regular stuff is. There is a lot that could be eliminated. One good example is bottled water that is shipped in from anywhere from several states away to Fiji. But are you prepared to tell people that Poland spring water is now illegal? |
#63
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per : In 100 years when the sea rises a few feet, some people will have to places have land that rises pretty fast away from the beach.,move, but not that many. Most "coastal" places have land that rises pretty fast as you get off the beach, Notable exceptions are NYC, parts of DC and most of Florida. Barrier Islands. Ocean City NJ's official height above sea level is something like 36 inches. "A few feet" and they're gone. Fortunately the sea level only rose 6" in the last 100 years. It's currently rising at twice that rate, but still it's a long way from a few feet. Ocean Islands. Whole Pacific island populations are already having to relocate and the handwriting is on the wall for others like the nation of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. U.S. Navy. I cannot cite, maybe somebody else can; but IIRC the Navy is building something like 5 feet of sea level rise into it's plans over the next so-many years - and I think the number is way less than 100. -- Pete Cresswell Yes, I'd like to see that cite too. |
#64
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:43:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote: Per : In 100 years when the sea rises a few feet, some people will have to places have land that rises pretty fast away from the beach.,move, but not that many. Most "coastal" places have land that rises pretty fast as you get off the beach, Notable exceptions are NYC, parts of DC and most of Florida. Barrier Islands. Ocean City NJ's official height above sea level is something like 36 inches. "A few feet" and they're gone. Fortunately the sea level only rose 6" in the last 100 years. It's currently rising at twice that rate, but still it's a long way from a few feet. Ocean Islands. Whole Pacific island populations are already having to relocate and the handwriting is on the wall for others like the nation of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. U.S. Navy. I cannot cite, maybe somebody else can; but IIRC the Navy is building something like 5 feet of sea level rise into it's plans over the next so-many years - and I think the number is way less than 100. -- Pete Cresswell Yes, I'd like to see that cite too. even a small increase in sea level can cause great grief for communities along the ocean. its called storm surge and rising sea levels dont help. just look at new york and new jersey |
#65
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.usenet.kooks,uk.rec.sheds
|
|||
|
|||
Brian got Plonked
"soup" wrote in message
... Right Brian you have replied to an obvious troll once too often, so Plonk. Not that you care whether or not I see your stuff I just thought I'd let you know. On 03/04/2015 15:48, Brian Gaff wrote: But we don't live in a glass of iced water do we, WELL! Now you've gone and done it, Brian. You went and got *PLONKED* by a buck-toothed, pasty-faced limey. LOL |
#66
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
wrote in message
... On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 07:01:57 -0700, "Col. Edmund Burke" wrote: "Rebel 1" axes in message ... I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here. An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way(sic) with ice cubes. Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark? In my case, it didn't. R1 In the coming Hydrocene Era, life on planet Earth will be forced to adapt to a marine lifestyle or face extinction. London, England (aka: the tiny island nation) will be the first to submit to rising sea levels, forcing these buck-toothed pasty-faces to run for higher ground. Discuss......................... Essentially you are correct. Assuming nothing happens, like a nuclear war, that makes a fundamental change in the population and the atmosphere, the earth will get warmer. The science is certainly looking that way right now. If we are going to blame CO2 levels, it needs to be pointed out that when you track CO2 for the last 10,000 years, it tracks world population as closely as any other metric, That can easily be explained by agriculture. They cut down forests and plow up grasslands to grow crops. The plants they grow are harvested as soon as they are mature so they are not much of a CO2 sink. Any global warming plan that is not going to scrub a few billion off the population is simply snake oil sold by hucksters like Al Gore who wants to make billions from a carbon tax by selling worthless "credits" for that money. I would like to see a decrease of about 5 billion arseholes from the face of the earth. I pray for that every nite. And here is my god: http://tinyurl.com/qztqd9t |
#67
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:23:10 AM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:43:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote: On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:29:55 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote: Per : In 100 years when the sea rises a few feet, some people will have to places have land that rises pretty fast away from the beach.,move, but not that many. Most "coastal" places have land that rises pretty fast as you get off the beach, Notable exceptions are NYC, parts of DC and most of Florida. Barrier Islands. Ocean City NJ's official height above sea level is something like 36 inches. "A few feet" and they're gone. Fortunately the sea level only rose 6" in the last 100 years. It's currently rising at twice that rate, but still it's a long way from a few feet. Ocean Islands. Whole Pacific island populations are already having to relocate and the handwriting is on the wall for others like the nation of the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean. U.S. Navy. I cannot cite, maybe somebody else can; but IIRC the Navy is building something like 5 feet of sea level rise into it's plans over the next so-many years - and I think the number is way less than 100. -- Pete