 |  |
| Boat Design Forums | Boat Design Directory | Boat Design Gallery | Boat Design Book Store | Thanks to Our Site Sponsors |
| ||||
|
#811
08-07-2008, 05:00 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
 ).Another argument against global warming (while I'm at it; why not shoot my own leg also..); I was told (on the street, he was collecting money) by a pretty bombastic fellow that the no of people killed by bad weather/ storms har increased by a pretty high no. And that this was caused by global warming. (I don't recall the no now). But me, just beeing who I am, skeptic to all who have found the one TRUTH, told him that its pretty natural that more people will be killed by bad weather, got his attention.... If the weater is a constant, each year... This globe has pretty much a constant area to spread this weather on.... The no of people has increased dramatically, increasing the no of people actually beeing in the wind, so to speak. More peoples in the areas where low income is the average, low income = badly built houses. Badly built houses (or no house) + bad weather, can be fatal. More of "canbefatal" will increase the no of people killed by bad weather. If we have had an increase in the earth's population from 4 000 000 000 to 6 000 000 000 in a certain period then it's natural that we also have an increase in weather kills by at least 30%, doesn't mean the same as we're not supposed to help, but don't blame it on the weather.... I'm glad I'm not a schitzo; I (we) would then had at least 4 opinions... 
__________________ KnutS "it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses" Last edited by Knut Sand : 08-07-2008 at 05:10 AM. Reason: added "we"... |
|
#812
08-07-2008, 05:26 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
but at some point I have to wonder how many myths concerning the inaccuracy of global climate change do I have to bust how much reviewed research need I present when we obviously have no common ground with in the empirical method facts spare me Im also starting to get curious what an agw alarmist is and are they in charge of the camp fire cause thats the only camping I do Im an independent scientist not affiliated or even familiar with any of the various groups squabbling over minutia while watching our home go up in flames climatology isn’t even remotely my area of research I just try and keep up on things ok so it sounds like we are done arguing that there is no relationship between co2 and warming and are now questioning the nature of the relationship while somehow avoiding admitting there is a relationship kinda makes me wonder why Im having this conversation its simple and the answer was in a previous post it just got ignored the theory is that an initial relatively small temperature trigger (for example, sudden changes in the earth's atmospheric chemistry), result in the release of CO2 and additional greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (for example, release of even more CO2 from the ocean as it warms) as the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere builds up it results in more warming and further release of greenhouse gases (i.e. a feedback cycle). the end result of that feed back cycle is a large measurable quantity of co2 following a rise in temp so what was the trigger it’s obvious like it or not that there is a cycle and a relationship so how do they fit together turns out there is a smoking gun and it just hasn't gotten a lot of play because most people outside of the oil and gas industry havent even heard of the stuff and what incentive do the oil scientists have to report in an unbiased manor clathrates methane hydrates tend to form in cold water and at depths between about 150 to 800 meters ( about ) (Im about done spending to much time noting this since no ones reading the notes any way ) methane hydrate is like a slush that forms on the bottom of the ocean and kinda just builds up into a strata of volatile hydrates looks kinda like muddy snow some disturbing force wrecks the equilibrium and its eruption time this was explained in my previous guess my detractors just didnt read it methane also has a very short half life as an atmospheric gas some thing like 7 years (I think) and is about 20 times more powerful as a green house gas than co2 since large methane eruptions are one time events it taking millennia to replenish large clathrates deposits science relies on fossilized eruption sites to note significant past events as mentioned and apparently ignored in my last those historic eruptions coincide with both extinction and warming events and are being widely accepted as the natural trigger for the global warming event we are now artificially recreating when we mimic a sudden hydrate eruption by indiscriminately pounding co2 into the atmosphere in summary it is not relevant what green house gas begins the cycle of destruction any green house gas will do we have plenty of evidence of relatively small green house gas eruptions altering the chemistry of the atmosphere by some small amount a percent or two that coincide with the start of a run away green house feed back cycle and results in additional green house gas’s being produced one of which we can easily measure in the fossil record co2 what the green house gas is is not as relevant as that it is if we add a green house gas ( lets just say we add co2 for the sake of argument ) to the atmosphere we know what is going to happen because we can see what’s happened when a green house gas was added in the past the truth will out my surly friends and no amount of refusing to see reason will stop it global climate change is happening like it or not and we are the trigger this time in reference to one of the calthrates studies I found this little jewel “This new study nails it,” said J.R. Toggweiler, an oceanographer at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, who was not involved in the study. “If there were any doubters, I don’t think they have a leg to stand on.” |
