ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

Indoctrination eh, sounds like one of those freaky cults or something, not going to be building a compound or anything are you ;-) I'm kinda curious as to what your conversion rate is. My experience is that most people don't have a clue as to why they believe what they believe and base there beliefs instead on whim and ignorance. Easily swayed by a practiced even if incorrect argument. Most people don't take the time to dissect the issues or to learn the science and simply go on whatever someone tells them to think. Its kinda frightening actually as I've had folks ( self appointed mostly ) who think they are in a position to dictate beliefs, get angry when you ask to many questions or by doing so expose some serious flaw in there thinking. Specially when those questions are derived from contradictions with the science. Makes for some interesting conversations tho. Gotta wonder why they are so resistant to the learning process themselves if there going to try there hand at teaching.

I'd have to say an informed position is the best way to save yourself from political, whimsical or the always curios, faith based indoctrination

from
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1990544,00.html

Gotta say though it be a fun summer spent working on a tour boat and bantering over a few hundred beers . I suppose if I get off my *** and get to my job I'd be one step closer to owning one of them thar floating cash ( cough cough ) cows myself.

cheers
B

 

Indoctrination, yes. And by "freaky cult" you mean "one that values hard work and appreciates the rewards that come with it. I know you'll never believe me but once one cut his filthy hair and started taking baths after less than a week of work and play (like we play - no drugs, talking about girls, hot-rods, boats, guns, gentle education about economy while we shoot, hunt, fish, or snowmachine. It's the reason I got back into chess - to exorsize the stealing, lying, dirty, society-hating demons from a hippy - That one failed, though after near two years of my work - still a punk). You would be amazed to see one light up when he goes shooting with us and learns a bit about safety and that guns are not evil but fun! I think a lot of these freaks are just doing what they think their culture wants of them - the only place they have found acceptance is next to another freak in a coffee shop or smoking dope or something. Being "one of the guys" is a far cry from growing up with a traditional family but it's the tool I have. Yes, "Indoctrination", and I think in the world today, the type of indoctrination I try to do is probably considered "not mainstream" if not downright "cultish". Sometimes, all it takes is for them to see that the great, granitic, stodgy, old school Mark ain't as bad as they thought and I swear to God, you can see their wheels turning often after the second day of work.
Okay, last Bill Whittle video if you want... If you'll watch the ones I posted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ Time to run. One of the workers today is a hippie, and it is hyper-critical that he learns the importance of always being early. If nothing else, Bos, the guy will be a better soldier for your cause after my "boot camp"! He was a half hour late yesterday and we made up for it by missing lunch...

 

A fairly widespread error I think..

 

So would I.

 

Carbon tax

How Well Has The Media And Australian Government Informed The
Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?

Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following
questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the
following pages.

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?
Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?
Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?
Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?
Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the
answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the
media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as
you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these
sources.

The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare
YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an
informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.

On the following pages are respondent’s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The
bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well to very well. They comprise
business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical profession,
accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people.


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is
1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a
small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)

Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at
0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science
in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so
they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This
makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of
the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition

Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?

Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.

Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and
only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule
0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes,
that’s all.

Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the
air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule
from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all.

We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!

Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made
CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to
make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories. Governments and Green groups would not
be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock
market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be
getting large research grants.

Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen
are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.

Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show
white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour)
condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling
wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in
camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from
all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge
quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant
either.

Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the
Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC)
has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.

• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because
it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of
thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are
constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules
during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.

• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no
difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less
it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the
atmosphere.

1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day
to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.

2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating
effect. Their temperatures are stable.

3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times,
CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.

4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher
temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.


• Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as
CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by
contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature.

• The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270
C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day.


Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. These
four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the
land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the
heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the
very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low
solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling.


The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is
not one. Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have
seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we
have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today’s
changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous
reasons why man-made global warming is false.

The Effect of the Sun on Earth’s climate

It has long been known that the Sun is by far the major driver of all weather on Earth because it is the
source of all heat and energy. There is absolutely no real-world evidence that the temperature has continually
risen as we were led to believe. The hottest records in the USA and Greenland were in the 1930s due to a strong
solar cycle. It became cooler from 1940 to 1970. This was due to a weak solar cycle. It has again become
increasingly colder since 2006 due to another weak solar cycle. The Sun’s magnetic storm activity has now
moved to an extended minimum so the next 2-4 maximums are expected to be much weaker than the last few
have been. By 2011 the solar cycle should have risen half way back to its 11 year maximum but it hasn’t! It’s only
just started. The last time the Sun acted this way was during the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830 which
produced 40 years of very cold winters with subdued, wetter summers globally - just as we are expiring now.
From 1450 -1750 a more intense Maunder Minimum occurred which caused the Little Ice Age. The next 2-4 solar
cycles will very likely be low in solar activity causing noticeably cooler global temperatures for a few decades.