Cresswell Yes, I'd like to see that cite too. even a small increase in sea level can cause great grief for communities along the ocean. its called storm surge and rising sea levels dont help. just look at new york and new jersey I look at NJ every day. Looking at it right now. Nothing much new here, so far. We had serious hurricanes here in the past. The first half of the last century was a period of increased and more severe hurricanes. Last half, 1960s on, was more subdued, until Sandy. I've been saying for decades that a big one was inevitable. Anyone with a lick of sense knew it. We've had a huge influx of city folks move to the shore here in the last two decades. People who have no concept of a hurricane, how destructive they can be. They want to live on the water, so now they learned. It's hard to tell me that the 6" rise in sea level over the last 100 years was a dominant or significant cause of what happened in NJ/NYC. Then you have headlines like "most destructive hurricane ever. Costliest hurricane ever." You think maybe the fact that there is 10X the housing and commercial development here that there was in 1940 has anything to do with that? Big, destructive storms have happened before. They will happen again. |
#68
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
If all the ice melts
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 16:58:55 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ice-melted-map _" If all the ice melts"_ Beer gets hot. Nevada will never be an ocean again or a portion of a glacier.. My land is a former salt water ocean. You lib's are too worried. |
#69
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 06:39:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote: If the government is so concerned about pollution, how come they never go after the INPUT side, meaning those who produce all the garbage, especailly those in the packaging industry. It appears they are only concerned abotu the OUTPUT side, meaning the trash we have to get rid of. They got it all wrong. They have gone after the input side. The ban on light bulbs, the CAFE auto standards, low flush toilets, rebates for energy efficient furnaces, reqts for more insulation in new houses, low water usage washer standards are some examples. We even have more concentrated laundry detergent that's 2X what the regular stuff is. There is a lot that could be eliminated. One good example is bottled water that is shipped in from anywhere from several states away to Fiji. But are you prepared to tell people that Poland spring water is now illegal? If you had actually read what I posted, I was NOT speaking about products. I was speaking about PACKAGING. Packaging is Garbage the moment it's produced. Sure, some of it is needed, like you cant sell soda or beer, or milk without the can or bottle. But why does a rubber washer need to be in a plastic clamshell? IT DONT. Almost every piece and part of a home repair job these days is in some sort of package. Granted, a box of nails, needs the box, and as long as it's made of paper, it has little environmental impact. But why does every single copper elbow, tee, and plmbg fitting need to be wrapped in plastic? Why does a 50ft roll of romex need to be in plastic? How about electrical boxes. Yea, some of them are now in plastic, as well as romex connectors. Think about all the time you as a home repair person, or as a contractor, has to spend opening packages. I probably waste an hour opening packages of copper pipe fittings, BEFORE I can begin the job. And I could go on for hours listing all the UNNEEDED packaging in building supplies. But it's not just building supplies. Much food is over packaged, why does a kids stuffed animal need to be in a package? Why does a simple replacement connector for a cable tv coax need to be in a hard to open clamshell package? THere again, I could go on and on... And since you mentioned it.... Bottled water is one of the biggest scams of all time. People are brainwashed into believing it's healthy. Most of the time it's the same stuff that comes out of your tap. Sure, there are places where water is not safe to drink, and people need to buy water, but most of the time it's just a waste of money. Last summer I was at a Fair, and they were selling soda for $2 a bottle and water for $3 a bottle. WTF????? This just shows how many stupid people live in this world! I have never bought a bottle of water in my life, and never will.... And also since you mentioned it, low flush toilets are a joke. I have one and I flush it at least twice per use. But whether I'm using ONE gallon, or 20 gallons per flush, dont matter. I have adaquate water. Low flush toilets may help in California and Nevada, where water is short, but are not needed in most parts of the country. The govt does a better job if ****ing stuff up than they do saving resources. Those new idiot gas cans are a perfect example. |
#70
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
|
#71
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
|
#72
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On 2015-04-03 9:47 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article , "Bob F" wrote: Rebel1 wrote: I posting this here because there a good analytical minds here. An experiment: Fill a tall clear glass half-way with ice cubes. Then add enough water so the bottom cubes no longer touch the bottom (i.e., they are all floating). Now put a mark at the water level and wait until the cubes all melt. Did the water rise above your mark? In my case, it didn't. Good right wing thinking. Just ignore the huge volume of glaciers on land. When they melt, they flow into the sea and cause it to rise. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2005861.html Interesting. So asking questions, wondering about things, trying experiments and seeing what others have to say about it is "Good right wing thinking" What is good left wing thinking then? All partisanship is, by definition, NOT thinking at all. Left or right, if you are following a dogma, you are not thinking. This is why Col. Edmond Burke is more intelligent than politicians. |
#73