|
#813
08-07-2008, 01:20 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Not that any of this will affect you beliefs/opinions one iota, for you are a true believer. The empirical facts have long ago ceased to be important to you Jimbo |
|
#814
08-09-2008, 03:31 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| inaccurate you are desperately grasping at straws again data already presented directly contradicts your latest assertion and yet you make no proper defense of this in your claim again you haven’t presented a single supporting article in your favor those papers I have already cited clearly state co2 and methane can do exactly what you are claiming they cannot Quote:
please reread the data provided and learn some thing about calthrates before you make such a patently misleading statement I have established my case on preponderance of evidence through pier Reviewed and published research presented you have not read the data provided or you simply dont understand it in either case you are embarrassing yourself in the face of overwhelming evidence methane hydrates or co2 can and do build up in colder environments and are subject, to catastrophic eruption events kinda like we are doing now when we pump gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere please for the love of simple sanity research your statements before you make em it will go a looooooonnnnnnnggggggg way towords shortening my responses wow I can site miles of evidence from respected scientists concerning this issue Nature 453, 642-645 (29 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06961; Received 24 September 2007; Accepted 18 March 2008 Snowball Earth termination by destabilization of equatorial permafrost methane clathrate Martin Kennedy1, David Mrofka1 & Chris von der Borch2 1. Department of Earth Science, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA 2. School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide, South Australia, 5001 Australia Correspondence to: Martin Kennedy1 Correspondence and requests for Abstract The start of the Ediacaran period is defined by one of the most severe climate change events recorded in Earth history—the recovery from the Marinoan 'snowball' ice age, 635 Myr ago (ref. 1). Marinoan glacial-marine deposits occur at equatorial palaeolatitudes2, and are sharply overlain by a thin interval of carbonate that preserves marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions of about -5 and +15 parts per thousand, respectively3, 4, 5; these deposits are thought to record widespread oceanic carbonate precipitation during postglacial sea level rise1, 3, 4. This abrupt transition records a climate system in profound disequilibrium3, 6 and contrasts sharply with the cyclical stratigraphic signal imparted by the balanced feedbacks modulating Phanerozoic deglaciation. Hypotheses accounting for the abruptness of deglaciation include ice albedo feedback3, deep-ocean out-gassing during post-glacial oceanic overturn7 or methane hydrate destabilization8, 9, 10. Here we report the broadest range of oxygen isotope values yet measured in marine sediments (-25 to +12) in methane seeps in Marinoan deglacial sediments underlying the cap carbonate. This range of values is likely to be the result of mixing between ice-sheet-derived meteoric waters and clathrate-derived fluids during the flushing and destabilization of a clathrate field by glacial meltwater. The equatorial palaeolatitude implies a highly volatile shelf permafrost pool that is an order of magnitude larger than that of the present day. A pool of this size could have provided a massive biogeochemical feedback capable of triggering deglaciation and accounting for the global postglacial marine carbon and sulphur isotopic excursions, abrupt unidirectional warming, cap carbonate deposition, and a marine oxygen crisis. Our findings suggest that methane released from low-latitude permafrost clathrates therefore acted as a trigger and/or strong positive feedback for deglaciation and warming. Methane hydrate destabilization is increasingly suspected as an important positive feedback to climate change11, 12, 13 that coincides with critical boundaries in the geological record14, 15 and may represent one particularly important mechanism active during conditions of strong climate forcing. Quote:
it divides things into what is most likely to be true or is less likely to be true by aggregating naturally occurring data the idea that green house gas's like methane do not precipitate out of solution at depth in colder climes or cannot be produced in colder climes and participate in altering atmospheric chemistry is absolute nonsense definitely less likely to be true Quote:
