"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
wrote in message

stuff snipped

The sad thing is the biggest agricultural crop in this country, using
as much water as they do growing corn is the lawn in front of most
people's houses and on their golf courses. Nobody eats any of it.
We either let it rot where cut it or bag it and pay to have it hauled
away.

In the future it will be a crime to use water in that way (unless it's
gray
water - and maybe not even then) in many places. In certain areas, it's
already some sort of infraction to water lawns when not approved. Other
places will still be as green as ever, though, where water is naturally
abundant.


it is already a crime in some places to catch rainwater.

On 4/11/2016 4:23 PM, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message

stuff snipped

The sad thing is the biggest agricultural crop in this country, using
as much water as they do growing corn is the lawn in front of most
people's houses and on their golf courses. Nobody eats any of it.
We either let it rot where cut it or bag it and pay to have it hauled
away.

In the future it will be a crime to use water in that way (unless it's gray
water - and maybe not even then) in many places. In certain areas, it's
already some sort of infraction to water lawns when not approved. Other
places will still be as green as ever, though, where water is naturally
abundant.

Desalination could see some very serious technical improvements over the
decades that make it much more economic than it is now. Solar evaporation
could produce potable water.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/18/...-salt-problem/


I live in Minnesota and all of our water comes from our well.

When I lived in Bermuda, I discovered that there is no fresh water
there. The Bermudians collect rain water in large cisterns that are
located under or next to their homes. All the roofs are coated in lime.

Of course, on the naval base (which isn't there any more), there was a
desalination plant, but it only provided water to the base.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:17:33 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message

stuff snipped

There is a hell of a lot of construction going on in Florida and the
predictions do not make it much hotter here, even in the globe does
warm. The effect will be in the northern latitudes.

Agree - but heat is not the main problem and is fairly easily mitigated.
What's damning Florida and New York City real estate owners, among others,
is the rising cost of insurance in areas subject to coastal flooding. If
Big Insurance and climate experts both fear global sea rise, I tend to
believe in it no matter where Al Gore or anyone else stands.

http://www.google.com/search?q=large...astal+flooding


If you actually look at those hits, you see the rate increases are
just because the value of the buildings on the beach are much higher.
People are not building beach shacks anymore, they are building houses
worth a million dollars and up.

New York was just in denial because they had not actually had a storm
since the 30s and they were way overdue. New Orleans was the same way
as was South Florida before Andrew.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:23:50 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message

stuff snipped

The sad thing is the biggest agricultural crop in this country, using
as much water as they do growing corn is the lawn in front of most
people's houses and on their golf courses. Nobody eats any of it.
We either let it rot where cut it or bag it and pay to have it hauled
away.

In the future it will be a crime to use water in that way (unless it's gray
water - and maybe not even then) in many places. In certain areas, it's
already some sort of infraction to water lawns when not approved. Other
places will still be as green as ever, though, where water is naturally
abundant.


We have that here but it is a toothless law. I have never heard of
anyone getting more than a nasty letter.


Desalination could see some very serious technical improvements over the
decades that make it much more economic than it is now. Solar evaporation
could produce potable water.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/18/...-salt-problem/

Potable water is not really the issue. It is water for agriculture
that will be the problem. I could make enough drinking water for my
family with a fairly modest R/O unit, using the tidal river next to my
house. In fact the river has lower salinity than my well quite often.
In January and February the river was running about 320ppm and the
well cruises around 450ppm. That is closer to 900 after the water
softener.

Mayayana wrote: ".
In New England it's likely to be the other
way around. We have plenty of water and expect more
with global warming. Our problems are more likely to
be extreme species strain, as we move up one or two
temperature zones. But water shouldn't be a problem.
So order now before I put the price up. "

Hate to break it to ya, but #1 it's CLIMATE
CHANGE NOT "global warming" and #2:
the 30 year prognosis for New England is
longer, colder, snowy winters and summers
1-2F deg. COOLER than normal. CT
through Maine are bucking the trend.

| Hate to break it to ya, but #1 it's CLIMATE
| CHANGE NOT "global warming" and #2:
| the 30 year prognosis for New England is
| longer, colder, snowy winters and summers
| 1-2F deg. COOLER than normal. CT
| through Maine are bucking the trend.

