The Environment: Is it really that bad?

[Jimbo1490]

If the sky is really falling, could you prove it or do anything about it? Do we need to? What do the numbers really say, sans spin?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6270
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101707.html

Just one topic, Chris. And there are many others.

Jimbo

[Raggi_Thor]

Just because you realise that you are paranoid doens't mean that they are not out to get you :-)

[Raggi_Thor]

I mean, many of the scientists claiming that global warming is not a threat or that it's not our fault are sponsored by Exxon. That doesn't mean they are wrong. Other scientists are sponsered by the government so no one is completely independent.

[safewalrus]

No itisn't - people are always heading off into the sun for their vacation! Nature is now bringing the sun to them! For my money if this is global warming I like it (that'll get a few going methinks!) ;)

[Poida]

I wouldn't start planting coconuts in your backyard yet, Safewalrus, maybe wait another 6 months.

I remember when I was kid scientists were sprouting that the unusual weather pattern we were having was because of the nuclear testing. There was a cartoon in the paper of two guys in 16th century garb, standing in a storm and blaming it on the invention of the bow and arrow.

[timgoz]

Raggi_Thor,

Really liked your quote on paranoia.

TGoz

[SteamFreak]

Just look at the fact that the sun's temp is climbing... and that "global warming", which these experts said would give us an intense hurricane season, in fact did nothing of the sort.

The system that is our earth is so incredibly complex that with would be like a monkey trying to predict the status of a modern commercial ship's engine room by staring at three gauges without even knowing that 60 more exist. Metereology is still the only profession where getting it right 30% of the time is acceptable and changing you mind from day to day about the weather on Sat is normal.... And you want people with brains to believe you can predict a GLOBAL change 20 years, 50 or 100 into the future? Please, look at the news journals from the 1940s through to today and you'll see that the doomsday kids have changed their minds about whether it would warm up or cool off not less than three times in 60 years..

All these models are highly theoretical and nobody has enough data (by a span of several hundred years) to make any predictions. Just look at the recent "discovery" that sand from Africa might kill off hurricanes... Well, does the winds that kick up that sand originate from warmer airs... Hasn't anybody figured out that the system seems to be self correcting? Or that the last time we had a "mini-warming" of one degree or so, Europe experienced incredible and bountiful growth (this would be a small period of something like a hundred years in the middle ages) of crops? Hasn't anyone of the guys ever been to a greenhouse... strikes me as funny that those things are warm...

This system is just entirely too complex to just be winging theories about how we're all gonna die and destroy the planet in 50 years. Now, I'm not saying that we should just go back to belching black smoke from every stack and talepipe. These have serious short-term consequences for people. I believe that our own health standards should be our primary and sole concern.

And by-the-way, water vapor is a far greater "greenhouse" gas than carbon-dioxide will ever be.... that's why greenhouses are humid and boilers run on water...

[hansp77]

had to post this for you guys
its so lame...
I thought you could have some fun with it:p
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/r-crumb300.jpg

that hover-bike is looking pretty good:cool:

[Jimbo1490]

Steamfreak:
So much good info in your post! Yes the doomsday predictions have been all
over the map from ice age to higher sea levels and etc.

Also the models used so far have not taken into account the sun's variability.
This is an evovling area of knowledge. Turns out the sun's output is HIGHLY
variable and appears now to be the real driver for earth's climate. Gosh,
who'd have thunk it :P

When a theory does not fit the known facts well, we should question the
validity of the theory. We can measure the C02 content of the earth's
atmosphere from eras past. When we do we find only a poor correlation to
surface temps. You should find this troubling if you are a 'believer' in the
GHG/Global Warming theory. If not, then you are a true believer, and facts
don't matter.

Check this one out:

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html


Jimbo

[bntii]

Sky falling?

Environmental problems are closer to home and easier to see by far. Where I live (east coast US), the inshore ecosystem has largely collapsed. Species diversity gone, water polluted. Mass to Florida. What coral we had down south- gone. Its a bit sad to be diving on the pile of rocks which are left where the coral was. The glass bottom boats still cruise overhead while the one or two fish left nibble at the algae.
Global warming? Who cares. Just look in the water and you will see the state of the environment. Better yet take a few looks over about forty years. The change is profound and hard to miss

[Jimbo1490]

Coastal oceanic pollution is one of the few REAL pollution problems of the world (as opposed to the several 'bogeyman' problems which are not problems at all but political footballs). Yet it receives little media attention. Even here in Florida we hardly ever hear about it. We hear about the bogus rare manatees (not rare, never have been), but not about the olive brown colored sea within a couple of miles of the shore. The rest of the ocean could be fine, but when the shallows are polluted, then many speicies which use shallows for hatcheries/nursuries cannot reproduce effectively.

Jimbo

[bntii]

There are a few others :)

[timgoz]

For sure, pollution is a reality.

Examples from two ends of the Eastern Seaboard.

(1) In 1991 while attending school in St. Lucie, Fla. we did not eat the fish caught by the docks because of heavy metal contamination.