I would cite the following three articles ScienceDaily (May 22, 2006) — Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Now, researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting. Wetlands Loss Fuelling CO2 Feedback Loop Source: 2008, Date: July 21, 2008 Stephen Leahy this article is not public access however it is available upon request Universe today April 29th 2008 Ian O’Neill These mechanisms are known as "feedback loops". Feedback loops are common in nature, should one quantity change, production of other quantities may speed up. In the case of the carbon emission from volcanic activity, levels of the stuff appear to have been controlled by a natural "negative feedback" loop (akin to a carbon thermostat, when carbon dioxide levels were too high, another process was triggered to remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere). However, the sustained atmospheric input of industrial burning of carbon dioxide by human activity has dwarfed historic volcanic carbon output, overwhelming any natural negative feedback mechanism. the method of argument is decidedly unique to say the least I particularly like how detractors ignore the published works and go on to present the same flawed issue over and over with out ever actually presenting a scientific debate of the citation another interesting concept is an unwillingness to make a citation of your own the readers have yet to see even one yet i have offered countless seems obvious the preponderance of evidence is clearly on my side of the table and equally as obvious who is concerned with factually reporting empirical evidence the last and my personal fave is how my detractors have moved from question to question the premiss’s of which admit there agreement with a previous point that had been denied for instance the statement was made that there was no correlation between co2 and temp so I used the data to show there was the question was raised several more times along with the assertion that there was no historic evidence for green house gasses driving temp then with out admitting there was a correlation or that there was boundless evidence in the historic record the statement was made that the historic correlation was backwards again several times so I used the data to show how the cycle of gas events and temp work being careful to point out that co2 was not the only gas involved in the system and that co2 was a marker for the correlation of temp and co2 then with out admitting anything again that info was patently ignored and it was insisted that temp drives co2 that green house gas/temp feed back systems do not occur and that the theory has been proven wrong wow when the data presented also contained a detailed description of how volatile clatherates eruptions have left a fossil record coinciding with warming events and extinctions and once again the detractors have blatantly ignored the observed data and failled to cite a single article not create a preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature my detractors apparently didnt read or didnt comprehend the data presented [quote]This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. A loop such as the AGW alarmists describe would lead to an unstable equilibrium /QUOTE] I have often been intrigued by some of the attitudes expressed in this thread but when I ask for detailed research from the scientific community supporting those attitudes I am continually ignored I challenge you to provide multiple pear reviewed and published papers showing your claim as being supported in the scientific community and I further say your continued failure to do so is an obvious concession of significant error in your view I on the other hand will continue to cite multiple sources to support claims made http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZkwewR69w8 well Im off to the pool party and bikini clad cohorts I do hope this all has at least enlightened some as to the reality of our influence on climate change and the week nature of the opposing argument love B |
|
#816
08-09-2008, 08:27 PM
| |||
| |||
| 'Pier' review is about right, since your heroes over on you fav website 'realclimate.org ' have YET (5 YEARS on now) to present the algorithms used to produce Michael Mann's (in)famous hockey stick graph, which you no doubt still point to as the gold standard. Only 'piers' have reviewed them; sadly no peers. Oh what a price to be rid of that pesky 'Medieval warm Period'  Boston, I know this is a long thread, AND it's also essentially a duplicate of another thread that ran last year and the year before. Go look at my older posts and see all the scientific data I presented sourced from NASA, the USGS, numerous universities and leading climatologists. I can't do the super long post thing anymore; I got into big trouble with that a few months back and I've sworn it off. The thing is there's PLENTY of scientific data that contradicts what you are saying, in fact the preponderance of the EMPIRICAL data cuts against AGW alarmism. The alarmism is based almost solely on THEORY and computer modeling, NOT on the observed data. |
|
#817