Links? I haven't heard that. I've only heard
a general prediction about more rain. (And
what's the difference between climate change
and global warming? Are you saying that you
think climate change is happening but that it's
not connected to global warming?)

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:36:17 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Hate to break it to ya, but #1 it's CLIMATE
| CHANGE NOT "global warming" and #2:
| the 30 year prognosis for New England is
| longer, colder, snowy winters and summers
| 1-2F deg. COOLER than normal. CT
| through Maine are bucking the trend.

Links? I haven't heard that. I've only heard
a general prediction about more rain. (And
what's the difference between climate change
and global warming? Are you saying that you
think climate change is happening but that it's
not connected to global warming?)


The climate is always changing. It is simply arrogant for this
generation to believe it will always be the way they like it.

If people are worried about climate change and actually believe all of
these things will happen in their lifetime. plan for it. Buy some
beach front property in Highlands county Florida for a song now and
be a millionaire in a few years. Personally I think that in 100 years
you will still be 60 miles from the beach but that is just me.

Mayayana wrote: "| Hate to break it to ya, but #1 it's CLIMATE
| CHANGE NOT "global warming" and #2:
| the 30 year prognosis for New England is
| longer, colder, snowy winters and summers
| 1-2F deg. COOLER than normal. CT
| through Maine are bucking the trend.

Links? I haven't heard that. I've only heard
a general prediction about more rain. (And
what's the difference between climate change
and global warming? Are you saying that you
think climate change is happening but that it's
not connected to global warming?) "

Look at winters 2013-14 and 14-15. Record
cold and snowfall at least here in CT. Plus
the last couple summers we barely broke
80F in July and August.

The difference between global warming and
climate change is that one of them is a myth:
Global warming implies that temperatures of
both sea and air, worldwide are gradually
rising. That's just not true.

Climate change suggests that certain regions
of the world are seeing lower average
temperatures, and other regions, higher.
Ditto precipiatation patterns. Change implies
that the whole world is not getting uniformly
warmer over time. Rather, some parts
are getting cooler, some parts hotter, some
parts wetter, some parts drier.

Global warming is a media misnomer, so it
has ZERO connection to climate change.

wrote in message

stuff snipped

Potable water is not really the issue. It is water for agriculture
that will be the problem.

People will have to learn to eat kelp and seaweed like the Japanese. Then
comes Soylent . . .

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message

http://www.google.com/search?q=large...astal+flooding


If you actually look at those hits, you see the rate increases are
just because the value of the buildings on the beach are much higher.

I would not be so quick to say it's all value-based. In fact, I strongly
disagree with that assertion. Underwriting assumptions change after major
payouts. If what you say it true, rates shouldn't have risen after Andrew
but we both know they did. If I had the time I'd cite specific articles.
But even in that Google search list I posted has articles that say insurers
are factoring in near-sea level elevation properties as much higher risks
because of the inexorable sea rise of recent years.

Perhaps the articles you find with this search will more accurately make the
point of increasing premiums due to predicted sea rise (and other climatic
threats):

http://www.google.com/search?q=insur...ill+in crease

I worked for a major insurer in the actuarial dept. my first job out of
college. Actuaries look ahead to the future and determine the risks that
can affect their policyholders and adjust rates accordingly. Is it possible
they're scamming their clients? Of course. But the rate of sea rise is
increasing nearly every year and lots of prime real estate could become like
Venice.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Insurers know that and are sticking lots of coastal customers with enormous
rate increases because of the perceived increase in risk, not the increase
in value of their property. Value increases just don't match up with the
rate increases - and that's what has people in coastal areas so pi$$ed off.

