 |  |
| Boat Design Forums | Boat Design Directory | Boat Design Gallery | Boat Design Book Store | Thanks to Our Site Sponsors |
| ||||
|
#2911
05-29-2009, 04:49 PM
| |||
| |||
| http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ever-told.html So Boston, there is a lot of intelligent people (yourself included) here kicking this around. What am I suppoze to think when I read things like this below? Do I have any idea if this guy is for real or not. Is he bought and sold by the oil giants? I am afraid you will snort a condicending laugh and put me and the author down....so this will just infuriate me.... and I come to think you are a pompass ass that is so full of himself......and that we mere mortals and our beliefs are unworthy of consideration. "No one cares about how much you know, till they know how much your care" Many of your answers are falling on deaf ears.....beause of your delivery. It is the case on both sides. But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about. Read the firt link then I just ran this one up on google search. http://www.usnews.com/articles/scien...us-canada.html |
|
#2912
05-29-2009, 05:00 PM
| |||
| |||
| OK I got a really dumb question. Everyone is worried if the ice melts we all drown..... But if I fill a glass with ice and pour in water to the top....all the ice melt and the water is the same level. Ice displaces water...so the level stays the same. I know some of this massive melt is on land (if it is melting anyhow)...but a lot of it has to be in the sea? |
|
#2913
05-29-2009, 05:38 PM
| |||
| |||
| jmolan, I think it was posted a while ago, info on the volume of water in the ice ON Greenland and non floating stuff in Antarctica as the 2 larger influences IF they melt in our lifetimes - some 6 metres and 12metres respectively... (but failing filing system in my head leads to inaccuracies...) also the expansion factor - but that is largely discounted as temperature decreases quite rapidly with depth for various reasons...
__________________ Try to be helpful... The trouble with people is to realise and remember that there are at least two sides for every story... A woman's breasts, one is not enough, - two may be just right, - but dreaming of 3 is a pleasant fantasy... |
|
#2914
05-29-2009, 05:43 PM
| |||
| |||
| Let the ice melt. There will be new waterfront properties. I can travel over more water and hopefully the dumb people will drown because they are too stupid to go to higher ground. Oh and if there is global warning and Canada becomes as warm as Tahiti... Great.... |
|
#2915
05-29-2009, 09:02 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Hmmm, Boston sounds a bit shrill for someone who is laughing. I kinda feel bad for him, all he has left is making little kids cry about dead polar bears, and other AGW nonsense. |
|
#2916
05-29-2009, 09:25 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
gave me a pat on the back and a slap in the face all at the same time so where to begin I think if you look at any area of this thread you will see some pretty rough and tumble conversations with no individual having a monopoly on any of it so to single me out is a statement in itself or need I quote a few of the jewels that have been thrown my way if you look at what Ive been saying from the start you should quickly see that I have been constantly trying to get it through to certain folks that science seldom deals with absolutes yet they continue to insist on proof and facts science deals with data and what the preponderance of data suggests thus the its use of consensus in this case 97% which means you should be able to find 3% of perfectly capable scientist who disagree of that 3% I have a field day pointing out which ones seem to be industry funded agnotists its an important distinction as to the unbiased reporting of there beliefs and conclusions thing to first do when faced with a dissenting opinion is to find out if the research is independent of any industry influences or not and conducted in a scientific manor. this is after all supposed to be a scientific debate and so should we not regard scientific evidence as apposed to industry spin IE was it paid for by a source that would be financially benefited by the outcome of the research all this should be disclosed under the heading of competing interests in any good paper but the industry funded people have learned to disregard this and often fail to list there funding or if there research was conducted in an unbiased way I dont think its insulting or inappropriate to point out that DR Morner has been a prominant climate change denier and that he has taken money from the oil and gas industry to write articles pointing this important consideration out doesn't constitute a snort or a laugh it constitutes a consideration of the author, the manor in which his research is conducted, and his impartiality as a scientist, and the work he conducted. how much do I care and how much do I know hmmmm I dont think Ill review my educational background as the opposition loves to make claims of elitism; but only finding enough work to keep me amused about half time, I decided to go for a position in a research facility close to were I live. The position requires