GMOs - Continued

GG,

That is odd, as i would think it would have effected the Pacific Ocean, too, I have kept a boat in the Alamitos Marina in Long Beach CA for 50 years and there has been no noticeable difference in the high water mark on the Sea Walls..

They are in the process of rebuilding the Marina for another fifty years and are not changing or raising the seawalls, so they must be high enough.

But a lot of land areas near water do suffer from subsidence, which can have the same effect..

Storm surges can also be a problem, and those would not normally be added to Spring Tide Tables.

Sally, i apologize for digressing, but felt this should be replied to.

Ernie

Indy, I don't know; I haven't checked it out. This is just from personal observation. We've lived here for over forty years and the yard never flooded when we had a high tide. Now it floods routinely, and our friend almost lost her dock due to ice because of the high level of the water.

It has risen 7 inches in the last 145 years. It rises a few milimeters per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

But its hasnt risen like the climate scientists have predicted.

GG wrote:"a significant rise in ocean levels. Towns have had to be abandoned because of this. Streets which once were lined with houses are now far out in the bay, covered with water." This is not true. which towns have been abandoned? Show me pictures please.

In fact when floating ice melts, it doesn't change sea level. Floating ice displaces it's weight in water. When it melts, it weighs the same and displaces the same amount of water.

As far as a friends dock built in 1995... the oceans haven't risen even an inch since then. So either the dock was built to low to begin with or it is sinking.




This message was edited Feb 19, 2014 2:11 PM

This argument is sort of like liberal and conservative views. Liberals feel their philosophy is best for America, if not for mankind. Conservative feel just the opposite. It just depends on one's core view of climate change. Generally speaking, it more often depends on what we watch (news casts) and what we read (newspapers and magazines).

According to NASA,125,000 years ago, global sea levels stood 14-20 feet HIGHER than the present. But 20,000 years ago the global sea levels stood a whopping 400 feet LOWER than the present. That was during the last great Ice Age. During all these thousands of years in the interim, there have been numerous changes in global sea levels, both up and down. What mankind did, or didn't do, had absolutely nothing to do with these climate changes. It was just Mother Nature at work.

Now if you believe Al Gore (who became a multi-millionaire giving lectures and writing a book about "Global Warming"), the world as we know it is coming to an end. All our coastal cities will be under water. Actually, again according to NASA, in the last 100 years our global sea levels have risen approximately 6 inches. IF this continued at the same rate, it would take 1000 years for that level to rise 50 feet, and sure enough, our coastal cities would be under water.

That is IF we don't have a COOLING climate change during that time.

Notice that none of the "talking-heads" now use the term "Global Warming". They have all quietly changed it to "Climate Change". Three years ago, all we heard about was the fact that the ice-pack in Antarctica was melting at a rapid pace. Then this past year, scientists discovered that new ice was forming there at a rapid pace, faster than had been seen in recorded history. So which is it, loss of ice or gain of ice? Again, it all depends on who/what you want to hear/read. We just pick what sounds best to us, what fits our core beliefs.

There is and probably will never be (at least in any of our lifetimes) an end to this argument. We will continue building our cities and our homes in coastal areas. We will have years with more hurricanes than average, a warmer/wetter climate, more frequent tornadoes (and the list goes on and on). Aah ha, surely a sign of global warming. And then, all the scientific predictions are proven wrong - less hurricanes, a colder fall/winter than normal, drought, and again, the list goes on and on.

Personally, I prefer to use my energy worrying about other things, things I can at least have partial control over. Let's talk about plants and related subjects. In my opinion, that is far more interesting.

By calling it climate change they can then attribute every extreme in the weather be it cold or hot or flood or drought or storm or blizzard...and blame it all on Exxon Mobil or Halliburton or BP.

If we are plant lovers we should support higher CO2 since plants do better in increased CO2 environments..at least C3 plants. Everytime you exhale you should also feel good. Actually plants prefer a bigger carbon footprint not a smaller one. So what is truly "green" is in the eye of the beholder!

Drobarr,,
I took a lot of pleasure from seing the name switch to Climate Change from Global Warming as the only logical reason for that was to admit defeat.. It may take a while for blind followers to realize it, but the two titles describe very different behavior of the atmosphere. Global Warming was a theory or hypothesis, while Climate Change is a fact and a constant, ongoing occurence.

Kirk,
I was chastized for describing this thread as a reflection of our political beliefs, but i agree with you. Replying to many of the posts with a comment about GMO would simply not be responsive to the post.;

Ernie

Ernie,

Your are correct climate change has always happened. And the name change was needed in order to not loose support for the theory. What is attributed to nature and what is attributed to man though is still not clear...tough for even climate scientists to determine. It could very well have nothing to do with human activities at all.

But if humans are causing any part of it I do not think we can only atribute it to one factor...be it CO2 or any other. The earth is a very very complex planet.

Does anyone realize that every oxygen a plant releases through photosynthesis is converted back to CO2 when that plant dies and decays? So where does Oxygen come from? Whats the source?