--
Bobby G.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:35:36 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message

http://www.google.com/search?q=large...astal+flooding


If you actually look at those hits, you see the rate increases are
just because the value of the buildings on the beach are much higher.

I would not be so quick to say it's all value-based. In fact, I strongly
disagree with that assertion. Underwriting assumptions change after major
payouts. If what you say it true, rates shouldn't have risen after Andrew
but we both know they did. If I had the time I'd cite specific articles.
But even in that Google search list I posted has articles that say insurers
are factoring in near-sea level elevation properties as much higher risks
because of the inexorable sea rise of recent years.


Andrew was not a big flood event nor were Charley and Wilma
Andrew prompted insurance companies to simply pull their business from
Florida until they instigated separate windstorm policies to get them
back. That still had nothing to do with flood. FEMA is raising flood
rates to reflect the fact that they have been artificially low forever
and the amount of money they lose, even in relatively minor storms
like Sandy (a weak Cat 1) just points put that the amount of exposure
near the water has been underestimated.
You also can't ignore the amount of million dollar housing, right on
the beach, in places that were sea oats 15 years ago.



Perhaps the articles you find with this search will more accurately make the
point of increasing premiums due to predicted sea rise (and other climatic
threats):

http://www.google.com/search?q=insur...ill+in crease

I worked for a major insurer in the actuarial dept. my first job out of
college. Actuaries look ahead to the future and determine the risks that
can affect their policyholders and adjust rates accordingly. Is it possible
they're scamming their clients? Of course. But the rate of sea rise is
increasing nearly every year and lots of prime real estate could become like
Venice.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Insurers know that and are sticking lots of coastal customers with enormous
rate increases because of the perceived increase in risk, not the increase
in value of their property. Value increases just don't match up with the
rate increases - and that's what has people in coastal areas so pi$$ed off.

That is pure hyperbole to sell more expensive policies. You only have
to look at coastal tide stage monitor data to see that if sea level is
rising, the amount in minuscule.
The real risk, is what is being built and where it is being built. We
have never had this level of development at the beach in Florida
before.
I suppose I could get you aerial photos since just 1944 to show that
or you could go to labins and get them yourself. (a compilation of
Florida aerials going back to 1944 and some earlier than that)

On 4/11/2016 9:52 PM, wrote:

The climate is always changing. It is simply arrogant for this
generation to believe it will always be the way they like it.


I think that arrogance is when certain people
think that we can affect climate change with
freon, driving big cars, etc.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/11/16 9:52 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:36:17 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


If people are worried about climate change and actually believe all of
these things will happen in their lifetime. plan for it. Buy some
beach front property in Highlands county Florida for a song now and
be a millionaire in a few years. Personally I think that in 100 years
you will still be 60 miles from the beach but that is just me.

I think the better real estate investment will be in California. The
Big One Earthquake is a better bet and you not only get waterfront
property as part of Cali falls into the sea, but the Quake also takes
care of the needed demo prior to redevelopment. Win/Win.

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:


As someone that has worked in science for 50 years, I can also tell you
that scientists are susceptible to shading results to give the boss what
he wants. If government is the source of their funding, they will tell
them those in power what they want to hear.

I signed the first skeptic petition many years ago. If you look at the
history of climate, it is always changing and will continue to change in
the future.

And the hysteria has gone well beyond that now. If you're a scientist
at a university and you publish anything that questions any aspect of
global warming, you risk terminating your advancement, your funding,
your job. And the libs in Congress recently went after all the researchers
they could find that had published anything questioning global warming.
They demanded their records, all their papers, their contacts, going back
decades. That is straight out of Nazi Germany. Now the attorneys general
in several states are doing the same thing with any companies that have
provided funding to global warming skeptic scientists. They have subpoenaed
records of who they donated to, etc, going back decades, in preparation for
suing them for billions over what they will claim to be "fraud". It's
really amazing what the left is capable of doing.

anyone who has ever had a aquarium for years knows that a aqurium has a carrying capacity.....

exceed it and fish die. can cause too much plant growth too.