about two years of education be completed on site and out of about 6000 I was one of 200 chosen for the first round of classes, of that 200 they weeded out about 175 and now Im in the second round of classes have passed, along with the entire class ( we had a great group ) and have been given a scholarship to move on to the final year of training while I pass a number of field trials over the summer. all this as a volunteer and when I get hired if I get hired, the job basically pays peanuts. in the mean time Im expected to represent this institution and give talks on wildlife conservation and resource management. I think my level of commitment is reasonable frankly I agree with you and wonder if anyone else on these pages is actually educated in the issues or is just cut and pasting there way to support there diatribe in the end I dont know **** about ocean level changes in the last 50 years what I do know is that posted in this thread is number of different assertions about sea level change none of which I have bothered to comment on or at least not in depth since its not sea level change thats the major consideration I can dig up crap posted by the deniers stating that ocean levels have always changed are not changing at all have changed more in the past than the're changing now or were significantly higher in the past than they are now which why I also find it necessary to point out that the 3% of scientist you may be able to find who disagree with climate change, also disagree with one another as to why and I can point out were all this has been gone over before in this thread my point being that if any newcomers care to read the thread ( yup its a long one ) you will find most all of these questions and allegations having been covered, then I wont have to repeat myself over and over again which is why I only drop in from time to time and yes laugh at the same few people clinging to the same old dogma over the same old misunderstandings my questions for the deniers in the crowd would be why is there no scientific debate Ild love to hear why deniers think that scientists, who love a healthy debate concerning these kind of things, are not bothering to hold any large conferences specifically to discuss the competing theories. why are there no competing theories why is there so little agreement among the rare few who do disagree why is the preponderance of data in agreement and why is it that there would be no debate if 97% of scientist agree on something its not rude some of the responses people are about to make are rude but not the basic questions that if answered in a rational and honest way make the conclusion self evident ps the evidence for the rude tactics and malicious intent is clearly represented in the post directly above by sloweddy obviously a desperate attempt to illicit some less than intelligent response when the simple reality is obvious deniers are getting frustrated so they resort to childish insults and attempts to bring the conversation down to there level sorry Ill stick to speaking about climate change and you guys stick to looking bad cause if thats the best debate you can present its obvious who is laughing at who pps not real bright polar bears are likely to survive and are having a field day in areas were the seals are having to haul out to have there pups rather than have them on the ice. ( all that ice deniers claim is not melting, tell it to the seals that cant find any to birth on ) in other areas they are in decline but its limited thus far to an alteration in there feeding habits mostly all in all the bears could be doing lots better and although in some cases in some areas they are struggling they are a highly adaptive species they are also considered a key species in that if we can save there environment we save a lot of environment and thus the other animals in it that do not require such large expanses its a tactic of the conservation movement that I do not always agree as its political and not always based on what animal is really in trouble cheers B |
|
#2917
05-29-2009, 09:40 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
well some folks its the fresh water influx that is actually the major concern a rapid influx of fresh water would basically disrupt the grand oceanic current that is responsible for distributing so much of the planets heat basically the grand oceanic current is a giant radiator kill the radiator overheat the engine or possibly freeze it up entirely again snow ball earth theory its in the thread B |
|
#2919
05-30-2009, 01:17 AM
| |||
| |||