For details see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar-cycle-24-update

and http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/climate-change/another-dalton-minimum/



The effect of the current Solar Minimum is particularly obvious in the northern hemisphere where
increasingly colder winter temperatures have caused massive snow falls disrupting transportation across
Europe, Asia and the US.



Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally,
the opposite has happened. There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of
the planet since 2006. This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This
ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this:
in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is
most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the later half of the century and therefore releasing a
little CO2. (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable.

Polls on Climate Change

Polls in western countries now show that believers in man-made global warming are now in the minority
with a sizable percentage of over 20% who “don’t know” if CO2 is causing any change. The obvious change to a
cooler, wetter climate combined with the revelations of climate fraud shown by the Climategate emails has led to
the change in public perception. Polls asking people what is the most important threat to them out of a list of 20
issues, place global warming at the bottom!

Popular beliefs are not fact

The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the 2000 Bug would destroy much of our technology
on New Year’s Eve 2000 yet not one disaster occurred anywhere. We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’
yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South
Pole has not changed. Scientists now think it is natural. Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology
and profit rather than proven scientific evidence. History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.

A Carbon Tax

Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from
receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners. Even if
drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2
contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage. It would have no
affect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically
lower everyone’s living standards. Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about
a complex science they know virtually nothing about.


Gregg D Thompson



Climate Researcher

Astronomer

Environmentalist

Author of two science books

Business Manager and Director of 3 companies

Author of science magazine articles

Designer and project manager of special effects attractions

Nature photographer

Has a great interest in most sciences

Loves creating innovation in art

 

Do you mind if I use your survey questions? I'll try to ask 100 "dreadlocky" (Not all will actually have dreads as I think that it has gone somewhat out of fashion because they want jobs and it is not yet quite summer population expansion season but I will only allow that type to respond) registered voters (I'll trust them on this).

 

Oh Lordy someones been into the deniers hand book again

ok lets dispel some basic misinformation and deliberate misrepresentations

Mark
Be sure and include some of the correct answers when your "students" tilt there head and look at you with big droopy questioning eyes, cause the answers in that article were almost to the last pure fantasy.

taking some guys out into the wild is always a great time, I used to do some guiding myself but its no excuse for the truth. Around here the White Bark Pine is fast going extinct so if that bears looking at you like its dinner blame it on him starving. Pine Beetles are booming, pines are dropping like flies and so goes the pine nuts, about 50% of a bears late season food source. Result is a sharp decline in bear numbers due to global warming. Takes a long cold winter to push back a pine beetle and since there aren't any of those any more they have moved up into White Pine territory decimating the trees and obliterating the bears primary late season food source

I snagged this picture off the net but it looks like Moran Pass going down into the Snake River Valley and looking across at the Tetons. All that brownish red stuff is beetle kill, about 80% of whats in this picture right up to tree line, the rest isn't white bark pine or at least doesn't look like it from here.



Seriously you might think of actually doing a little thinking for yourself and look up the answers in something other than the right wing propaganda machine. No not Wiki either, try NOAA or NASA or NAS or anything actually within the scientific community, RealClimate is the IPCC equivalent of an open forum if you want to get brave.

Deal is that last article was about the biggest load of horse pucky I've read in ages. Sorry but a response was pretty much mandatory so now I've no time to much but get some rest, big day tomorrow, I move into my new shop. Who knows maybe once I'm done this present project I'll keep the space long enough to build something for myself for a change.

cheers
B

 

Oh and Troy's not such a bad guy, once you get past the union thing . You guys just seem to think your going to change each others minds and thats just not the way of things. Everyone's got there own way of doing things and thats pretty much all there is to it. It usually takes a new generation for new ideas to really sink in and become integrated fully. Unfortunately we don't really have another generation to spare, species are dropping like flies and we're just about out of time. So be sure and tell those kids to enjoy it while it lasts and take lots of pictures cause its already gone in many parts of the world and yours is next, unless of course you plan on educating yourself about concervation issues and the whole Rapid Global Climate Shift thing ;-)

 

A lot of people (probably most people) are not capable of rational evaluation, followed by a change of opinion. Most just go on with whatever opinion they have, be it in accord with the facts or not. As my father used to say "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."

The bottom line is that change tends to happen when the older generation dies off rather than a change of opinion by many individuals within a generation.

There are of course exceptions to the general statements made above.

