ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

I'd kinda like to see a more detailed description of how the compressor energy = less than the lift energy. I couldn't help but notice that the graphics in the second film ( the one with a rudimentary explanation as to how the thing works ) didn't include a source energy or a quantity of energy required to run the compressor, it did state that he produces 30%+ more energy than it uses but I think if he really wants to convince anyone he's going to have to show much more detail in his presentation.

I'm always a bit skeptical of over-unity devices or perpetual motion machines

is there maybe a in depth analysis you have handy cause just by watching the two video's I'm just not seeing how this thing produces more power than it consumes

 

Rapid Global Climate Shift ; Warm is better. Ask the dinosaurs. Wait-you can't. They died of cold.

 

The theory of rapid global climate shift includes swings of temp in either direction for a number of reasons, any one of which can result in a "Rapid Global Climate Shift" In the present situation the cause is known and the solution is also known. What makes this situation unique is that we can choose not to cause another extinction event. Or we can choose to destroy the environment and much of the ecosystem with it.

 

We lost a tremendous amount of snook in Florida this last winterall the way into sout Florida due to the extreme cold. Fortunately small snook have moved back into the area from the south(you can tell by their accents) to re-populate the fishing stocks. Warm is better.

 

I remember that, it was a great example of another manifestation of Rapid Global Climate Shift. The more energy held in the system leading to greater swings of temp over a larger range of area ( stretched all the way down to Florida ). It could be said its weather instead of climate, but when the whole system goes into flux like what happened last winter then its not much of a stretch to suggest its a climate response to excess carbon in the atmosphere.

good example Hoyt

 

Sounds to me like you've been snookered again Hoyt!

 

The best way to warm manatee is over an open fire.

 

I believe we have long ago established your lack of concern for future generations, as well as the ability of the planet to continue to sustain life as we know it. Any chance you might have something new or relevant to contribute?

 

Some folks might fiddle while Rome burns but most would be descent enough to at least help put out the fire and clean up the mess.

The correlation between hurricane intensity and SST's ( and no thats not like herpes or anything, try sea surface temps ) is unquestionable. As is the correlation between SST's and carbon.

so another element of mans alterations of the atmospheric chemistry is the increasing intensity of major ocean storm systems. While researchers are hesitant to make any definitive statements yet there are two major schools of thought. One a more radical increase in intensity and the other a less radical one. Thus far when climate scientists have presented information like this they tend to err on the side of caution and let time be the judge, with the more extreme prediction being the one that typically is proven out. In the case of storm intensity and duration the two major predictions are as follows.



its pretty clear that the observed data trend follows the more sever predictions range ( pictured above ) where as the less severe predictions are already deviated from the observed data with the less dire predictions still being considered because of unknowns in the cyclical patterns of the largest storm systems. So the lesser predictions still have a shot at being accurate but the likelihood of them being accurate is diminishing with each passing year. At which point it might be interesting to note that 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 2000 and mention again that SST's and storm energy are strongly correlated

If the more extreme prediction ends up the more accurate one it will mean some big changes in pleasure and commercial boating

 

Do you have any valid post 2007 that supports your claim? All your time-lines seem to stop abruptly and do not take recent activity into account.

 

All the time lines? no. The study period of that particular paper did end in 2007, the commentary was from a paper published just a few months ago. There are numerous papers concerning this issue given its severe impacts on the global economy. Why do you ask? Where you thinking that somehow there was a complete reversal of carbon emissions over the last few years that somehow everyone missed? Changes in atmospheric chemistry caused by the burning of fossil fuels have caused ocean temps to rise, which in turn cause more severe storms of longer duration and higher energy. The only real question is how sever the climate response will be.

 

Show me some new data. Show me the temp curve isn't near the top of the parabola and headed back down. Show me this is anthropogenic. I remain unconvinced.

 

I was watching a program last night on the dissapearing island of Kivalina in Alaska.

They are suing companies that they considered contributed to global warming, they reason they say, that their island in going under water.

The main companies they are targeting are oil companies.

However during the course of the documentary there were several scenes where the inhabitants of Kivalina where burining around on quad bikes.

For some reason I found that strange.

 

No Problem Hoyt
Here's an paper published just last year concerning this very issue from the authors of that last commentary I quoted. You can find it at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5964/454.full?ijkey=PFX.MzpFJDznM&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

What the latest study is suggesting is that larger stronger storms will last longer and ergo there will be less overall numbers of storms but those fewer storms will be of significantly greater intensity.

Are we beginning to understand yet. The latest data is in full agreement and draws on previous data, as usual. The deniers continue to deny although the vast majority of evidence is in and the consensus among the scientific community is overwhelming. Hurricanes are driven my ocean temps and those temps are driven by alterations in the atmospheric chemistry which are primarily the result of burning fossil fuels.

You aint going to learn
what you don't want to know
Jerry G.

cheers
B

body slam
huuuaaa


ps
we weren't talking about the temp curve we were talking about the frequency and intensity of the hurricane season. There is no "top" to some mythical "parabola" and temps are not dropping, fact is 9 of the last 10 years were the warmest ever recorded. Thats hardly representative of a drop in global temps now is it.

double cheers

 

Boston, I used to respect our differences and just considered you a bit... well, don't take offence - I have friends with this affliction - um, slow (Chock it up to English not being your native tongue). Dang it, though, I'm coming to look at you as deceitful and egocentric. Your debate tactics are disingenuous and derivative.
The school teacher that pokes his little head in here now and again is to be understood to have ulterior motives, others are simply ignorant and naive. When the whole thing completely washes over (It's on that road now, of course, made more obvious by your ever-more-desperate attempts at hanging onto this topic. Demonstrate your conviction by having a life distinctly seperate from climate arguing), when practical, not hysterical, minds prevail (You will know the people with these minds. They have families, don't pierce everything, they take baths, left the college campus to contribute to society with an abstract called "a job" or "a business"), and the dust of a Tea Party-caused scorched Earth settles, then come back and tell Hoyt he was wrong, I'm wrong, and half of the world that it is wrong. Before that point in time, before the deep blue sea is turned into some tempestuous cesspool signatory of unrestrained progress (as you envisage that your opponents see it, i.e., strip malls, Jet Skis and killing pregnant women out of vindictiveness), threads like this are silly. You sound like a woman, Buddy... "Just watch Rachel Maddow - You'll see". For the love of God, no one is going to change their mind because of a thread like this. The novelty of the internet has worn off and conservatives have learned that the information world is where battles will be fought (that's why "Net Neutrality" and other attempts at censorship, are in the vogue - your government desires to stop the learning, albeit too late, like the slave owners wanted to keep their not-free-men "*******"). The cat's out of the bag, my friend. Fundamental process changes in government will soon come about - there are far too many of us armed and intelligent for them to now think about suppressing us as it is too late. You Tube is full of information, blogs are full of opinion, when you call Fox News "Fox Noise" you are laughed at. When 20somethings look back at the tears they shed in fear at An Inconvenient Truth, they are sheepish and want others to forget that they fell for that **** - The ladder, the hockey stick, the hook, line, and the sinker.
Be a man that didn't get so caught up in being feminine in college (to get laid - admit it - you watched so much General Hospital and The Young and the Restless in the student lounge that you couldn't wait for... not "tonight" but "tomorrow's episode") that in dropping the "why" of General Hospital, you dropped the "Y" with which you were born.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M&feature=related
This a man... for those that have forgotten.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrtDmknIjhI&feature=related
At 8:12 exists a bit you may find of interest. At 10:10 exists a bit NO ONE could find of interest.

You have to watch Serenity, or watch the entire vid to know of what I speak when I say "You can't stop the signal!"