Ocean News

http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/CO2_past-climate-chg-lessons.pdf

 

In order to make decisions based on understanding, we categorize information into piles of opinions, perceptions, beliefs, truths, ect. Mainly this process is to winnow the chaff of the unimportant from the kernels called facts. Facts are not controversial. Or shouldn't be.

Look at some of the facts.

Fact: Ice cores show ten or more heat spikes during the recent 18000 years.
Roughly every thousand years, there is an ice record (an isotope of oxygen scientists proclaim indicates a warming) a spike heralding these warm periods. Many spikes are taller with apparently higher temperatures than today. Currently it appears in these graphs, we are in one of earth's cooler periods.

Fact: Man didn't cause these earlier warm periods. Couldn't have. This current warm period seems to be on schedule time-wise in the cycle of spikes.

Fact: The entire controversy is politicized, divided along political lines. obvious conclusion? It's politics.

Fact: CO2 doesn't have the physical or chemical capability of causing warming. Yes, it's a very minor greenhouse gas completely overshadowed by water vapor, which absorbs a much wider frequency of radiation than CO2, including the narrow band blocked or entrapped by CO2. Neither water vapor nor CO2 produce heat. They can at most, capture the suns heat. Once all the heat is being trapped, a million fold increase in CO2 couldn't retain an additional single calorie.

Fact: Whoever comes up with the best BS story, does not win fact-hood for their BS!

Fact: Entirely eliminating (impossible) human produced CO2 would not reverse warming!
Proponents of draconian reduction argue, it's necessary in order to avoid a more dire heat in the future.

Opinion: Dire heat in the future is bad because? Uncomfortable! Life altering! Well, draconian reductions of fossil fuel use, would be more life changing and more uncomfortable. Destroy civilization to save it? This statement isn't a known fact, only seems a logical interpolation of facts. Perhaps a new technology will emerge making it mute?

 

Hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are becoming stronger, according to a new NOAA study

A study, released on Monday by researchers at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), found that the probability of storms reaching major hurricane status (category 3 or above on the Saffir-Simpson scale with winds in excess of 110 mph or higher), has increased at a rate of about 8% per decade.

A current example of what the study says is happening more frequently can be found in the Bay of Bengal, where Super Cyclone Amphan has reached the top of the scale with winds equivalent to a category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Scale. The storm reached sustained winds of 270 kph (165 mph) on Monday, making it the strongest storm on record in the Bay of Bengal, according to data from the US Joint Typhoon Warning Center.

 

And humans caused this? Incredible! Means not credible or unbelievable.

 

Sometimes, by some people, i have been accused of being anti-science. of belonging to a group or groups that are anti-science. Only basic premises of psychology learned experiencing human interactions in daily life provide the explanation, that when you can't beat the argument, you attack the presenter personally.

I'm not anti-science. I'm anti politicized science. Trying to achieve a political agenda, control, power, by psuedo-scientific spin.

It's not what people know is a problem, but what they know that isn't so! You've heard that before.
Maybe it's possible you don't know as much as you think you do. About water! The oceans are water, correct? They might not be H2O though! The following presentation may open your eyes to possibilities you have only dreamed about. Here maybe the answer to solving many of the worlds toughest problems. Using REAL science! Solutions in the oceans. Watch and enjoy! God bless us each and everyone, and thanks for our seas.

 

Oh god. Not Gerald Pollack. The self publishes a thing with the same name as a prostigious journal.
<removed>

EZ-Water - Fraud or breakthrough? https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/5925/ez-water-fraud-or-breakthrough

Exclusion zone water http://www.moreisdifferent.com/2015/11/19/debunking-exclusion-zone-water/

 

The first EZ Water Fraud or breakthrough does not debunk or attack Dr. Pollack.

This second site is a rather nasty bit of sour mouth. Exclusion zone water http://www.moreisdifferent.com/2015/11/19/debunking-exclusion-zone-water/
By lengthy attacks on spurious theories about water in past history, apparently the author is trying to tar Dr Pollack with the same brush. Has a short paragraph near the bottom titled debunking EZ water but then doesn't. Only laments Dr Pollack hasn't invented any practical devices yet to demonstrate the possible benefits Dr Pollack predicts..

Eventually concludes with this grudging statement.

Kernel of truth #
The frustrating thing about Dr. Pollack’s research is that clearly he is observing some effect, but we can’t really say with confidence that it the type of effect he purports until it is reproduced by independent researchers!

My specific advice to Dr. Pollack (or his coworkers), is:

1. Have someone independently try to reproduce your work.
   
   
2. Cite previous work. In one paper, 11/12 of the references are self citations! (with the remaining reference being to Einstein’s famous 1905 paper on Brownian motion). This is despite the fact that, as I mentioned, much work has already been done studying water-nafion interaction and water-microsphere systems.
   
   
3. Associating with Dr. Mercola will give you a bad reputation. Avoid him.
   

Update:
A very interesting and very promising theory for the exclusion zone can be found in these papers:

(1) Phenomena Associated with Gel-Water Interfaces. Analyses and Alternatives to the Long-Range Ordered water Hypothesis ( J. M. Schurr, J. Phys. Chem. B 2013, 117, 7653-7674)

So, unless you have some actual evidence against Dr Pollask, I want to see more research on the H3O2 molecule

 

or was it H2O3 molecule?

 

nope, I was right the first time. H3o2

 

Hydroxide, hydrate https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Hydroxide_-hydrate

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.445056

Water molecule structure http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html

 

If Dr. Pollock's Exclusion Zone water is a develop-able practical source for desalinated drinking water and free electricity in usable wattage, what a boon to live aboard cruisers that would be. Transmission distance is very short when you're floating on your power source!

 

Scenario:
AGWers have often suggested that if they are possibly correct in their doomsday predictions, shouldn't we err on the side of safety?

I'm curious! If a new technology provided limitless electric power and fresh water, without negative side effects such as the bird killing wind farms have, would the AGWers embrace or resist the new technology? further caveat. The new technology was impossible to manipulate into political power. That's the scenario I'd like to see, and observe the lefts reactions.

 

Hydrogen bonding in water http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html

Hydrophilic Coating Technology - AquaGlide® | Surface Solutions Group http://www.surfacesolutionsgroup.com/coatings/aquaglide/

I would wish to experiment with a Hydrophilic Coating in heavy water (H2O3) and observe if the EZ water (H3O2) formed, was thickened by infra-red, perhaps try resonance, and how much of a positive charge the heavy water collected and was electrical potential between the heavy water and Exclusion Zone water. It would require a battery case.

Since Dr. Pollock found a potential between ordinary water and EZ water, I'd be curious to use a Hydrophilic Coating as a bottom paint on a boat floating in regular water. Make it slipperier. Faster maybe. Opposite pole electrodes in that boundry layer could simply be a bonding plate annode on the hull, and the cathode on the rudder, in clear water beyond the hull perhaps. Or is the positively charged water only near the negative charged EZ water layer? Curios.

 

i have been saving a gallon of anti-graffiti silicone paint, which is Hydrophobic, to use as a bottom coat when I'm ready to launch my Albins. since i intend to pair the hulls (separable catamaran or temporary catamaran), I wonder.
paint one bottom with the Hydrophobic anti-graffiti silicone paint, and the sister hull with Hydrophilic Coating as a bottom pain. Bonding plates on both hulls as electrodes. I may very well attempt this experiment when I'm ready to launch.

 

Advances In Antifouling Coatings Technology https://www.coatingsworld.com/issues/2016-10-01/view_features/advances-in-antifouling-coatings-technology/