08-10-2008, 04:12 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Boston, For scientific evidence on the small anthropogenic impact on recent times global warming and the strong possibility of a coming global cooling, as well as the relative small effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas when compared with water vapour, you should scroll along this entire thread and search for the wealth of links and articles posted, before saying not references have been showed. We have been discussing around here for quite a bit now and we cannot post everything again. On a list of scientists opossing the mainstream assessment on global warming you may find interesting this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming You may be interested in reading also the attached document. Cheers. |
|
#818
08-10-2008, 04:33 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Jimbo, if i recollect correctly, some of the earlier temperature data was for measures made over land. I say; screw those data, air is far too changing to be used as a measuring device for this. There will always be variations, more asphalt/ concrete, buildings halting the cooling winds, too many arguments one way or the other.... Earth is covered with approx 70 % water. If we use this, we can chose to ignore the water temperatures, they have increased... To heat 1 m3 of water 1 deg C, earth's diameter is approx 12700 km across (take that with a tblsp of salt, check for yourself...), you'll need about 4100 000 joules to heat up 1 deg. assume that the temp has increased 0,1 deg the last decade, assume that the water dept we're talking about is 100 m... On my first calculations I was wrong with a factor of even 4 (got 25% of what many scientists pretty much agree on now), and even that worried me....  Jimbo, you also state: Quote: This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources. If a loop existed, it would be quite indifferent to our tiny contribution to the mix since the natural sources are so large by comparison. Quote end. Ok, lets assume this is correct, what about the insulation effect? 1 m3 of carbon will have? It weigh a bit more than 1 m3 of standard air, but still it has an insulation effect of about twict that of air, and for instance, withe emissions from planes, in the athmosphere high up, it'll take up space, less pressure= more volume (not that space, you idjits!), and it'll insulate.... Due to the fact that it weigh more, it will come down, but in that period it will at least cause some effect in the global warming. Some interesting views here though.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...mming_qa.shtml So, where we're heading, I don't know for certain, but maybe our kids will have a bumpy ride...? I Think we'd be better safe than sorry?
__________________ KnutS "it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses" |
|
#819
08-10-2008, 02:07 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
The problem is that for the observed warming over the last century to be attributable to the greenhouse effect. It has to happen mostly high up in the atmosphere, not at the surface. Trouble is, we see exactly the opposite; lots of warming near the surface but little at altitude. The AGW alarmist camp attempts (rather clumsily) to get around these rather incovenient facts by cooking the data. They cooked data on '"corrections"' to the surface measurements (lied and got caught) and on more "'"corrections"'" to the satellite data, which is another set of algorithms they have chose to keep secret. So much for 'peer review'. I think Boston ironically got it right when he called it 'pier review' Quote:
Let's try to keep in perspective that CO2 is a mere .03% of the atmosphere and for it's insulating effect to even approach that of air let alone water vapor, it would need to be several orders of magnitude more effective as an insulator, which it is not. Jimbo |
|
#820
08-10-2008, 05:40 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Ok at high altitude, you say little has happened with the temperature, ok but they report more vapour trails behind planes, more of them. If you heat a gas(air), you also improve the ability for that gas (air) to keep humidity. if you reduce the pressure (read that as pushing a wing at high speed through the gas (air) you'll have an area where there's less pressure on top of the ving, read that as vacuum... Thats why air traffic is succeeding, and not crashing...), less pressure is less ability to keep the humidity in a state of gas. So, in my opinion, an increase in the clouds caused by planes (is it contrails?) is a indication that the temperature at high altitudes has increased, at least some, more humidity in gas form at high altitudes, the planes cause vacuum, the humidity condensates... CO2 is a mere 0,03% of the earth's atmosphere. True. Nothing new there, But; If we stick our heads back on the exhaust fumes on a plane at high altitude, I believe we'll measure higher numbers for CO2 there, if not the pilot's probably pretty busy. The weight of 1 m3 CO2 is more than that for 1 m3 of air (with 0,03 CO2), but at higher altitude, the gas willl need to be compressed before going down, it may float a bit on the "surface" of the air below in the atmosphere, before it compresses enough to get down to us (the plants, grass, sea, algeas, us idjits...), in that time, it'll act as an insulator, and then we're talking 100% CO2, not 0,03%CO2. CO2 has close to twice the insulation effect as standard air has. We cannot ignore the fact, that we are able to cause at least some effect on the climate. Not on small scale, not on pretty large scale. Anybody have a nyumber for air traffic CO2 outlet? pr year, and at what average altitude? 