(2) While commercial crabbing with a friend from Newfoundland on his boat, I was concerned to see him continually tossing empty bait boxes, plastic lining and all, into the ocean. Next day out checking lobster traps I saw a repeat performance.

There are some succes stories though such as Lake Eire.

I'm real skeptical of so-called Global Warming. As I think Jimbo mentioned above, the Sun's natural flucuations have much more potential & realized impact on Earth's temperature than we could ever have ourselves.

TGoz

[Raggi_Thor]

Raggi_Thor,
Really liked your quote on paranoia.
TGoz

It's from my father, he read it on the wall in a public toilet on his firs visit in the US, after his camera had been stolen and the bus he was riding had been shot at :-)

[Mychael]

I'm NOT a scienetist, I'm NOT an expert in the fields of weather/ etc etc.
But surely when there is so much discussion and differing opinions and expert theorys about the climate change /global warming etc etc.. wouldn't it be the sensible thing to do to err on the side of caution and be conservitive, do something towards removing the risks, real or perceived.???

Mychael

[Raggi_Thor]

Yes, but mormally you would conisder the cost and benefits.
Now it seems like it's politicly incorrect to mention this.
What if constraints on growth or taxes on co2 costs more (for me, you or the poor) than the cost of climate change if we "do nothing"?

[Poida]

We seem to have two subjects going on at once here.
1. Climate Change
2. Polution.

Lets cover number one. And I'll go slowly.

The Earth was once covered with ice.

The Earth is no longer covered with ice.

Why?

Because of climate change.

Were human factories, cars, refrigerants from refrigerators or methane from the result of man eating baked beans.

No!! It all happened without man. Humans may think they are smart and think they can effect climate change but they can't.

The chances of man effecting climate change are as great as Cameron Diaz falling in love with me. Although she is with Justin Timberlake so she can't be that fussy.

Polution - Man is clever or stupid enough to effect his immediate well being, he can fish himself out of fish or poison them. Polute the ground water with chemicals and fill the sky with smoke.

Polution we can clean up. Climate change we can't control.
And Cameron, I love you.

[bntii]

Funny in this subject how so little knowledge can elicit opinions of such certainty.

As it seems I must.

I'll combine the two subjects:

If you allow that we are polluting the atmosphere, why the insistence that this pollution has no effect?

The polarization on this subject reveals more about the our political climate than the sky over head.

[SteamFreak]

No, the two are quite separate... In every instance where polution has been stopped and nature left to its own devices, the efects have been reversed in time, sometimes as short as a decade or two. Anybody remember the Exxon Valdez? Well there was a section that Exxon had to pay to clean up and there was a section that was left alone. Humorously enough, the section that wasn't clean is now in better condition and has recovered further than the section that was cleaned by crews of tree hugging environmentalists...

Ain't that something. Earth is a system that constantly seeks equalibrium... just like our own bodies. When something upsets that balance, other parts are titled to reverse the effect. We've seen it time and time again. In fact, in situations where man tries to right the balance himself, we see it delaying the recovery in many cases.

And as a side note, not all pollution should be worried about... We've banned substances like CFCs and Halon because they damage the ozone... well thats a nice thought and all but your avg volcano puffing the ole cigar spits out more CFCs than every can ever made. And Halon, the most advanced firefighting tool known to man is banned to us commercial sailors. Why? because it damages the ozone... WHAT THE HELL? Do you guys think we just pop the fire suppression system for fun? That crap is expensive. How many fires do ships have every year in the engine room (where would are the very most likely to drop it and clear out instead of trying to fight it)? Not enough to even shake a stick at... and before you say that there are thousands of ships, I'll tell you right now the chinese, greeks, maltese, panamanians, etc etc are not gonna pay for this expensive system... their too cheap and their crews don't have the leverage to make the owners install it... You'd only see on American, maybe Japanese or British ships (if they ever got over their environ hissy fit) and since these three countries operate the safest ships in the world, fires are rare events.

Had to rant there.

[hansp77]

(Ok I have to give a warning and apology. This is a long post. Sorry)

Something I learned very quickly in the global warming thread that I started (which I was actually more interested in the poll results than the arguments)
Was that it is largely pointless to argue this sort of thing online in an informal style.
If we are going to make these big claims and conclusions, then we really have to present our arguments with proper scientific and academic research and referencing.
I think Matt said it well:
In the interest of scientific accuracy, I would like to encourage anyone replying to this thread with "facts" or "data" to provide proper references for this informaton. Please keep in mind that, from a scientific perspective, peer-reviewed journals are admissable, as are university papers, while newspapers, television and public Web media are not considered scientifically valid sources.
If anyone would like to take a scientific stance on the issue, I encourage you to also let us know what your scientific credentials are. It is very hard to take a supposedly scientific argument seriously unless sources and credentials are also present.


But this is a boat design forum, not a scientific/academic forum.
So I am afraid that this may really asking too much (or more correctly- for it in the wrong area).
It is fair enough to expect the “boat design” theorizing here to be on a professional level with proper scientific and experimental research and referencing behind arguments and ideas-
But on climate change?
I think we are wasting our time.

