ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

Troy and Boston,

A belated thanks for the congratulations.

Alan

 

What on earth is this stuff about asking posters if "...they want a doll" after they have made a perfectly reasonable comment??? Troy appears to have put forward a very logical opinion about unrestricted free market consequences and cited historical example and linked that to legal changes made in response.

An ad hominem attack on an adult posting like that is childish itself.


Originally Posted by troy2000
When you allow unlimited, unrestricted competition with no rules to ensure fair play, eventually you'll come up with a winner -- who, having eliminated the competition, can do any damn thing he wants to do to consumers who no longer have alternatives.

That's pretty simpleminded common sense, really. And borne out historically by the 'Robber Baron' capitalists in this country a hundred-plus years ago, who happen to be the reason we came up with anti-trust laws to begin with.

 

Yobo, That is a really interesting observation about fungal psoriasis on the underside of the forearms of bar habitues. It is so on point for this topic.

Were you a Doctor before you retired? Or maybe a bar maid?



Just wondering

Allan

 

whoa, I hadn't expected even one response, let alone two pages of it

OK then, Lets keep it real this time. NO religion, no politics, The subject isn't if climate shift is occurring, nor it is about who's responsible, so if thats what you'd like to discus feel free to go discuss it somewhere else, this thread is about how our ocean conditions are changing due to climate shift. If that rankles, then go post on the global cooling thread. But the changing ocean conditions, and there are most assuredly changing, have a direct bearing on my own retirement plans and I'd think yours assuming any of you are either already on the water or planing on being there anytime soon. I'm going sailing and I'll need to be aware of what the trends in both ocean conditions spell for the near future and what direction trends in weather are taking.

Keep it clean kids and try and show some respect for our moderator, we are after all, just guests here.
Lest you find yourself learning some new terminology

From
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...CKGhwrF7Si1v6wW6Q&sig2=XXaR03_aEdPRpYwT89u7wg

Overview

Many states have enacted "cyberstalking" or "cyberharassment" laws or have laws that explicitly include electronic forms of communication within more traditional stalking or harassment laws. In addition, recent concerns about protecting minors from online bullying or harassment have led states to enact "cyberbullying" laws. This chart identifies only state laws that include specific references to electronic communication. However, other state laws may still apply to those who harass, threaten or bully others online, although specific language may make the laws easier to enforce. This chart classifies the various state laws addressing these three different types of online behaviors, as described below.

Cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. Cyberstalking may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.

Cyberharassment. Cyberharassment differs from cyberstalking in that it is generally defined as not involving a credible threat. Cyberharassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual. Some states approach cyberharrassment by including language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes.

 

Ho Ho this is an interesting one.

Apparently the warm currents are warming faster than the surrounding ocean.

See
Enhanced warming over the global subtropical western boundary currents

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1353.html

unfortunately its a pay per view article so I can't quote it but there is a write up about it here

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...u41OT76KsD0eAqKEQ&sig2=t7Mn0e1x0rFAvZvEqYmcvw

 

I made 5 posts ALL on one page, and I'm not stalking you or anyone.
In fact:

appears to be a sincere INVITATION!

And THIS:

now it seems YOU are threatening?

Well, I wish you happy anticipation in your pending, intuitive, self guided education in 'expert heavy weather survival tactics'. During the eventual real life experimentation phase, and trial and error, do or die surprise exams, those who survive, graduate with horrors!

 

atmospheric CO2 hits 400 ppm and rising rapidly

http://news.yahoo.com/warming-gas-levels-hit-troubling-milestone-054101171.html

 

Here is an open question for the skeptics of global warming. Is there any level of evidence that will convince you, or are you so stuck in your position that you will never change your mind?

 

I doubt the average skeptic here will change his opinion, regardless of the evidence. But some of what's posted may reach the undecided....

 

Maybe if you could produce some evidence which isn't fraudulent and having the taint of alarmist power-grabbing bull541t we might be willing to consider it. That is about as likely as a volcano puking hailstones.

 

Translation: 'no.'

Hoyt will label any and all evidence supporting AGW as fraudulent, because it disagrees with what he believes.

 

400 ppm and climbing, fast.

For some people belief is a choice and for others its a conclusion. Even the term belief imply's something is subjective. Yet you wouldn't say "we believe one and one = two. The term is better suited to subjects other than science.

But your point Alan is well made. No amount of evidence was able to convince some people the earth was round, or that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. That humans were descendant from primates or that the Dodo would eventually go extinct.

Best thing to do is ignore the deniers and move forward with a discussion about what changes are most likely to effect us, and how we're going to respond to them.

30% increase in max wave heights in the PNW is a substantial number. one that will effect either how you design your boat or how many days you have weather to sail

Just watched a show late last night on the Canadian tar sands. What a nightmare scenario that is.

 

As to CO2, where's the accompanying catastrophic hot temperatures?

http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/co2-is-logarithmic-explained/

"Posted on May 11, 2010 by davidmhoffer

What is often quoted is that CO2 doubling causes an increase in radiance to earth’s surface of 3.7 watts/meter squared, which in turn raises temperatures about 1 degree Celsius. Why the reference to “doubling”? Because we’re talking about light and filtering materials. Consider that you have several pairs of sun glasses, each of which blocks 50% of the light. If you put two pairs in a row, do they block 100%? Of course not. The first pair blocks 50% and the second pair blocks 50% of what is left, which is 25% of the original light. The third pair would only block 12.5% of the original light. CO2 suffers from the same law of diminishing returns. What keeps getting left out of the climate discussion is what happens after the first doubling. The pre-industrial levels (1900 AD or so) of CO2 are commonly quoted at 278 PPM (parts per million) and the current levels are at about 385 ppm. If we look at this graph, it becomes pretty clear that we would have to generate a LOT of CO2 to get much more effect than we are already:"

Or in my OWN words for the 'cut and paste' accusers.

Once you have completely insulated your house to R22, more insulation isn't going to affect your homes temperature to any marked degree. You would experience severe diminishing returns on additional investment in insulation.
CO2 doesn't WARM the earth. It's an insulation. The SUN warms the earth!

 

Read some interesting stuff this morning before I gotta get to work.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120523114724.htm

This one as well

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104635.htm

and another

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm

The first is kinda interesting because it links human activities with the corral issues. The second and third show how our oceans are responding to the warming trend.

 

Any of you clever guys know why there is not many green lip mussels on the marina piling over the last few years.


Damn --with vinigar and brown bread they are my favourite.

The penguin pearl oysters are still there!!! but they are aq bit more difficult to shell and to be honest a bit slimy.

Please help,--- Frosty