Welding supply companies is my best guess. LOL

drobarr, if you're going to respond to my descriptions of the situation in my area with statements that they're simply not true, there is no point continuing the discussion.

I tellya what--I'll start a climate change thread separately. I do find the comments interesting, but they are off topic.

Good idea. It has gotten off-subject.

Willy,
That is a good idea, and i hope you allow the discussion to develop as the participants lead it.
I am sure most of us have said about all we have to say about GMO, so that thread may not have much of a future for new ideas on it.

Nearly every post that i have seen has been responsive to a prior post, so those have all followed the "Thread",

Ernie

This message was edited Feb 19, 2014 5:01 PM

Ernie, thanks. I am OK but I wanted to acknowledge that the original thread starter might be bothered by digression. Some are annoyed, some don't mind.

I don't mind the occasional digression; I do mind having my observations dismissed as not being true when I have seen what I claim with my own eyes. That's just plain rude.

GH gal, I am sure no one doubts what you have said. Nothing can be more true than what you have experienced first-hand. I just think lots of folks doubted the whole notion of Global Warming, and using that as an excuse to spend billions of tax-payer's money to "solve" it. I lived on the Mississippi Gulf coast for many decades, and though I have now moved upstate, I still have many friends living there. I can tell you that neither I nor they have seen any increase in tidal levels. But saying that, I don't have a clue whether there has been noticeable changes in the sea-level in other areas. Apparently, from your observations, there has been. I have no reason to doubt what you have seen.

NOAA states that there has been an increase of about 6 " in the last 100 years. That's science, and why would anyone doubt that figure?

Ken

Ken, it was drobarr who told me that what I said wasn't true. In our area we deal both with sea level rise and with subsidence of the land mass, so the problem is exacerbated.

Sea levels are constantly moving up and down within well documented limits because of the Tides.. Water is held to this planet by the Earth's gravity and responds to the gravitational pull from both the Moon and the Sun. If the Moon and the Sun are aligned, we have the highest or Spring tides being pulled around the Earth. When the Sun and the Moon are opposed, the pull is the least, and we have Neap tides. There are other smaller factors that influence it, but that is the main driver.

There is a lot of money spent monitoring this information, and the amount of change in sea level, if any, is very important, so we can be sure the official measurements are correct and any measureable increase anywhere would be accurately recorded.

Ernie

Perhaps we could all agree that curling seems to be a goofy sport?

Nope, not even that. I like the mathematics of it. I just wish I understood more of the strategy. Needless to say, we have no winter sports here, so all the these sports are a novelty to me. If I wanted to find white stuff covering the ground, I would have to travel to Pensacola, FL.!

Ken in Mississippi

How about this: Watching "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" is a complete waste of time?

Curling is not a goofy sport!
Ask any good Minnesotan. It is a sport that any age can play. Not like the hockey, basketball, football, so forth that all require athletic ability & young age.
Of course you don't earn millions of dollars playing it.

What does curling have to do with the famous GMO ?

I think the whole bunch of you have went off the deep end.

Now Willy…I laughed and cringed at Honey BooBoo BUT you have to grant that they try to do things together as a family, they have a hardworking Dad…and it's important to understand that people have many different ways of living.

Here's one- Grass is green! Or is it….

>> I'll start a climate change thread separately.

Cool.

http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1350831/

MIT's Technology Review had a great article about GMOs in the Jan-Feb issue. They make points about rising world population requiring continued increases in crop yields, and a need to maintain growth in crop yields despite erratic and extreme weather.

In theory, we can read it online, but the text doesn't show up for me.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/

The March-April issue will have an article focused on the new GE tools Talens and Crispr, (discussed in another thread in this forum). That one CAN be read online:

http://www.technologyreview.com/review/524451/genome-surgery/

it shows up for me--thanks for the link.

Here's an article about two towns that had to be abandoned due to high tides and storm action:

http://www.thedailyjournal.com/article/20090402/NEWS01/90406015/Local-News-Tidal-Wave-Hits-Cumberland-County-1950-

Here's a quote from you: "GG wrote:"a significant rise in ocean levels. Towns have had to be abandoned because of this. Streets which once were lined with houses are now far out in the bay, covered with water." THIS IS NOT TRUE [my caps]. which towns have been abandoned? Show me pictures please."

Thompson's Beach and Moore's Beach as well as East Point are either totally gone or badly eroded. All you'd see in pictures of Thompson's Beach and Moore's Beach would be the bay and some concrete slabs. Nothing else is left. Gandy's Beach and Money Island are two others on the Delaware Bayshore which are imperiled by rising water.

GG...good try but that story has nothing to do rising sea level...that was from a tidal wave and storm surge in the 1950's and those homes were built on a sandbar prone to frequent flooding every time a storm came around.

Please share the names of towns abandoned because of rising sea levels...the ones with the streets full of water. Houses out in the middle of the bay.

This message was edited Feb 21, 2014 6:30 PM

More violent storms will cause such coastal problems more often.