Saying this, I realize that this thread is a pointless place for me to argue any of the numerous claims (in this thread so far) that I have objection to.
There are very valid arguments and debates to be made on the issues of anthropic induced climate change and environmental catastrophe (or not), and to how we should go about dealing with this certainty/uncertainty, and or calculating the costs/benefits- but from the majority of points so far, and the way they are presented, this is not the thread, nor the forum (IMHO) to do such.

Keep at it if you want- I don’t want to shut you guys down, (I realize this thread for what it is- a place where people sharing a similar ideology/mindset/mentality/opinion can get together and point out how ridiculous, biased and or stupid the ‘others’ are).
It is a normal and fun sort of thread- in the ‘open discussion’ forum, so it is fair game. Carry on and don’t mind me…

I am going to have my little rant, and then drop out, because really, I have better things to do with my time and effort than try to win such debate in such a place through such means.

The general ideas in this thread could be right…
I have dedicated my past and ongoing future studies and life (and hopefully career) to try to better understand certain specifics of these issues-
And I most fundamentally disagree with the general tone and argument of this thread (so far).
I may be right, I may be wrong-
Given the ramifications- I WOULD MUCH RATHER BE WRONG THAN RIGHT!

So far this thread has been a familiar tour through some of the many ‘climate change skeptic’ (urban myths?) arguments out there that flood the Internet and popular culture discourse.

The majority of these arguments are void, and (through considerable effort) mostly falsifiable, having no real controversy in the scientific and academic arena.

There are of course real arguments to be had out there, over the science and the conclusions and predictions from such, but these are arguments that would most probably go over most of our heads (me included) and be so technical and specific as to seem ‘hair splitting’ and ridiculously academic (and boring).

I will try to very briefly (and un-comprehensively) show one of the problems with one of the claims made.
This is regarding the claim that variations in the suns temperature or influence are responsible for global warming.
This is not one of the easy targets, and is actually one of the stronger areas where future advances in science could very potentially challenge the theory of anthropic climate change. (I don’t think it will)
This is why I picked it.
It is a real issue, that in this thread has been presented in a completely biased and simplistic way (with no evidence or references).

This first extract is a quick view into the scientific mumbo jumbo of investigating the relationship between solar activity and global climate changes.
Basically it goes over some of the difficulties involved in this science.
This sort of prediction is far from accurate at present.
This inevitably weakens any argument based upon solar influence for or against anthropic induced climate change.

from,
Edouard Bard and Martin Frank. 2006. Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun? Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 248, Issues 1-2, 15 August 2006, Pages 1-14


“Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes — such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming — remains unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect. Although we still require even more and better data, the weight of evidence suggests that solar changes have contributed to small climate oscillations occurring on time scales of a few centuries, similar in type to the fluctuations classically described for the last millennium: The so-called Medieval Warm Period (900–1400 A.D.) followed on by the Little Ice Age (1500–1800 A.D.).”
(Bard and Frank, 2006: 1)

“Beyond the past four centuries of telescopic observations of the Sun, the main tool for evaluating solar activity is provided by cosmogenic nuclides. The production of these isotopes is modulated by the magnetic properties of the solar wind, which can be ultimately linked to solar activity. After their formation, cosmogenic isotopes are transported in the atmosphere and the ocean before being buried in various archives. These processes make the interpretation more complicated. Nevertheless, studies of cosmogenic isotopes generally agree in indicating numerous solar activity minima in the past, with the Sun passing a large part of its history in calm phases, conceivably with an irradiance several % weaker than the present-day value.
Several recent studies have attempted to extract solar changes over periods of ten thousands [64] to hundreds of thousand years [83]. On such time scales, cosmogenic nuclide production is largely modulated by slow variations of the Earth's magnetic field. The currently available reconstructions of geomagnetic field intensity and cosmogenic nuclide production are still not sufficiently precise to extract a meaningful solar component. To apply this approach, we await more reliable and longer records of both cosmogenic nuclide production and geomagnetic field intensity of the past.”
(Bard and Frank: 12)


So these guys draw the conclusion that the sun has passed “a large part of its history in calm phases, conceivably with an irradiance several % weaker than the present-day value.”

This is of course disputed by other research and other theories.
However some may agree with this conclusion, and then make other observations on top.

From,
Bumford, N. 2004. Does the sun influence climate change?(Quizzical). Geographical 76.12 (Dec 2004): 17(1).
“As the solar system's big source of energy, the sun has a direct effect on the global climate. And the sun's activity changes. Scientists at the Max Planck institute for Solar System Research in Germany have gone through 300 years of astronomers' records and reconstructed sunspot trends as far back as 850 AD. Their conclusion is that the sun went into a phase of unusually high activity during the past 50 years, radiating far more UV light than normal. Since 1940, there have been twice as many sunspots as the long-term average. The scientists have pieced together evidence of solar activity over more than 1,000 years and conclude that the Earth's average temperature follows that of the sun. During the Middle Ages, for example, there was a warm period between 1100 and 1250 that can be linked to high solar activity.