| All the substance, Twice the insult Hey Boston, ANYONE can grasp gas laws and vapor pressure; that goes all the way back to middle school physical science. So you still believe that water vapor begets more water vapor in a vicious cycle wherein water vapor becomes the augmenter of every atmospheric thermal perturbation? After all, If CO2 can do it, so can CH4, and for that matter so can summer and day time versus winter and night. So why does the climate not run away from those ordinary perturbations, which are all larger in magnitude than that caused by your precious CO2? Could it be because the earth's albedo (look it up, *****) is actually dominated by clouds rather than ice as the AGW fools would have us believe, and that when there is more water vapor, clouds proliferate, resulting in a net cooling, meaning that water vapor is a climate stabilizer rather than a destabilizer? This is probably the tenth time I've attempted to explain this to you. Read the words very slowly, looking them up as your eyes fall on the unfamiliar ones and maybe you'll finally get it his time, monkey boy. This concept has long ago transcended the realm of pure theory (unlike your hereo's 'Virgin Stratosphere' nonsense which no one even bothers to try to prove or disprove as it's SO ridiculous  ) through the work of Spencer, Lindzen, Christy and others. No wonder you work so hard to discredit them; they've crushed the crux of your pet hobgoblin!And what about that 'Virgin Stratosphere' Red herring? Do you really believe that poppycock? Why didn't the stratosphere warm with all the new CO2 up there polluting that virgin skyscape  Can you reference one paper in support? If not, then we are back to those pesky logarithms and their gosh darned diminishing returns, wherein we just can't get much more thrust out of increasing CO2, as it has already shot it's wad. Mikey Mann knows this is true; why do you think he concocted the MMVS red herring in the first place ? When you've come up with an answer to this, one that actually gibes with observed facts, unlike your 'water vapor forcing' AGW dogma, then you can try to grasp the reality that whenever we test the CO2 in our present atmosphere to determine it's origin through measurement of the isotopic mass balance, we can clearly see that the vast majority of it (97%, your favorite number  ) is NOT sourced from fossil fuels, but from terrestrial and pelagic biotic sources. Of course everyone reading this thread knows that because of the previous postings, and knows you could not source one single study which supports the "all or nearly all" attribution of nascent CO2 rise to anthropogenic sources, as you have repeatedly asserted. Your assertion is again without any foundation in science, but is a matter of faith. Take up Bible reading, for God's sake, and stop screwing around in science! Jimbo Quote:
Last edited by Jimbo1490 : 05-30-2009 at 02:21 AM. Reason: change title, typos |
|
#2920
05-30-2009, 05:11 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
as you have once again failed in the basic physics what is a vapor and what is a solid Jim are you even able to make that distinction the simplest issue there can possibly be and you get it wrong again clouds are made up of water solid a conglomeration of microscopic water droplets condensed around a fragment of dust or what have you water vapor is the molecular form of water it is evenly distributed with in a given volume ***** you have once again proven yourself incompetent when you dont even understand the difference between water vapor and solid water or what makes up a cloud and what is a gas first flaming error that you will insist on continuing throughout this conversation everyone catching this cause this is classic throughout this entire thread Jim has failed to comprehend that a cloud is not water vapor its water droplets condensing out of the vapor in the atmosphere vapor does not isolate itself within a volume vapor rather distributes itself within a volume of a consistent pressure not sure if thats Boyle's law or charlie's law or the ideal gas law but thats basically it and I bet I got it dam close for being five o clock in the morning Quote:
quote me please on my having said that water vapor begets more water vapor you have once again completely misunderstood the basics of our previous conversations why do you think you are referred to as deniers obviously you deny the basics of science in order to maintain your bs clouds are liquid water condensing on surfaces of particulate mater in the atmosphere vapor is molecular H2O idiot and it obeys the gas pressure laws any idea what dew point is Jim or how temp effects it cause your lack of understanding is legendary at this point and it is this exact fundamental misunderstanding thats we've been over numerous times within this thread and certainly not any of your pedestrian level diatribe Quote:
albedo of clouds depends on droplet size and is typically considered to be about an average of 10~15% although it can be as high as 90% under extreme and unusual circumstances low dense clouds tend to have a positive albedo ( net cooling ) while high thin clouds tend to have a negative albedo ( contribute to global warming ) the average droplet size is falling cause the average volume of particulate mater is rising allowing for less water to condense on more particles and so a smaller size and a lower albedo overall at any given time the surface of the plannet is about 25% covered in clouds depends on who you ask or at least thats the percentage of cloud cover that actually has a positive albedo look it up ***** cause I didn't have to ( actually cause there may be some folks who have not seen this before and since its important for folks to realize how twisted Jims argument is I thought Ild go dig up the graph of cloud cover and its relevance to heat reflected and heat trapped as the various