 

Oh and Hoyt, no 50' is a bit outside the limits, the high side of sea level rise estimates ( pun intended ) is about 20', the low side is about 3. But whatever it is, its going to cause trouble as significant numbers of people live in coastal areas and combined with higher wave heights even a one meter rise is problematic.


The past 100 years ocean rise was what .25 of an inch?

Florida is not yet awash.

The next 100 may be a 300% ocean level disaster!!

.75 of an inch!!

MAN THE LIFEBOATS !



FF

 

Alanrockwood wrote
The bottom line is that change tends to happen when the older generation dies off.
Especially true in this case because I'm 64 and not dead yet.
Unfortunately young people are more easily influenced to think the way they are guided to think. They are programmed to all think the same in an attempt to be different.

People with experience have witnessed climate changes.

In my school days up until about 10 all I can remember is the heat and not a lot of wet weather, and family photos from that time also depict due to our clothing, or lack of it, very hot conditions.

The local government had to build another dam to counter the water shortage and from memory it was finished around 1960, it may not be accurate and I can't be bothered looking it up.
However for the next 40 years we had quite wet conditions to such an extent that no other dams have been built to serve the metropolitan area although we have had an extreme population explosion.

Now we are about 10 years into a dry spell and because they government have not made any further means of supplying water we are in the poo. And the government of course is blaming "global warming." How bloody convenient.

I am not saying there is no problem with global warming, but scientists do like to make statements sometimes to give themselves a bit of noteriety, getting an article published in a scientific magazine etc. Hover unfortunately it seems that some people have taken them seriously and the whole thing has got out of hand, and as we know results have been falsified to back their claims.

About 40 years ago, I was on my honeymoon, and we visited some caves and as it was off season there was only my new wife, me and the ranger showing us through. Fortunately as there weren't any other people and the ranger probably thought that guiding us through was better than working for a living he took some time taking us through the caves.

He showed us the stalactites and how they are formed and showed us how you can see the seasons, stalactites grow faster with more rain. The interesting thing, and of course I didn't realise at that time, it would be someting I would have to reflect upon in 40 years time, he showed us that there is a weather cycle every 40 years and of course these stalactites date back for 100s of years.

Facts are only usefull for intelligent people to draw a conclusion.

 

if you look at the temperature record, depending on scale you can see the natural cycle still embedded in the climate forcing, those cycles probably wont disappear even if the system is embroiled in a rapid climate shift scenario because the irregular nature of the variables will still exist. So simply because there is natural variability doesn't preclude the evidence of Rapid Global Climate Shift just as Rapid Global Climate Shift doesn't eliminate natural variability's influences.

what always amazes me is how really simple most of the concepts are yet how clearly some folks ( G Thompson for instance ) insist on misrepresenting them.

and yes this is beginning, in some areas to effect both pleasure and commercial boating. The facts of changing ocean conditions demand attention from a sport and industry which has always been constrained by weather events and anomalies. Now the more recent changes in extremes can be directly attributed to the alterations in atmospheric chemistry brought about by the burning of fossil fuels

 

The red ones are explosively flammable, Bos. Once they go grey, they are dropping their needles and not so bad but a red one, if lit, will literally explode. Be careful out there. Shoulda got some loggers in there ahead of the wave of the beatles. Had the same thing here in the nineties with our spruce. It happened 75 years ago, too. For a spruce bark beatle to multiply to a severely damaging level, three hot summers in a row must occur. The tree huggers fought logging in areas ahead of the wave of beatles with frivolous lawsuits... then fought to have the dead trees cleaned up so that they could not start a fire nor uglify their hike... and we have dead areas bigger than your states.
I will stop short of calling your argument disingenuos because I don't know your trees but, generally, aren't most fruit (nut) bearing trees on the young part of their life cycle and aren't mostly the older trees affected by the beatle? Stressed trees seem to put out much more cones than usual and after this change, there will be much more healthy habitat for the criiters. In the mean time (I tried to buy a piece of &6$#0! beef the other day and it was ridiculously expensive), eat bear and squirrel. Right now, the environment is rebounding from our beatles and there is more rabbit (thus $450 lynx for the trappers ) than you can possibly eat. Had a rabbit playing with a puffed up pheasant one day. (the pheasant are in the mood and attacking everything - one fat one stood right next to me as I parked the car - I thought I was going to have to defend myself! This morning, I can hear two eagles and at least one wake up call from a pheasant, I have a yearling moose napping in the morning sun against the wall of the house (it heats up faster against a white wall in the morning sun) and the ground is almost alive with rabbits (until last year we haven't had many since the eighties). The environment seems okay here - Are you sure things are going to hell tomorrow there?

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has been wrong before.

 

Boston has aspens, or are they half-aspens?