However, the sun has not matched the dramatic rise in the Earth's temperature over the past 30 years. Sunspots and the increased UV radiation that come with them continue on an 11-year cycle but their overall levels haven't risen much in the past 30 years.
The significant increase in the Earth's temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says the institute's Professor Sami Solanki.”
(Bumford, 2004: 17)


So this position is accepting that the sun is in a ‘hot’ phase, but are pointing out that even this does not account for the last 30 years of warming.

This is one little disagreement with one of the common objections that has been raised here (with a skimpy two references).
We could no doubt argue for months about this point alone (as the scientific community has done and does far better than I could).
I can’t be bothered arguing anymore about this one, or about the rest.


Have fun convincing yourself that everything is A.O.K.
I sincerely hope that you are right.

Hans.

[safewalrus]

God isn't this subject exciting! So's peeing in a bucket - I know which one I prefer, mind you they both give relief when you've finished:p

[SteamFreak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/science/earth/12extinct.html?ei=5065&en=83d5e73f9f09c803&ex=1161316800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


Little wobble goes a long way? NY Times seems to have a study on its hands that says so.... interesting read and another example of how evidence and discoveries of all sorts happen everyday and these show us how little we really know about our climate.

[timgoz]

Safewalrus,

I hear you . Its my day off, I've consumed several beers, and I know where my priorities are. Off to the head.

Take care.

TGoz

[Jimbo1490]

You want facts? I'll give you facts. These numbers are acknowledged by both sides, just not the conclusions. But it DOES NOT go over any one's head! It's in fact, rather simple:

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

(all excerpted from http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.


If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor overwhelms all other natural and man-made greenhouse contributions. Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to, we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

On the Kyoto agreement:

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "


Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal


I can whack you with more facts if you want. The greenhouse gas theory to explain climate change is just not plausible. In science, if a hypothesis does not concur with the facts, we discard it in favor of one that does . Unless, of course we are talking about GLOBAL WARMING:D

[SteamFreak]

interesting

[bntii]

"No, the two are quite separate... In every instance where polution has been stopped and nature left to its own devices, the efects have been reversed in time, sometimes as short as a decade or two."

You are not really making much of a point here

[SteamFreak]

If you allow that we are polluting the atmosphere, why the insistence that this pollution has no effect?
.

oh but it does.

[Raggi_Thor]

...Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal...

Google Dr Singer and Exxon, you'll find this for instance:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

Just one example.
I don't mean Dr Singer is all wrong because he receives money from Exxon, but why did he deny it?

[Poida]

Global warmings caused by all you guys out there with your power boats shoving carbon monoxide into the atmosphere and peeing over the bow rail poluting the oceans.

This is backed by scientific data.

Heck scientists drivel so much crap there's gotta be one out there to back me up.

[safewalrus]

Poida - if these guys are belting around at a great rate of knots I'm sure peeing over the bowrail is not a good thing! would after all only get the stuff back inboard (like peeing to windward in a sail boat!) brings a whole new meaning to getting your own back! but at least your not polluting the ocean! Unlike little old ladies swimming in the sea! and have you seen what fish do in the stuff! ;)

[bntii]

Heck scientists drivel so much crap there's gotta be one out there to back me up.

Don't suppose you have any ideal what Science is do you?

[Jimbo1490]

The 'trick' now is that the great universities and the government will not fund research which they have reason to believe will not support their current 'pet' idea that GHG is causing climate change. Then they say "Look, all the studies and scientisis say that OUR theory is valid, therefore...) But they don't tell you about the many eminent scientists that disagree; they don't have to because there are few published studies to help corroborate these dissenting opinions. Why? NO FUNDING! So along comes Exxon and a few others to fund this type of research. These scientists rely on grants to survive, so they take the money. Sound far fetched?

Excerpts from an interview with Dr. William Gray:

A few years ago, you almost called it quits because you’d lost so much funding. What made you continue?

G: I don’t have the budget that I had, so I have cut my project way back. I am in retirement. I’m still working every day, but I don’t teach and I don’t have as many graduate students and as much financial need. I’ve got a little money from Lexington Insurance out of Boston, and I have some National Science Foundation money. For years I haven’t had any NOAA, NASA, or Navy money. But I’m having more fun. Right now I’m trying to work on this human-induced global-warming thing that I think is grossly exaggerated.

You don’t believe global warming is causing climate change?

G: No. If it is, it is causing such a small part that it is negligible. I’m not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and ’40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle ’40s to the early ’70s. And there has been warming since the middle ’70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.

That must be a controversial position among hurricane researchers.

G: Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don’t know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, “Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.” Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn’t mean that one is causing the other.

With last year’s hurricane season so active, and this year’s looking like it will be, won’t people say it’s evidence of global warming?

G: The Atlantic has had more of these storms in the least 10 years or so, but in other ocean basins, activity is slightly down. Why would that be so if this is climate change? The Atlantic is a special basin? The number of major storms in the Atlantic also went way down from the middle 1960s to the middle ’90s, when greenhouse gases were going up.

Why is there scientific support for the idea?

G: So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more. Now that the cold war is over, we have to generate a common enemy to support science, and what better common enemy for the globe than greenhouse gases?

Are your funding problems due in part to your views?