I know it's not proof quite yet, but in 10-20 years, I suspect they will draw the line for "when it was obvious" around 2-5 years ago, say 2010.

Hindsight is always clearer, but the Captain of a ship he cares about doesn't wait until the ship is broken in half on the rocks before starting a turn away from the rocks.

But as long as there is a difference of opinion about how conclusive the evidence is, or how complete the models are, or how totally obvious the Keeling curve is, we will disagree about how much we should disrupt the global economy to react to what some still deny is a threat.

Perhaps the MOST interesting stage will come after everyone agrees that it is about as crucial as steering a ship away from reef.

Well worth efforts exceeding those made for (for example) World Wat II.

Global efforts, international efforts.

There is no mechanism for enforcing such efforts, sharing the burden, or punishing "violators". If the USA is any example, we might not even be able to raise funding through taxes or agree to half-measure treaties.

And I agree that it will be a problem if 3/4 of the planet bites the bullet and China just burns more coal. Who says that global nuclear winter is no longer possible? Maybe that's how we'll solve the long-term warming problem AND population growth.

We might watch the global population crash and the Breadbasket turn into a desert while political parties fight over their unwillingness to do anything.

They will probably only be able to agree that their short-sighted planet-killing grandparents back pre-2100 SHOULD have addressed the problem while it was still possible to solve.

It is kind of difficult keeping up with all this "information", when part of it is posted on the "GMO" and part of it is posted on "Climate Change". Both threads are under "The Vegetable Gardening" forum. It would be far simpler IF all these posts were under the Climate Change thread, don't you think?

Ken, confused in Mississippi

P. S. The area where I live in Mississippi averages about 300' above sea level, with our hills averaging around 500' above sea level. Huge areas of sea shells are located in my county, both in the "low-lands" and the hills. Frequently, fossilized sea life is found in these areas. At one time we were under the sea. You think the oceans might have covered a little bit more of the earth back then? This was 10,000-100,000 years before man.

P. S. S. I am also posting this on the Climate Change thread.

My guess is that most people are talked out about GMOs.

drobarr, Moore's Beach and Thompson's Beach are two of the towns I'm referencing. Yes, storms did a lot of damage, but that doesn't negate the fact that all of their streets are now underwater in the bay. I'm not going to argue this anymore, though; I feel as though I'm feeding a troll.

feeding a troll? lol

I do not deny what happened at Moors Beach and Thompsons Beach. But you have to admit that it has nothing to do with climate change, global warming or rise in sea level as you had suggested. It had to do with a catastrophic tidal wave and hurricane and storm surge that caused serious erosion and sinking of the the subsoil in the 1950's.

You mentioned earlier that because of the rise in sea level that there were towns and streets in the bay and underwater. I just wanted you to name them and you havent been able to do so. You are correct no more to discuss.

RickCorey_WA wrote: "More violent storms will cause such coastal problems more often."

Rick...Do you have a source?

As far as I know, nobody can predict the future. How many times have we heard that we should expect an active hurricane season and we had nothing. Storms have not be getting more frequent or more violent. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

What has increased is the destruction from storms...but because there is more damage to do from increased coastal urbanization, not from any increase in frequency or intensity of the storms.

Its very hard to preduict weather more than 7 days in most cases let alone predict climate over years or centuries. All we know is that it will change. Nearly all of the climate scientists predictions have proved false so far. Why keep beleiving them? Anyone ever think that if they predict a catastrophy that is going to secure them some funds to look into their horrible predictions? Job security anyone?

Doc, can we get all these posts in the "Climate Change" thread. I have absolutely no interest in GMO's and am tired to going back and forth to see the posts about our climate/sea changes/elevation changes. I do find this interesting, though know that we will never come to a consensus.

You certainly are right about predictions, and hurricanes are a good example. One does not have to go very far back to see the hurricane predictions totally wrong - just last year.

Also on the topic of hurricanes, the ONLY thing that made hurricane Sandi a "super storm" was the fact that it hit a heavily populated area. Nothing else. It had a very typical size and a fairly weak winds. Compare the size and compare the strength with hurricanes Katrina and Camille. Sandi is not even in the same ballpark with these two storms, and there are many, many others that it could be compared to. The Weather Channel loves to put labels on things. It sells!

Ken

Thanks again for the link to the MIT article, Rick. Very interesting. It was informative to understand some of the issues and to see how climate change is making the task more difficult. I wish articles like this were more widely available and reported in the popular press. So, off on a tangent (quick one). The advent of 24 hour news has done nothing to educate the population, it's served only to divide us and keep us informed of the likes of Justin Bieber's or George Zimmerman's antics. Very little in the way of useful information, even in politics--mainly stuff like who insulted whom, will he/she apologize... The real downside of the US losing to Canada in hockey is, I understand, we have to keep Bieber.



This message was edited Feb 23, 2014 5:17 PM

The other article on talens and crispr was great also. Fascinating implications for genetic diseases.

Kirk,
I will only post Climate Change responses in the CC thread, and if we all do likewise, it will soon straighten out.

Ernie