i believe we should respect risks we dont fully understand.

thre may be a tipping point.

if excedded things will get out of control....

|| the 30 year prognosis for New England is
|| longer, colder, snowy winters and summers
|| 1-2F deg. COOLER than normal. CT
|| through Maine are bucking the trend.
|
| Links? I haven't heard that. I've only heard
| a general prediction about more rain. (And
| what's the difference between climate change
| and global warming? Are you saying that you
| think climate change is happening but that it's
| not connected to global warming?) "
|

| Look at winters 2013-14 and 14-15. Record
| cold and snowfall at least here in CT. Plus
| the last couple summers we barely broke
| 80F in July and August.
|


But you were talking about a 30 year prediction.
That would need to be issued by some kind of
scientific group, based on some kind of evidence.
I haven't heard any such prediction. If you make
that claim isn't it reasonable to ask for the evidence?

The past two years don't mean anything. This Winter
has been very warm and the Summer of 3 years ago
was a scorcher. So what? What's that got to do with
longterm predictions of colder climate?

| The difference between global warming and
| climate change is that one of them is a myth:
| Global warming implies that temperatures of
| both sea and air, worldwide are gradually
| rising. That's just not true.
|

So you reject the climate scientists measurements
showing that the dozen or so hottest years on
record, worldwide, have been in the last 15-or-so
years? Surely you must have seen those claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...erature_record

I think it would be surprising if there were not at
least some change in the past 100 years. The big
question is what's coming, whether we're causing it,
and whether that's bad. What I see is global warming
scientists and activists on one side who seem to fudge
the data in order to fit their sense of emergency. The
numbers are always changing and we simply don't have
the technology to figure it all out for sure. It's simply
not realistic for them to be as certain as they are.
On the other side I see lazy ostrich mentality -- people
who don't want to know anything that might cause
inconvenience and will use any half-baked argument
to deny any possibility of global warming.

What about a reasonable middle? Why not just try
to act sensibly, live sustainably, reduce pollution,
reduce greenhouse gases, regardless of whether
global warming is a problem? We *are* the environment.
We have to live that way.

In my lifetime our lifestyle has become less tenable
rather than more, despite environmentalism. Very few
people compost. Nearly everything I buy comes in a
useless plastic blister pack. People drive and fly more
than they ever have. A popular pastime in rural areas
is to drive ATVs back and forth through the woods.
Whole Foods tries to shame people for wanting a paper
receipt, yet they're phasing out bulk goods and selling
juice drinks in tiny six-packs, with each kiddie container
having it's own built-in straw. All "disposable". They also
stock a great deal of produce from S. America, which
has to be flown in by jet.
Cellphones have a typical lifespan of 2 years, maximum.
Coffee makers that use a plastic cup per serving have
become very popular. Less cleanup. But we dispose of
a plastic cup for every cup of coffee! Could it get more
idiotic than that? Garbage disposals put food into the
sewer system. All of those things should be illegal -- crimes
against common sense. But that would conflict with
unfettered consumerism and the religion of convenience.

The way I see it, many of the people on both sides of
the issue are more nuts than not.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:36:02 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
|| the 30 year prognosis for New England is
|| longer, colder, snowy winters and summers
|| 1-2F deg. COOLER than normal. CT
|| through Maine are bucking the trend.
|
| Links? I haven't heard that. I've only heard
| a general prediction about more rain. (And
| what's the difference between climate change
| and global warming? Are you saying that you
| think climate change is happening but that it's
| not connected to global warming?) "
|

| Look at winters 2013-14 and 14-15. Record
| cold and snowfall at least here in CT. Plus
| the last couple summers we barely broke
| 80F in July and August.
|


But you were talking about a 30 year prediction.
That would need to be issued by some kind of
scientific group, based on some kind of evidence.
I haven't heard any such prediction. If you make
that claim isn't it reasonable to ask for the evidence?

