What Do We Think About Climate Change

[safewalrus]

So we're all going to die!

Wow whats new?

[Butch .H]

No all the ice is going to melt and we are going to have more sea cool I got a yacht or two works for me. Um but then the Atlantic conveyor is going to stop and the world will freez um ok yes we are going to die but not befor I use that extra sea

[artemis]

Your days are numbered! All of you!

[Butch .H]

Not befor you guys run out of fuel.Will make interesting TV

[safewalrus]

the Altantic Conveyor was sunk in '82 not far from you Butch

[Butch .H]

Yes but the good old yanks named their mid ocean current the same.

[Fanie]

Butch, did you sink that Altantic Conveyor in '82 ? Bloody South Africans. Can't take them anywhere

[Butch .H]

Yup used your boat thats why you building a new one. By the way Chris Bonnet is marketing the 23.5 Aventura Cat. Going to see it befor the week is out. See Sailing mag

[Petros]

I have read that antropogenic CO2 is only about 4-6 percent of total planetary CO2 output. Most of it appearently is coming from forest fires, natual gas vents, decomposing plants, volcanos and decomposing sea life.

If CO2 is the culpret, how is it that humans can have any significant impact even if we have never put any CO2 into the air?

Also, water vapor causes something like 95 percent of all greenhouse effect, CO2 contributes only about 2-3 percent. So how is stopping CO2 output (even if it is possible) going to have a noticable impact?

There have been a number of studies exmining the long term history of CO2 in the atmosphere, and in the last 10,000 years CO2 was 1600 percent higher than it was today, which was also during the last ice age. None of the studies could draw any correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, and in-fact during the last two ice ages CO2 was many times higher than it is today. So why would you think that CO2 is the cause of global warming when there is no historic evidence for it?

My questions are simple: what is the causal link between CO2 and climate?
What is the impact, as a percentage of the total, can human activity make to it?

[Jimbo1490]

The number is more realistically about 2%. As with other estimates, this is usually presented as a range of values. The press picks up on the high side of the range and presents this as fact without the perspective of the low side of the range, thus slanting the reporting.

It's interesting to note that the estimate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is smaller than the error bars for the estimates of total CO2 in the atmosphere. In other words, anthropogenic CO2 is 'in the noise'' of the measurements.

These are only the facts; I invite you to draw your own conclusions from these facts.

Jimbo

[Boston]

levity appreciated
we only go the way of the dodo
if cant laugh it off and make a few changes
hey
has any one noticed a rise in sail augmenting diesel in commercial aplications
other than the tourist industry
Im not on the water these days
but will be getting back soon
B

[Boston]

one side wants to marginalize things
the other sensationalize
both sides loose face not finding middle ground and finding a solution
one of the best arguments I heard concerning the warming issue was this
what’s worst case scenario on both sides and pick your poison

facts suggests an absolute known
science tends to avoid this
data admits the possibility of error
and the desire for more information


1st scenario )
we do nothing
and global climate change
is a farce
result )
then the scientific community looks the fool
and we go on with our lives
big **** eating grin on our faces

2nd scenario ) ( minority of evidence questions global warming )
we take short term measures and spend money to alter our course
and global climate change
is again a farce
result )
we suffer short term economic hardship having spend about 1% of the world GNP and gaining nothing
short term possible economic collapse and world wide depression
assuming the worst
third world countries suffer from hunger and disease and developed countries economies grind to a halt ( again for the short term )

3rd scenario ) ( majority of evidence suggests this is true )
we take measures and spend money to alter our course
and global climate change is real
result )
we avoid long term disaster while taking a short term step back economically
science is vindicated and we go on with our lives
big grin on our faces

4rth scenario )
we do nothing
and global climate change is real
result )
( worst case again )
the oceans ability to subsidize the human race fails
agricultural growth zones alter so fast we cant keep up and grain crops fail
the ocean currents halt and a cascade of events leads to near ttl destruction
industrial civilization as we know it ends

so what is the prudent thing to do
given the potential of the problem


I liked the mention of the forest fires
friend of mine is an environmental endocrinologist
we get a lot of fires in the hills here
we were having a fire party and he went off on how forest fire smoke is worse for you than cigarette smoke
Allan always manages to surprise me with some jewel like that when ever he is around

the carbon issue
temp rise
and water vapor

hmmmm
let me try the disarming approach
lets say carbon has nothing to do with global climate change
but admit the climate is changing

so we ignore carbon
what can we change
that can definitely be attributed to human activity
that will make an immediate difference
and cause the least short term pain for the economy

plastic is in no way a naturally occurring material
which is choking the life out of the oceans
and five of the top six most prevalent toxins in the environment are ones primarily used by the plastics industry
also plastic is a great bio accumulator
so the animals that accidently eat plastic end up contaminated
farm raised salmon have levels of dioxin
ten times that of there wild counterparts

and ripping 95/100 fish out of the ocean is definitely a human event
there is a correlation between farm raised fish and collapse of neighboring wild stock
we need a revamp of fishing regulations and enforcement practices

there is an obvious problem with petrochemical run off from agriculture
industrial farming has focused animal waist
lots of room for positive change

how about we quit arguing about who caused warming and admit its happening
cause it is
so
lets do some thing about it
together
for once

[Boston]

" None of the studies could draw any correlation between CO2 and global temperatures"

I would direct you to the Vostoc core samples data chart
and ask any one to please point out the inconsistencies in the graph leading one to believe there is no correlation between temp and carbon levels
I would also ask to see the studies you cite as I am curious how any reviewed and published paper could claim there is no correlation
be it pre or post temp rise there does appear to be a link between carbon and temp




in-fact during the last two ice ages CO2 was many times higher than it is today. So why would you think that CO2 is the cause of global warming when there is no historic evidence for it?