G: I can’t be sure, but I think that’s a lot of the reason. I have been around 50 years, so my views on this are well known. I had NOAA money for 30 some years, and then when the Clinton administration came in and Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn’t get any NOAA money. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.


Jimbo

[safewalrus]

Nope do you? Tell you one thing tho' I can tell the difference between Science subjects and boat subjects! which appears a little more than some can! In case you ain't guessed boat forums is supposed to be about boats! Doh! Nuff said!

[longliner45]

as for DR gray;after 50 years what did he acomplish? or is he another example of parasitic survival off of the tax payers.?Yes the enviornment is in trouble,,,,GM and all the other big companys are relocating to 3rd world countrys that ,dont have epa or osha or any other standarts for living , it is ok to dump toxic waste at the doorsteeps of the comunity,look at Mexico ,,so many children born with birth defects all of the sudden,,,,,,,what about south america? asia and so forth?,,not to mention low wages> here is the truth,,if I dump oil in the sea ,,I will be crucified,,if exxon dumps mega tonnes of oil in the sea they pay a fine that is a tax writeoff,,,,and benifite to them,,,,,,the truth is money talks and ******** walks ,,,,,,yes the enviornment is in trouble,,,,,,,longliner

[Raggi_Thor]

Nope do you? Tell you one thing tho' I can tell the difference between Science subjects and boat subjects! which appears a little more than some can! In case you ain't guessed boat forums is supposed to be about boats! Doh! Nuff said!

This thread is in the "open discussion", and it's about "The Environment: Is it really that bad?"

[safewalrus]

Yes Raggi I agree, but it is still a 'boat forum' so one would expect it to contain something about boats - always thought a good Norwegian would understand and agree with that!

[Mychael]

As Dave Allen the late/great Irish comedian used to say. " I don't drink water,fish fornicate in water and little boys do even worse things".

Mychael

[bntii]

At least for me, pollution in the ocean has something to do with boats.

[tom kane]

The life cycle of our sun,is half way through and change is the only reality and certainty, as time it`s self is just an invention of Humans for calculating the change that takes place.History always shows change in everything and in my small life time I have seen many changes in the World I live in.With a bit of luck and a lot of good management Humans will move from earth to who knows where,but it must happen for survival of the species.Sustainable management is a myth and a buzz word for fools if demand by increasing Human and animal populations continues to out strip this planets resourses.

[Jimbo1490]

as for DR gray;after 50 years what did he acomplish? or is he another example of parasitic survival off of the tax payers.?

William M. "Bill" Gray, PhD is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes.[1]

Nicholas Riccardi wrote in the LA Times:

William M. Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting — predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray's prognostications, issued since 1983, are used by insurance companies to calculate premiums. [2]

He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity. Professor Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He joined Colorado State University in 1961. He has been advisor of over 70 Ph. D. and M. Sc. students. His team has been issuing seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984.

After the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Professor Gray announced that he was stepping back from the primary authorship of CSU's tropical cyclone probability forecasts, passing the role to Philip J. Klotzbach. Gray cited that he was devoting more time to the issue of global warming.

[longliner45]

tomorrow its going to to rain,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,somewhere

[Mychael]

Sustainable management is a myth and a buzz word for fools if demand by increasing Human and animal populations continues to out strip this planets resourses.[/QUOTE]

So what we really need is a good healthy plague to thin a few billion humans out, as unlike the majority of animals (in their correct environment) we don't have the instincts or common sense to limit our numbers.

Mychael

[longliner45]

we have several wars going on right now ,,,,,will that help?and im still waiting for a reasonable answer from jimbo,,,about dr,gray

[Mychael]

I considered mentioning wars then decided the numbers are poor. Much more industrialisation creating it's own mess creating the weapons of war then the people number reduction. Nope I'll still hedge my bet on plague and disease.

Mychael

[longliner45]

mychael,,,you are one sick puppy lol,,lets tak about dr gray,, I fished in the 80s and 90s in the gulf of mexico ,,were where his pridictions then?I rode out many tropical depressions and 4 hurricans ,,where was he ?just becase someone has a PHD in something,,,,,,,, dont mean nothing if they dont have scientific facts to back them,,like I said ,,even I can predict the weather ,,,,,,,,its going to rain tomorrow ,,,,,,,somewere,,,,,,,longliner

[Mychael]

Yep, the old hoary joke about the city couple stopping to ask the local farmer about the weather.. He looks meaningfully up at the sky, tests the wind with with his finger and says.. "yep, I reckon it might rain, but then again it might not".. lol.
Mychael

[Raggi_Thor]

Regarding water and boats and the environment.
Many places in Norway the water is cleaner and we can eat the fish again.
The industry has been forced to reduce their pollution to the rivers and fjords.
Then we have stupidities like the "cleaning" of sewer from small communities close to a large ocean..

[bntii]

Yes- definite improvements on many fronts. My local water (The Chesapeake bay), has not improved much since initial decline. In this case the large estuary is not polluted by toxins so much as degraded by the influence of nutrient and sediment loading from non-point sources. Given the development issues in the watershed, this is a tough nut to crack. I suppose what burns me it the characterizations of ecology and environmental issues in general to be somehow associated with the lunatic fringe and not common concerns. There have been recent episodes of pollution induced bacterial blooms on the bay. Simply touching the water in areas where the has happened can induce neurological damage from the exotoxins present. One would have to be dumb as dirt to not acknowledge that this is a problem.