The past two years don't mean anything. This Winter
has been very warm and the Summer of 3 years ago
was a scorcher. So what? What's that got to do with
longterm predictions of colder climate?

| The difference between global warming and
| climate change is that one of them is a myth:
| Global warming implies that temperatures of
| both sea and air, worldwide are gradually
| rising. That's just not true.
|

So you reject the climate scientists measurements
showing that the dozen or so hottest years on
record, worldwide, have been in the last 15-or-so
years? Surely you must have seen those claims."

Yes I have - but, we certainly have
not felt the effects of such change
here in southern CT. Like I said,
human activity is causing CHANGES to
regional climates around the world.
And these changes are not all rising
temperatures. Some places are getting
cooler, some places are getting windier,
some are getting less windy, some
are getting more precip, etc etc.
But all of those aspects of climate
change are not all moving in one
direction globally - as the phrase
"global warming" does imply.


"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...erature_record

I think it would be surprising if there were not at
least some change in the past 100 years. The big
question is what's coming, whether we're causing it,
and whether that's bad. What I see is global warming
scientists and activists on one side who seem to fudge
the data in order to fit their sense of emergency. The
numbers are always changing and we simply don't have
the technology to figure it all out for sure. It's simply
not realistic for them to be as certain as they are.
On the other side I see lazy ostrich mentality -- people
who don't want to know anything that might cause
inconvenience and will use any half-baked argument
to deny any possibility of global warming.

What about a reasonable middle? Why not just try
to act sensibly, live sustainably, reduce pollution,
reduce greenhouse gases, regardless of whether
global warming is a problem? We *are* the environment.
We have to live that way."

I agree entirely!!
It's just that I'm trying to
impart what's really happening
to the planet.
Sustainable living, reduced
pollution and greenhouse gas
are good not only for the planet
but for the human and other
animal species we share it with.



"
In my lifetime our lifestyle has become less tenable
rather than more, despite environmentalism. Very few
people compost. Nearly everything I buy comes in a
useless plastic blister pack. People drive and fly more
than they ever have. A popular pastime in rural areas
is to drive ATVs back and forth through the woods.
Whole Foods tries to shame people for wanting a paper
receipt, yet they're phasing out bulk goods and selling
juice drinks in tiny six-packs, with each kiddie container
having it's own built-in straw. All "disposable". They also
stock a great deal of produce from S. America, which
has to be flown in by jet.
Cellphones have a typical lifespan of 2 years, maximum.
Coffee makers that use a plastic cup per serving have
become very popular. Less cleanup. But we dispose of
a plastic cup for every cup of coffee! Could it get more
idiotic than that? Garbage disposals put food into the
sewer system. All of those things should be illegal -- crimes
against common sense. But that would conflict with
unfettered consumerism and the religion of convenience.

The way I see it, many of the people on both sides of
the issue are more nuts than not.

The way I see it, many of the people on both sides of
the issue are more nuts than not.

and it was all predicted by Rod Serling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Midnight_Sun

wait for the trick ending as usual.

Mark

wrote in message

stuff snipped

That is pure hyperbole to sell more expensive policies. You only have
to look at coastal tide stage monitor data to see that if sea level is
rising, the amount in minuscule.

Depends on your perspective. The rise in 100 years could be catastrophic if
the speed estimates of previous climatic/sea level changes throughout time
are considered.

http://climate.nasa.gov/system/chart...Level_left.gif

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:01:51 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote in

stuff snipped

MAN-MADE climate warming/change is junk science used by big-government
tax and spend politicians and special interest groups to justify
massive new taxes and government control (e.g. gas cans, light bulbs
and carbon taxes). Indeed, many of the UN-IPCC input data assumptions
used in the Global Warming Climate Change computer models are
egregiously unrealistic, e.g. CO2 uptake via the global ocean/air
interface, effects of solar activity, very limited data sampling,
sub-surface ocean current movement changes, chronic underestimate of
methane effects, variability of volcanic ash and CO2 ejection, methane
overestimation, etc. There are many others. As the developers of
computer models like to say: "Garbage in, garbage out".
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.