I would direct you to this following graph showing specific events can lead to a rise in carbon and a fall in temp
such as has been recently observed in volcanic eruption data



also this next showing that common eruption events cause little effect to the overall system




also
there is adequate evidence of historic catastrophic clathrates eruptions as noted by the respected Richard Cowen Dep of Geology U of C Davies campus
these are green house gas's released into the atmosphere alone and with out additional particulate mater typical of volcanic or burn events
it is unlikely these eruptions represented more than a few percent of the partial gas content of the atmosphere

quote
HEAT: CLATHRATES
Clathrates are methane hydrates, and they can build up in seafloor sediments, or in permafrost, through the action of methanogens on buried organic sediment.
Clathrates are metastable, and have dangerous potential for rapid release, flooding the atmosphere with a greenhouse gas directly, and indirectly with breakdown products that are themselves greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and water vapor). That release could be triggered by climate warming; by volcanic eruptions into massive clathrate deposits; and by sealevel change. The number of potential scenarios is large. Examples that have been suggested, in decreasing order of probability:

End of Paleocene (the Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum)
Contribution to sudden Pleistocene climate fluctuations
The Late Permian extinction, triggered by the Siberian Trap eruptions flooding permafrost areas
The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction (perhaps the stupidest of the formally published hypotheses).
HEAT: CARBON DIOXIDE CATASTROPHES
For this, we need a release of carbon dioxide that would overpower normal feedback mechanisms such as photosynthesis, so it has to be sudden. There is a huge reservoir of carbon dioxide in ocean water, much larger than that of the atmosphere. (That's why planting trees won't help to solve global warming.) The trick is to keep the ocean and atmosphere reservoirs separate, build up carbon dioxide in the latter, than release it quickly into the atmosphere.
To do that, shut off the normal circulation of the oceans that involves surface water sinking and deep water upwelling. That way, the deep ocean can build up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, and carbon. Then find a way to release it quickly.
There is a modern-day analog: the Black Sea. It is anoxic below the surface, which is less saline than regular ocean water because of the huge rivers that pour into it (Danube, Dnepr, Don). The surface water cannot sink, as regular ocean water does off Antarctica and in the North Atlantic; and deep water cannot upwell, as it does, for example, in the Southern Ocean. If the ocean as a whole were to lack vertical circulation, over 90% of the water on Earth would be anoxic.
Panthalassa, the giant world ocean, could well have gone anoxic after the Late Paleozoic glaciations had gone. There would be no supercold water at or near the poles to sink, and the lack of isolated ocean basins would not provide much supersaline water to sink (as water from the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf does today).
This loaded the gun, and all it would take would be a trigger that would turn over the oceans and release their load of carbon dioxide quickly. There would be a carbon dioxide catastrophe, followed by a prolonged period of global warming. It looks as if this happened at the P-Tr extinction, probably triggered by the Siberian Traps eruption and/or a clathrate release.
end quote

so the historical evidence for naturally occurring catastrophic hydrate events is established as occurring in conjunction with dramatic extinction events and radical climactic change


the argument of modern global climate change theory is that we are artificially recreating these historic events

So why would you think that CO2 is the cause of global warming when there is no historic evidence for it?

because green house gas's come in a variety of flavors and under a number of conditions co2 is not often available in its more pure form other than in clathrate scenarios
those scenarios have been shown in conjunction with catastrophic extinction events
we are artificially recreating those events when we pollute the atmosphere with even a few percent of pure co2 although we are substituting co2 for ch4 in this argument



I have yet to hear a decent scientific acquittal of any opposing theory
nor is it often the research is made public

love B

ps
I do't wish to imply that there is not anomalous data
just that the detracting opinions are chalk full of holes
and represent what is at best
grasping at straws
in a seeming effort to stall meaningfully change
I would suggest that the POLITICAL agenda
is the effort to desperately dream up a viable competing theory
and allow those few but powerful and most damaging industries to profit for as long as possible before they are forced to change by an outraged public
Edit/Delete Message

[Knut Sand]

Hear hear! (Boston's latest posts).

Do you want any more info? A National park in Canada:
The Auyuittuq - which means The Land that Never Melts...

Well, that has happend;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7538341.stm

Quote:
"Melting ice threatens Arctic park" and
" it is thought that the melting ice is linked to climate change, as temperatures in parts of the Arctic have risen far faster than the global average in recent decades".

Well, I will (probably) say that we're not the only the only cause to this temperature rise, we're probably only adding our (significant?) share to the problem.

Can be seen as driving on the road, hitting a speed bump at 50 km/h, will probably be ok, but if any jerk adds 40 cm extra height to that speed bump....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37cTokAq54g

(just tooo glad to be up here.... )

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Boston

seems Ive got sticky brain syndrome

wow....
I, on the other hand, have the slippery brain syndrome, I remember everything but not for long...

One fine day, when I blow my nose... I'll get that stuff analyzed, patented.... Put in production, sell it as a non stick product, think of the possible uses...