[safewalrus]

As one of my Father's wives (?) used to say "it will either rain or go dark before morning" - the only true weather forecast I've ever heard up till now! Well done Longliner, you've passed into the realms of mytholigy with yet another accurate forecast - that's two in a century careful somebody will think we know what we're doing (actually most of the time I know what I'm doing - just can prevent it is all)! the walrus fella

[Poida]

You guys might be saying that as a joke but our weather forecasters actually say things like that.

[Poida]

Sorry bntii I missed your scientific question earlier. I can't put all scientists in this catagory but, all professionals need to be paid. So scientists results depend on who pays them. Even scientists that own boats. I had to say that in case Safewalrus accuses me of making a post that has no relevance to boating.

Longliner - I saw a documentary the other day that described how weapons manufacturers are now making environmentaly friendly weapons. Less smoke and biodegradable materials. What a perfect world.

[bntii]

Poida- thanks for being so generous- I was really just trying to ride you on that one.

Internet before coffee and all that :(

I often hear this disclaimer that a body of scientific inquiry is driven (read distorted), by funding. "They will say anything to get funding" sort of thinking. I don't buy it. The science I have been around is typified by long hard fought expensive battles. The battles I found delineate some very small bit of detail which serves to describe some structure or system in a more complete manner. A building block if you will. It goes without saying that the ready application of research results guarantee funding. All the work which has been done to put these computers together springs to mind. What this leads to is branches of science where work is accelerated by better funding while other areas languish. Try funding "feeding preferences of the copepod in fully eutrophied pond water." Perhaps Global warming is considered a cash cow? All card houses fall. Paradigms shift in science, but fraud makes a big splash. Find it and I'll buy you a coke.

[Jimbo1490]

Bnti:
I agree with you WRT funding and scientific honesty. People who say the scientists are influenced by thier benefactor are putting the cart before the horse. What really happens is that potential funders 'shop' for a scientist whom they believe will support the idea they want to promote/bolster with a favorable study.

On the fraud RE global warming; it was already posted earlier in the thread. You really have to read the post and not just skip over the tech parts.

Synopsis: (facts not disputed by either side, only the conclusions)

CO2 is the least important of all the GH gases, and only .4% of the atmosphere

Humans only contribute a tiny bit of the CO2 that's in the atmosphere

Water vapor is by far the most important GH gas and is for all practial purposes 100% natural in origin. Accounts for >95% of GH effect All other gases combined are the other 5%

Atmospheric CO2 content tracks poorly with global temps in the geological record.

All this adds up to the GHG theory of human induced climate change seeming quite unplausible.

But true believers will always believe!

Jimbo

[bntii]

Ok

Sort of begs a question: Who is it that is shopping for what at this point is a consensus on this issue?

The solar energy cartel? Seems a bit more plausible that the messenger is being shot, no?

[Jimbo1490]

It seems pretty obvious, but I guess some people have to have it spelled out for them. The political left WANTS the GHG theory to be real, ostensibly to further the cause of "Social Justice", but really it's about getting and keeping political power:



"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald


Bntii:

It's seems as if you don't even count political power as a thing of value, the way money is (more obviously) a thing of value, thus you inquire "where is the gain?" in promoting an idea. How shockingly naive!

:D :D :D :D


Jimbo

[bntii]

Forget I asked:

"It's actually far more scientifically honest to assume that whatever caused past warming trends is likley causing this one too. Of course that assumption carries no political implications with attendant calls for adoption of draconian 'eco-socialism'. Since socialism has proven to be pretty much unsustainable economically over the long term, it should come as no shock that true believers in that system (and you all know who you are ) have really latched on to the CO2/global warming theory since it validates/re-energizes what amounts to their pet socio-economic system, a system that has largely been abandoned by the world."

kidding right?

The great liberal conspiracy?


I am out of here till the ice melts in my drink

[bntii]

Wait! I will play.

give me a day or two and I'll get back on this to shoot down some of your wacky ideals

Been too busy mucking about in boats :(

[Jimbo1490]

Thanks! I've been waiting for you to play rather than merely throw pebbles at my window :D

I've been mucking around with airplanes today. NBAA convention is in town and all that free catered food and beer was too much to resist :) And all those pretty airplanes (free beer) and cool giveaway items (free beer) and stuff! The Dassault/Falcon tent had the best prime rib!