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 5:25:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 06:39:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote: If the government is so concerned about pollution, how come they never go after the INPUT side, meaning those who produce all the garbage, especailly those in the packaging industry. It appears they are only concerned abotu the OUTPUT side, meaning the trash we have to get rid of. They got it all wrong. They have gone after the input side. The ban on light bulbs, the CAFE auto standards, low flush toilets, rebates for energy efficient furnaces, reqts for more insulation in new houses, low water usage washer standards are some examples. We even have more concentrated laundry detergent that's 2X what the regular stuff is. There is a lot that could be eliminated. One good example is bottled water that is shipped in from anywhere from several states away to Fiji. But are you prepared to tell people that Poland spring water is now illegal? If you had actually read what I posted, I was NOT speaking about products. I was speaking about PACKAGING. I read what you posted and while you were focused on packaging, you said that "they" haven't gone after the input side. The thread was about sea levels rising due to global warming. The input side of CO2 global warming involves a lot more than packaging materials and many of those probably have a higher impact. Packaging is Garbage the moment it's produced. Sure, some of it is needed, like you cant sell soda or beer, or milk without the can or bottle. But why does a rubber washer need to be in a plastic clamshell? IT DONT. Almost every piece and part of a home repair job these days is in some sort of package. Granted, a box of nails, needs the box, and as long as it's made of paper, it has little environmental impact. But why does every single copper elbow, tee, and plmbg fitting need to be wrapped in plastic? IDK where you're shopping, but at HD, Lowes, the local plumbing supply, ACE hardware elbows, tees and most other plumbing fittings aren't wrapped in plastic. They are in bins. Why does a 50ft roll of romex need to be in plastic? I guess you could put 8 cable ties or similar around it, to keep it from being a tangled up mess, but I bet the difference in plastic used, isn't much. That wrapper is mighty thin. Plus you need something to put the brand, product info on it, make it attractive to sell. A thin plastic wrapper does that, cable ties, not so much.... How about electrical boxes. Yea, some of them are now in plastic, as well as romex connectors. Some of the specialty boxes, like outdoor ones are. But the highest volume ones again, are in bins around here. Think about all the time you as a home repair person, or as a contractor, has to spend opening packages. I probably waste an hour opening packages of copper pipe fittings, BEFORE I can begin the job. And I could go on for hours listing all the UNNEEDED packaging in building supplies. Here those copper fittings, if you want 2 or 6 are in bins. If you want 25, 50 etc, then they are in bags or bins. I find that convenient and don't see the problem. But it's not just building supplies. Much food is over packaged, why does a kids stuffed animal need to be in a package? Probably so it doesn't get dirty, contaminated by the 50 people that pick it up before they buy it. I would think many consumers, concerned about their kids, would prefer it packaged. But again, some are packaged, some aren't. Why does a simple replacement connector for a cable tv coax need to be in a hard to open clamshell package? THere again, I could go on and on... Probably works better than having bins where all kinds of parts wind up mixed up. That is a real problem with the existing bins at HD, Lowes, etc. Many times 1/3 or more of the parts in there are not what the bin says, because customers screw it up. So.... from a stores perspective, as well as a customer's perspective, having items packaged probably makes sense in most cases. Also the packaging usually has the install instructions for the consumer on the back. And since you mentioned it.... Bottled water is one of the biggest scams of all time. People are brainwashed into believing it's healthy. Most of the time it's the same stuff that comes out of your tap. Sure, there are places where water is not safe to drink, and people need to buy water, but most of the time it's just a waste of money. Last summer I was at a Fair, and they were selling soda for $2 a bottle and water for $3 a bottle. WTF????? This just shows how many stupid people live in this world! I have never bought a bottle of water in my life, and never will.... I agree that if you wanted to cut the input side, bottled water is a good place to start. Certainly a lot of CO2 is generated hauling it around. But you didn't answer the question. What should "they" do? Govt ban it? Tax it? And also since you mentioned it, low flush toilets are a joke. I have one and I flush it at least twice per use. But whether I'm using ONE gallon, or 20 gallons per flush, dont matter. I have adaquate water. Low flush toilets may help in California and Nevada, where water is short, but are not needed in most parts of the country. The govt does a better job if ****ing stuff up than they do saving resources. Those new idiot gas cans are a perfect example. Water takes energy to produce, energy to process the waste. Reducing it is one input to reducing CO2. Not saying that all those toilets work great, just that if you want to work the input side, it's one way you do it. |
#74
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Will sea levels really rise if the glaciers melt?
replying to trader_4, Been There wrote:
Yea, Trader_4 got it right! Increase in storm destruction caused by coastal development, not weather, no SL rise -- for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/mainte...lt-827479-.htm |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Which global warming era caused all the glaciers to melt? Whatindustries were responsible? | Metalworking | |||
OT Rise of the suits. | UK diy | |||
OT Rise of the suits. | UK diy | |||
How far can damp rise? | UK diy | |||
How far can damp rise? | UK diy |