What Do We Think About Climate Change

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Pericles, Feb 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    Warning - - - - - Information In This Thread Is Being Presented By People Who Have A Vested Interest In The Financial Aspects Of The Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory.

    Further The Information Posted Is Deliberately Deceptive And Misleading In Order To Influence Those Not From The Scientific Community

    Further, The Information Posted Is For The Purpose Of Promoting A Radical Zero Growth Social Engineering Agenda Rather Than Alleviating An Unproven Human Causation Of Global Warming.

    Keep This In Mind When Reading Any Of The Posts By Boston However Refrain From Offering Any Evidence Contrary To His Unsubstantiated Position Let You Be Branded An Oil Industry Hack Or An Idiot.
     
  2. alex folen
    Joined: Jan 2009
    Posts: 43
    Likes: 2, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 25
    Location: Green Cove Springs, Florida

    alex folen Flynpig

    Regardless of a "climate model" the fact is even in the past hundred years there is an increase in the temp which may sugest something. Does one not agree that humans could possibly contribute in the last hundred years? There isn?t any recorded data 20,000 years ago (at least I don?t think so) on temp.. We?ll have to just see what is real for now. Boston has real data we can touch...I have a vested intreest also in global warming hopes. I wana make a/c coats.
     
  3. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

  4. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    Whoooa back big fella, I'm a free market, small government kinda guy... but the growth thing is an issue. Just what you do to solve that I don't know but I don't like the war, starve, or polute to death options! Hey China has a one child policy and they are more free market that the US now :p still growing like topsy though... It will be interesting to see just how clever we can get and what pressures we can alleviate with technology.
     
  5. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    Yeah but its been warmer than now in periods pre industrial era and things where fine... they grew grapes in Scotand for gawd sake! {so I am told!}
     
  6. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member


    Wasn't referring to you Zed, I was referring to the one who will call me a conspiracy nut or some other unflattering adjective soon. Be careful of bringing up any historical data or he will start calling you names also. For that matter, you should refrain from bringing forth any data that even remotely contradicts his dogma. If he is in less than a sober state it really gets ugly.
     
  7. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    I have been sworn at :D... LOL... Yeah I know, that growth thing is a ponderer though.
     
  8. kach22i
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 2,414
    Likes: 111, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1222
    Location: Michigan

    kach22i Architect

    Sometimes you know something is right or wrong but you don't have all the understanding or reasons at hand.

    The way in which the oceans, atmosphere and land (down to the bubbling molten iron core) work together is just now being understood.

    Just as I can't prove there is no God, I can't claim there is no climate change happening just because I don't understand the exact details which may be causing it.

    I caught the last five minutes of an ABC climate crisis program last night. It looked at two paths our planet could go (through the life of Lucy), the current path and an alternate energy path.

    The current path is not nice at all, guess I hope to die before the "big change" takes effect.
     
  9. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    Nobody is claiming that the climate isn't changing... its is just a matter of why. If we cannot impact it why cause more suffering than is needed? I bet you I could shoot holes in that "doco", I find that most of these things are emotionally driven crap. They normally oversell alternate energy and over look simple realties, say for instance all the mining and exotic metal needed if we all want electric transport using current battery tech. So far alternates are interesting but they are not anything we can run economies on. We need some major break throughs in this area! From the alternate energy side this needs to be a long switch over because the tech is not there yet, from the oil side it needs to be a fast one because flows will halve in the next decade {sooner?}. The whole thing will get a big hurry up from high price oil soon enough. Shut down carbon emissions tomorrow and you will have a very sad today, never mind tomorrow!
     
  10. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Hey Punchinello B

    The graph's data source is identified as the same NOAA data set you posted in raw form. I did not get "caught lying on the forum" but rather you got caught exaggerating on the forum. It's not a big deal, though since you do that with almost every post anyway:D

    Here's a quote:

    "CO2 is rising in a straight line, well below the IPCC’s projected range (pale blue region). The deseasonalized real-world data are shown as a thick, darkblue
    line overlaid on the least-squares linear-regression trend. There is no sign of the exponential growth predicted by the IPCC. Data source: NOAA."

    Jimbo
     
  11. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    29_year_global_warming_trend-med.gif

    akasofu_ipcc.jpg

    Yep that IPCC really hits the mark on predictions:p

    Jimbo
     
  12. Knut Sand
    Joined: Apr 2003
    Posts: 471
    Likes: 30, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 451
    Location: Kristiansand, Norway

    Knut Sand Senior Member

    Stumbled upon this one:

    http://www.exxposeexxon.com/

    Some interesting "news" there....
    ( http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/gwdeniers.html )

    And the fact that IPCC have underestimated some of the predictions....? Why use that as an argument in the oposite way??:rolleyes:

    (kinda making argument for building cars without brakes (The "nobrakers"), while the other ("probrakers") side says brakes will make it stop in 30 meters, when tests are done, the car stops in 25 meter, the "nobrakers" say "hah! they're wrong!, not even that could they get right!!"), and uses that as an argument for no brakes..).:rolleyes:

    btw....Exxon aint alone in this world.....
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2009
  13. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Knut,

    All you have proven that you are capable of on this thread is 'tar and feathering' your opponents. All of your attempts at answering the technical merit of your opponents are pathetic failures.

    You could not make a credible case for positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor. Observational data shows that the feedback is in fact negative.

    You cloud not make a case for a significant attribution of nascent CO2 to anthropogenic (fossil fuel) emissions. Mass balance studies show that only a very small fraction can be so attributed.

    You can not show that recent warming (20th century, as the 21st century has been cooling) is in any way unusual compared to past climate change events.

    So go ahead and keep on tar and feathering, Knut. If you can't win at checkers, at least you can sweep the board off!

    Jimbo
     
  14. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    might be a good lesson for you about using phony information Jim
    you might want to check you sources next time
    cause I compared the NOAA co2 data to the graph you posted and its not it
    see what happens when you dont check your sources

    exagerate
    hardly
    if you google "97% of scientists agree" you will find countless references to that figure in regards to scientists
    with the vast majority not listing the two or so pages of disclaimers that go along with any poll
    and a rare few quantifying what scientists
    sorry but you guys are grasping at straws
     

  15. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 188, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    If I'm not wrong, because of the CO2 sinks (missing carbon problem) even at the present rate of some 26000 Mtons/year, accumulated anthropogenic CO2 in atmosphere is estimated as only being around 1/1000 of the whole set of greenhouse gasses at this moment (water vapour included).

    Cheers.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.