Jimbo

[longliner45]

OK I know alott about somethings and there is alott I dont know about other things,,the eco system is part of our enviornment too! today Iceland anounced the resume of whaling after 21 years,,,,I dont think the whale population has recoverd enough to warrent this,,,all creaturs have a purpose, sharks are killed because they are sharks and man is afraid of them ,, they clean the seas of decaying matter that would otherwise pollute the oceans,the only way I see to combat this is to not purchase these products,I am a man of conviction, I belieive we should leave the world as we find it ,also I believe (WE as collective consumers can make a differance) by not going out to buy these products our voices will be heard. so before you go out to buy that can of whale oil think twice..before you go out to buy that big rock for your old lady think of the misery it caused. I dont eat at dennys because of thier racial policy . I dont buy timkin bearing because of appartide .I could go on but I wont,,,,its time to wake up and smell reality,, we can make a differance,,ya just gotta make a small effort,,,,,,,,bitchin about it online does nothing,,,,,,longliner

[bntii]

What?

I was just getting warmed up to the ideal of bitching online :)

Jimbo- been looking for a proper rock but us liberals are a bit weak so pebbles have got to do.

Do me a favor-
Provide the ORIGINAL source for the Stewart quote above.
Full article or url to same would do the trick

[longliner45]

original source for (steward quote obove is BBC.CNN)and the free press

[bntii]

BBC cites the Herald report?

Where?

[longliner45]

its no secret ,turn on the tube for 10 minutes.I dont feel like spoon feeding data.

[Jimbo1490]

Can't find the full text anywhere online. Apparently the Calgary Herald, from which the quote was taken, does not have an online archive. A public library microfiche catalog might be a source.

During the search, I turned this up:

http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/Agenda%20of%20the%20Activists.htm

Trying to assert that environmentalist's motives are always pure and that they would never lie about the science to get their way is like saying that the 'National Security' nut cases never lie either. I think It's a turning point in your own political maturity when you realize that the party/group/philosophy that you personally prefer is just as full of lies and deception as the opposition. It's sad but true.

Jimbo

[longliner45]

jimbo ,there are extremist in everything,,but we should all be enviornmentalist, without it what else is there? what is there to lie about?whaling and commercialfishing are real issiues,,so is pollution of our seas and land ,,I dont fancy meyself as an enviornmentalist ,,or steward of the land,,I try to do my part,,when I was a fisherman ,,I killed many tonnes of fish ,,,,to feed people . but always left stock for later.today we are depleting the last stocks of fish in the world at cost rica and tailand and se asia,,, really dont know were your coming from or if you have a boat or are into boats ,,,but from your post man,,Im not seeing it,,,longliner

[bntii]

There is no source on that quote because it's a fabrication

You cited some "fun facts" on co2.
Perhaps you could help me out.

This whole carbon cycle thing...

Could you tell me what the net gain of atmospheric co2 is in the absence of human activity? Say pre 1000 ad. Also, what is the net gain now? Is the increase measurable? Could you say put a % gain on the human activity caused co2 in the atmosphere?
Aren't there some other things which cause energy absorption in the atmosphere??
Steamfreak mentioned cfc's:
"We've banned substances like CFCs and Halon because they damage the ozone... well that's a nice thought and all but your avg volcano puffing the ole cigar spits out more CFCs than every can ever made"

Funny how I thought cfc's were synthetic... Volcano's? Aren't cfc's concidered to hold energy in the atmosphere as well?

I know there is so much disinformation put out by the conspiracy. Hard to tell who to believe isn't it?

[longliner45]

jimbo and bntii,,,,,once again I ziged when I sholuld have zaged,,,,I thought you two were basically calling me a liar,,,,,,about the Icelandic whaling,,,which infact you were engaged with someone else!please exept my apoloy,,,longliner

[Raggi_Thor]

...about the Icelandic whaling....

As half Norwegian and half Icelandic i am of course "pro whaling" as long as it's not any danger of extinction. That goes for moose, deer, seal, panda, elephant and gorillas too.

It's typical Norwegian to think that we should hunt the moose but Africans should let the elephants ruin their crops and basically keep all of Africa as a natural park. I disagree :-)

[bntii]

no harm done longliner

I saw the lay of the land

[SteamFreak]

There is no source on that quote because it's a fabrication

You cited some "fun facts" on co2.
Perhaps you could help me out.

This whole carbon cycle thing...

Could you tell me what the net gain of atmospheric co2 is in the absence of human activity? Say pre 1000 ad. Also, what is the net gain now? Is the increase measurable? Could you say put a % gain on the human activity caused co2 in the atmosphere?
Aren't there some other things which cause energy absorption in the atmosphere??
Steamfreak mentioned cfc's:
"We've banned substances like CFCs and Halon because they damage the ozone... well that's a nice thought and all but your avg volcano puffing the ole cigar spits out more CFCs than every can ever made"

Funny how I thought cfc's were synthetic... Volcano's? Aren't cfc's concidered to hold energy in the atmosphere as well?

I know there is so much disinformation put out by the conspiracy. Hard to tell who to believe isn't it?

kinda funny you should mention CFCs... a simple 5 sec search and read yields this article http://www.c3.org/chlorine_knowledge_center/bbc7.html

I'm still reading through all of it but as I keep telling everybody else, the information is there... Find something to show this might be wrong.. or if it goes unanswered, then we'll accept it as fact. Its that simple.

And there's another 742,000 returns to read...
Results 1 - 10 of about 742,000 for are CFCs natural?. (0.25 seconds) from Google..