cloud formations behave completely differently with in the system and since Jim is obviously not going to be pointing that out to anyone )  which means that in the arctic where ice is melting at a phenomenal rate things are warming up what with ice being replaced with open water (given that ocean surface has a low albedo of something like less than 1% depending on the incidence of reflectivity and ice has an extremely high albedo of say an average of ~85%) in exactly the manner predicted fifty years ago exactly as measured by a variety of data sets and in the equatorial and subtropical regions were water vapor content has more influence and were con trail formation has significantly greater influence than in temperate zones things are actually cooler than the forcing's predict, but still warming with anything like 10~30% reduction of lumen's as measured at the surface based on this additional particulate matter and the advent of con trail proliferation and still we have warming holly **** you have no clue what you are talking about its obvious your struggling in an area that is simply not withing your realm of comprehension vapor is irrelevant to cloud formation without the incidence of temp variation to instigate condensation about a particulate core fool and the particulate density must be low enough for the size of the droplet to have sufficient albedo to have much of an effect at all and the altitude of the cloud formation must also be low enough for the droplets to get large enough an occurrence that is less and less in an era where we have so much soot and ash being pumped into the atmosphere so you see Jim all you did was shoot yourself in the foot again when you fail to realize that although the cloud cover may be from 50~75% on any given day and that is giving you a lot of leeway the actual value of that cloud covers positive albedo varies between only 10~20% ttl if that and at a average what 0~15% reflectivity now the world ice cover has fallen to about 12~13% and dropping fast with an average albedo of about 85% and the average world cloud cover of a positive albedo is about 10~20% with an average albedo of about 10% tops and that is giving you a lot in terms of average positive albedo you figure it out if your able which one has a greater influence on global climate change Ill give you a hint its not the bloody clouds and it never was give up on your faith based bs and take some science classes if you can muster the prerequisites cause clearly you have no idea what you are talking about and your insistence on talking about areas that you do not understand has been prevalent within this discussion need I go back and quote some of the many discussions we have had where you completely failed to comprehend the subject mater instead depending on a cut and paste effort to defend the diatribe you so desperately cling to. For god sakes man stop embarrassing yourself and at least look up a few things before you go mouthing off in public love B ps this has all been written about within the thread before you didnt get it then your not getting it now need I really go point it out and that includes the part about con trails you really should think twice before you go making a blatantly phony argument like that Jim didnt work out for you to well now did it and in the end who ended up looking like the ***** when every point of the argument you tried to present turned out to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the simple physics involved its late, Im plastered and I just got in from the club and the girl is yelling at me so I gotta go but in the future if you would like to have a less adversarial discourse your at least going to have to argue from a position of some merit rather than from dream land if you want to continue embarrassing yourself dont let me slow you down any cause I dont think anyone could possibly miss that you just got your ass kicked or that I did it while plastered three sheets to the wind with the girl hounding me at some ungodly hour of the morning arrrrg I gotta go cheers B |
|
#2921
05-30-2009, 07:35 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Well lets see here, Boston is calling people names again, posting figures he can't back up with names, repeating discredited reports based on faulty data, and he's drunk by his own admission. Nothings changed, I'll check back tomorrow to see it any real discourse is taking place here or if the bully is still whining cause he can't get his way. |
|
#2922
