1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

How much Real Science is there in the science of climate change?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by Lustingmom1, May 30, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. allison17

    allison17 Trusted.Member

    I have seen the river. it would have taken so much time before BC I think ,or the ground is softer than it looks and it looks like solid rock. I have never been there in person.
     
    Neophyte and annab2 like this.
  2. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    It would be but humans built the Hoover dam and now 80% of the water goes to Las Vegas (or just simply evaporates off Lake Mead). We do have some effect on the planet.

    If you're ever in Vegas take the plane ride over (through!) the canyon, its well worth the money.

    :)
     
    Neophyte, annab2 and allison17 like this.
  3. allison17

    allison17 Trusted.Member

    *Off topic*

    I love your new avatar pussycat. :)
     
    pussycat and annab2 like this.
  4. annab2

    annab2 Trusted Member"It ain't pretty being easy!"

    Yeppers! Me too! :D
     
    allison17 and pussycat like this.
  5. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks

    check your "art I like" thread

    ;)
     
    allison17 and annab2 like this.
  6. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    Off the top of my head, I think the Colorado river has been digging the Grand Canyon for 5 million years.
     
  7. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    After the last "melt" I would assume the Colorado was larger and as the melt ended it "receded".
     
    allison17 and annab2 like this.
  8. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    I would think that since the Colorado river has flowed during multiple ice ages, the flow has varied during those periods, but on average its about the same as it is now.
     
    Antares, allison17 and annab2 like this.
  9. Lustingmom1

    Lustingmom1 I love my son and daughter

    Actually, the current etchings of the river reveal sediments that were deposited there over two BILLION years ago. That's almost half of the radiological estimate of the age of the planet. It certainly fucks with archbishop Usher's estimate of the age of the earth. Although, you are correct. The age of the river itself (i.e., when it began its carvings into history) is only several million years old. Also, your previous post does demonstrate man's ability to effect local changes. Changing a river's flow does change its capacity to effect erosion
     
  10. allison17

    allison17 Trusted.Member

    Now that I agree with.
     
    Lustingmom1 likes this.
  11. allison17

    allison17 Trusted.Member

    Has anyone ever thought about the great earthquake the made the Mississippi river run backwards? I live right on that fault line.
     
    annab2 and Lustingmom1 like this.
  12. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    Dams only temporarily reduces the flow of a river. Once the dam is full the flow of the river returns to normal. Most of the water from the Colorado rivers is diverted to irrigate the agriculture of Southern California and Arizona, well after the Hoover dam. Another thing, is all dams are temporary. Dams slow down the flow of water, the silt in the water settles out and fills in the dam, once the dam is full of silt, it no longer functions as a dam.
     
    Antares and Lustingmom1 like this.
  13. allison17

    allison17 Trusted.Member

    What would happen if the Hoover dam burst open all at once?
     
  14. allison17

    allison17 Trusted.Member

    I watched a show on the history channel about the Hoover dam being built. Once they started pouring concrete they could not stop. It had to be one continuis poor. they could not have a cold (hard) joint then start over with wet concrete. They poured 24/7 until it was done. I don't even remember how many days it took to pour it. There were men who died but I can't remember how many. If you get a chance you need to look that show up, or nowdays you can probably google it. They worked their ass off in very dangerous conditions.
     
    Lustingmom1 likes this.
  15. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    If Hoover dam were to burst and release all the water being held by it, Las Vegas would be pretty much safe. most likely nothing would touch it but it would lose its water and electrical sources. Boulder City may get some flooding but all in all just like Las Vegas. When you get to Laughlin, then watch out. Laughlin would pretty much get wiped out and cities and towns south of Laughlin, on or near the river would experience major flooding. I wouldn't want to live in Havasu City, Parker, Blythe or Yuma. Just north of Yuma are a series of levies, these levies would be destroyed and the Colorado river would start flowing into the Imperial Valley in Southern California and start flooding the valley. Eventually Death Valley would become Death Lake.

    I looked up the death toll on building the dam. The number varied with the official death toll at 96, but I'm believing that the unofficial death toll of 114 is closer to the truth.
     
    Lustingmom1 and allison17 like this.
  16. annab2

    annab2 Trusted Member"It ain't pretty being easy!"

    The New Madrid Fault Line, Yeppers, I am very familiar with it! I wrote a dissertation regarding specifically to "The Infamous Boot Heel" region comprising SE Missouri, NE Arkansas, W Tennessee, and W Kentucky! It was the huge Mega-Earthquakes during the years 1811-1812, which caused the mighty Mississippi River to Reverse its flow! That area was sparsely settled, during those early years of our country's expansion! ;)
     
    allison17 likes this.
  17. allison17

    allison17 Trusted.Member

    You nailed it Sweety. I am just glad I wasn't around and living here then. :eek:
     
  18. Nhilus

    Nhilus Trusted Member

    I'd say, if most of the scientific community across the globe agrees, then it isn't "pseudo" science. Whether people choose to act on it is a different question.
     
  19. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    The facts are is that the majority of the scientist in the world do not agree with the statements being made by the Climate Change supporters. The majority of the scientist simply said that the climate is changing and the Climate Change people said "see they agree with us that mankind is destroying the planet", that's why a lot of people are calling it pseudo science. They took two unrelated statements and twisted it to support their agenda. If the Climate Change people cannot be honest about the truth then they should not be believed. Discussion on what is actually happening and planning on how the world can deal with it, cannot start till the Climate Change people start telling the real truth.
     
  20. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    OK. Here is my issue. We need to discount people who "Read up on it a little". On this. The NASA letter was signed by 47 Mechanical Engineers. Not Climate Scientists. Not Meteorologists. Not Geologists or Biologists. Engineers.

    That is the larger issue that the Boomers gave us. The "Well that is your opinion and this is mine. You have a Law Degree. I read a book once. That makes our opinions equal on Law and its application!". If you work in and studied a field, that means your opinion is the learned and valid one. We really are pushing to the "Common Man KNOWS things too" in fields they are not qualified to claim they do. I dont tell a mechanic their business (Outside of Contractual Obligations) and a mechanic who listened to a podcast or read a book on law once should not hold out to be an EXPERT in it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.