[SteamFreak]

In addition to my above... I've found these hits on the quote by the Minister of the Environment of Canada placing her comments sometime in 1997-1998
Just search "Christine" on any of these pages

http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3504&sid=4afe97b612e3f3a8d60015bdf439e9de
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=484929&page=3
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

This page places her comments on Dec 14, 1998 in the Calgary Herald
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/international-politics/47566-global-warming-debate-over.html

Here's another page citing the same day
http://www.abd.org.uk/blair.htm

Who can find a copy of this day's Calgary Herald and lay this quote to rest? You have a specific day and no other proposed days show up in my searches, which have taken me 17 mins.... that should be good enough.

[Jimbo1490]

bntii:

Most, if not all of your questions are answered in a post to another thread. To keep from re-posting it, I refer you to the post here:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=110611&postcount=172

On the CFC thing, this comment about volcanos and CFC seems to be a half-literate attempt at explaining the disparities in the observed halogen gases in the atmosphere compared with known releases. It is true that CFC's are 100% synthetic in origin. But one must remember that CFC's are not harmful to the ozone layer or anything else. No one ever said they were. What is harmful if free halogen gases. For a long time it was believed that CFC's were so stable that they NEVER degraded once released into the atmosphere, thus releasing their constituent halogen gases. Now that is not believe to be the case. Now it is believed (and there is still some controversy here) that bombardment with high energy solar radiation (just which component thereof another controversy, UV the likely culprit)such as occurs only at very high altitudes, causes these otherwise very stable molecules to break down and release those nasty halogens.

But even this now widely accepted scientific dogma has its detractors who point out its flaws (my hero Lomborg agrees with the majority on this one :( ). First, the whole thing is kind of a solution looking for a problem, if you know what I mean. Scientists figured out that halogens could rejoin monatomic oxygen (ozone) back into it's more usual form, the diatomic O2 molecule. This then fell to earth depleting the ozone layer. No one really knew if this had been happening for years, decades, centuries or eons. Nobody knew. It was known that humans had been producing CFC's since the 1940's. But nobody could figure out if or how they were breaking down as they are so stable. Of course the industries producing the CFC's said emphatically "They Are Safe", but that was pretty predictable. So some scientists working on experiments in a lab to attempt to get certain CFC's to break down into their constituents by bombarding them with different radiative energies, supposedly mimicing high-altitude solar radiation. Lo and behold, yes! CFC's can break down under certain conditions!

But at this point in the research and for many years later, it was assumed that there were no natural sources of halogen gases that could account for the amounts of these gases observed though atmospheric monitoring and extrapolation. So the assumption was that human activity MUST be the culprit. The lab work simply 'proves' it! Despite the niggling little problems (like more halogens present than could possibly be accounted for by tabulating known releases), this has become the accepted explanation.

Then along comes those pesky volcanologists, studying those darn volcanos, now saying that volcanos release thousands of tons when they blow ther stacks! Nevermind, the CFC/ozone depletion explanation is accepted, the legislatures have spoken, anyway we like the old science better than the new :D

Jimbo

[longliner45]

I totally respect your opinion,, here in Ohio were I live we have a similar problem with deer,,,,too many ,,more people are getting killed from deer with auto accidents,,,,now there is more deer than when the Adeana Indians walked the earth.,,Its all a matter of prospective...I just think it will take more time to bring the whales back to thier normal population,,which in return should help equal a healthier fish population ,,,,,,but I dont know all the facts about whale populations thanks for your reply,,,,,,,longliner

[bntii]

Boats boats boats......

been really busy

"not serious about anything and has nothing to offer"

Ha! Someone is having a bad day :)

[longliner45]

raggi is there really that much demand for whales? and what are they used for?

[safewalrus]

Longliner - apart from the fact that apparantly parts of them are good to eat they have quite a few uses as any whaling community will tell you (tis a rumour that the American Whalers where some of the best in the world before someone invented a harpoon gun which decimated the whales - if we went back to using hand held harpoons in pulling (rowing) boats I think there would be enough to go round - guns is just to damn comprehensive!:eek:

Oh yes, and of course they do have something for the 'do gooders' of the world to whinge about - not that most of them know bugger all about whales, but they do like to cause trouble ;) (wait until one surfaces alongside you and blows when you are in a 30 foot boat - **** myself did I; you bet):eek:

[Raggi_Thor]

Whales where hunted for their fat originally, and something called "ambrosia"??? It was used to make perfume (??), strange because the fat from whales smells quite disgusting.

AMBERGIS, it's called....
From http://www.savethewhales.org/sperm.html:
Ambergris is a valuable substance found in the lower intestine of a small percentage of sperm whales and is believed to form around squid beaks. This waxy substance, which is lighter than water and floats, was primarily used as a perfume fixative


Now the meat is a "deli" in Norway, Iceland and Japan.
There is no need for it, in the same way there is no need for meat from deer or moose.
Iceland just started hunting whales again after only doing "research" hunting for some years.

I have no strong feelings in this subject, I don't think it's OK to hunt scarce populations of any kind, I think all animals, domestic and wild should e treated with respect, and I think it's sad to kill a young lamb and a baby seal.