05-30-2009, 12:53 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| well lets see here, Sloweddy is crying foul because he and his cronies starting slinging mud and now complain that it came back at them, typical whining from childish people who are unable to cling to there ignorance anyone can see that what you "wonderful people" are up to and its not working is it the data presented was labeled for your further amusement, had you chosen to look up the data presented rather than just take the typical tact and ignore the substance of the debate you might have learned a few things. clearly its not your intention to learn anything but to cling to ignorance, sling mud and cry foul when you loose ps unlike those who cry foul when they find themselves dramatically outclassed and on the receiving end of exactly the kind of consideration they give others I actually know the data so if you feel as though you can find fault with it feel free but my bet is you will be posting information from agnotists rather than from respected members of the scientific community. your odds are roughly 3 in 97 with a respectable ~1/2 of that 3 having proved themselves bought and paid for agnotists lets see if you can dig up that ~1.5% of honest scientists who disagree and should you somehow get lucky your still wrong cause the consensus is hugely against you seems pretty obvious who is whining cause "they" are obviously struggling here with even the most basic of concepts what a putz wants to dish it out but cant take it at all if this is all just to hard for you all you need do is act in a civilized manor and you will receive the same |
|
#2923
05-30-2009, 01:35 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| since certain people are proving themselves overly sensitive why dont I start again with the civility and see who follows Ill repost the previous without all the spit and vinegar so we all get a nice fresh start eh the lack of basics is killing you guys so Ill just blast threw a quick review and you folks can start complaining from there there are three states of matter gas liquid solid (and plasma actually) plasma is a little new so Ill leave it out for the time being to keep things simple what is the difference can anyone tell me keeping it simple a gas (vapor) is an atomic or molecular substance obeying the ideal gas laws example = air what is a liquid it is a conglomeration of molecules of varying bond strength freely moving about and forming a loose boundary layer within a given space example = a droplet in a cloud what is a solid atoms or molecules within a solid do not tend to change position as freely as they do in a liquid or a gas. They tend to be packed in a denser form and tend to be packed in a uniform pattern. Solids generally hold there shape unless acted on by some outside force example = rocks, like what some folks got for brains now I didnt go look any of that up folks and Im sure you will be able to find a variety of definitions however generally since Im teaching classes these days when I get questions regarding the basics I refer them to the end of the class once the rest of the class has moved through the days curriculum so if you wish to argue the basics of what a gas liquid or solid is you will need to drop out of the conversation for the moment and I would be happy to provide literature on the subject for you at some more convenient time my next post will concern albedo or reflectivity since my uncle is one of the worlds leading optical physicists its a subject I know more about than I ever wanted to and dam if I ever thought it would come in handy so do we have any issues with the states of matter by the way this is the third or fourth time I have suggested we take it from the top in civilized manor |
|
#2924
05-30-2009, 04:00 PM
| |||
| |||
| Atmosphere heats, water evaporates, clouds form, clouds cause net cooling, rain falls, clouds clear, atmosphere heats, repeat ad infinitum. Any other understanding blatantly contradicts the most easily observed, ordinary daily realities of weather. If the IPCC/AGW understanding of cloud physics is the correct one, then the tropics would be hot (VERY hot, like hotter than the world's hottest desserts) with CLEAR skies and very dry. But instead the tropics are warm and wet with skies always cloudy and nearly incessant rainfall. Boston likes to pretend that water vapor and clouds are unrelated phenomena. He like to make believe that once water vapor gets into the atmosphere, some 'mystery' cooling event has to come along and precipitate it out. The idea that water vapor concentration is self-regulating via the simple and elegant mechanism of albedo change due to cloud formation, which is in turn driven by water vapor concentration, is abhorrent to him, because he knows if it's true, then his pet theory is dead, at least scientifically speaking. Jimbo |
|
#2925
05-30-2009, 04:12 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| well that was at least a tad more civil so we are heading in the right direction at least its been a challenge to stay on track so when I get a chance Ill write part two and we can begin to see how vapor turns into clouds and why clouds act in such a variety of ways with some being + albedo and some being - albedo then once that is understood we can move on to the issue of ice, snow and open water albedo Quote:
so lets just take it one step at a time since its these basics that seem to be the problem |
 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| How much will the C of G change? | Gene H | Diesel Engines | 6 | 03-02-2007 11:30 AM |
| Somebody Please help with impeller change! | SC Hartwell | Outboards | 2 | 01-14-2007 01:44 PM |
| Change My Skeg? | mcody2005 | Boat Design | 1 | 11-06-2006 12:45 AM |
| How about a change of pace? | Handtool | Fiberglass and Composite Boat Building | 11 | 09-14-2006 09:42 AM |
| Career Change | preaser | Education | 2 | 10-07-2004 11:29 AM |
Linear Mode