__________________ KnutS "it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses" |
|
#821
08-10-2008, 09:12 PM
| |||
| |||
| CO2 mixes rapidly within the atmosphere so it does not matter where it is released, be it at high altitude or low. High altitude natural sources are (as usual) orders of magnitude larger than anthropogenic releases. The entire human contribution to CO2 is within the error bars for the estimates for the total of CO2 in the entire atmosphere. Air transportation is a mere 3% of anthropogenic CO2. We're talking about a totally irrelevant quantity. Jimbo |
|
#822
08-16-2008, 06:13 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| sorry for the delay kids had work to do along with a few to many drinks you would be amazed how many great scientific ideas were originally written out on a cocktail napkin oh and thanks on the spelling tip its a constant point of frustration for me as im not good with illogical systems and spelling the English language is definitely not a logical system Latin I can do English not a prayer its soooooo frustrating Ill go look through the thread for what I can find however I did get a chance to read Wikipedia and found that it was in no way a detracting opinion although it did report that opposing opinions exist it also clearly stated ( Im surprised any one can read that and not be relatively convinced ) ( I think the poll of data was something like 97% in support with 3% anomalous ) Quote:
any way Im getting a little board with it all as we are clearly not going to be able to agree on anything which I find kinda odd given the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory the vast majority of scientists agreeing a statement supported in the article above Im kinda baffled as to how otherwise intelligent people can some times refuse to believe in the most rudimentary things hell Im sure some fool even laughed at the idea of toilet paper there isnt much doubt the driver for the cascade effect in climate change looks like its been found out the release of green house gasses from naturally occurring sources like hydrates and ocean co2 its not absolutely certain but the probability is huge 90% or better (read that some were in all the drivel I keep looking through) not to many people are saying its not at least possible and Ive yet to see any anomalous data on it so the idea gets more sound every day Im really curious how gigatons of co2 let alone all the n2o we produce isnt going to have an effect on atmospheric chemistry we have already driven atmospheric co2 up by 27% thats huge any way this is getting long and Im getting board gotta go get my car some watron kept pouring drinks down me last night had no prayer of driving home hey is there a thread in here some were about properly installing insulation in a wooded yacht Ive never done that before and I like to learn from the screw ups of others my theory is some one some were has fouled up just about everything and all I need to do is find em thanks kids its been entertaining B |
|
#824
08-16-2008, 07:37 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| What Do We Think About Climate Change very, very, disappointing... |
|
#825
08-16-2008, 10:22 PM
| |||
| |||
| So world climatic data means nothing to you guys? The mass agreement of mainstream science impresses you not in the least? The fact that the biggest idiot right-wing anti-science administration in history...the one that employs someone (Rice) that had to be removed from her university post because she tried to close down the astronomy/physics department funding under the aspices that "their work violates many premises of the Bible" has RECOGNIZED AGW after filling you guys heads with counterspin (actually they continue to do so) for years? Do you realize that if the subject comes up and you are sitting in a pub in Europe, they will laugh you out the front door? We are the most poorly educated in science in the first world, and it shows. Americans think of data points as being "facts" of equal merit, and rarely look at data in a holistic fashion, or get out of their house and into their local environment enough to tell the difference between one season or another. According to the semi-major and semi-minor axis of our current orbit (ecc.) and with opoapsis and periapsis being as balanced as they are, we should be in a very stable and cool environment right now. The environment SHOULD be warming a bit right now....and continue to do so for the next 25,000 years. NOT the next 5 years. Look at every Earth science. Look to the sedimentary record. Look at fossilized tree records and living tree records going back the last several ice ages. Compare them and you will NOT find a warming event (read by multi-regional tree-ring data) on the order we have today. Except for spike events (lasting 2-10 years due to major volcanic eruptions which stabilize quickly) we have NEVER had change on this scale ...ever! Compare apples to apples. Forget media versions of the psuedo-science pap you digest so easily, and go to decent sourceds to attempt to put the big picture together. It is tiring to see some dumb-ass say "well it sure is snowing here" when talking about GW. People neither understand science, nor geological scale. They can't concieve of what a multi-hundred year timescale means, much less a multi-thousand, multi- hundred thousand, or multi-million, or multi-billion timescale that describes the type of changes we are seeing over a few years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html |
 |
| 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
