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

    While I don't believe the results of the Rasmussen poll have any bearing on the validity of AGW, I do believe that our elected representatives have the duty to follow our wishes or suffer the consequences at the ballot box. So let me pose this question. Should the United States Congress be bound by the wishes and the views of the constituents who elected them, or should they function as elitists and do what they feel is best?


    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...rrent_events/environment_energy/energy_update
     
  2. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    UOTE=Jimbo1490;326983]"USAnians" are BY FAR the most charitable people on earth, either by total amount given, or by per capita. About every 4 years, USAnians give away ONE TRILLION dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) to charity. That pace actually INCREASED in 2008 and 2009, each of these years exceeding three hundred billion dollars ($300, 000, 000, 000). USAnians are blessed, and they know it and show it.

    Jimbo[/QUOTE]

    You have a lot of nerve trying to confuse the rhetoric with facts Jimbo:p
     
  3. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    Eddy, our leaders have already shown that they will lay their careers on the block with healthcare even tho their constituancy does not want it. "Should" and "would" elicit entirely different answers!
     
  4. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    OK, I've deleted my post. I'll try to be good...
     
  5. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member


    The poll results on the health care "reform" were very much a mixed bag depending on the way the questions were formed and the results of that won't be felt for a couple of years, plus they have a backstop, if it proves too unpopular, they can repeal it before it takes effect. On AGW though the message is clear, the public clearly does not believe the alarmist scientists, they don't consider it urgent, and they don't think it is worth wrecking the economy for. With so many democrat congressmen already headed for the unemployment line I don't see them expending their remaining capital on an issue that is seen as a non-starter by the majority of Americans.
     
  6. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 191, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Well, Dave, thanks a lot. Let's only leave religion out of debate here, as probably politics cannot be. In fact politics are within this thread from its very beginning. But let's do it in a civilized and respetuous manner and just relating to this thread's debate on global warming, so the policies being adopted on this issue. We'll all be more happy.

    Not only Mr. Ban Ki Moon has received letters from scientists.

    More than 60 German scientists and 189 German business leaders sent an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel July 26, asking her to reconsider her stance on man-made climate change. The letter describes the belief in genocidal man-made climate change as a “pseudo religion,” and also attacks Merkel for making the issue a high priority, noting that as a physicist she should know better.

    The letter states: “Humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead, temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998—more than 10 years—and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.” “More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the letter continues. “Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.”

    But she has not listened, as she keeps on going ahead with her thinking about AGW: "In our knowledge, however, there has never been so rapid an increase in temperatures as predicted by science today", Chancellor Merkel said recently. As you can see, this misunderstanding of facts it's not only my friend Boston's problem :) . Even a person as clever as Merkel is being mislead by the biased information "the Team" and their minions have produced on climate change.

    But it is intersting to realize the exact wording Merkel used: "....as predicted by science today." Do you realize? She didn't say "..as proved by science today" or the like.

    So, what is in the roots of Merkel's beliefs? Probably this: "I can assure the citizens that active climate protection will also improve our economic future. Whoever captures the market for environment technology first, wins long term export opportunities and creates valuable job opportunities. Germany already has an outstanding framework in place with more than a quarter of a million jobs in the renewable sector alone."

    Read the recent interesting interview with Chancellor Merkel at:
    http://www.germanyandafrica.diplo.d..._Merkel__BAMS__Interv,archiveCtx=2076568.html


    Cheers.
     
  7. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 191, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    A common claim from GWA is that malaria is spreading as a consequence of global warming. Well, that's another fallacy trying to be imposed to all of us. The main problem to control malary has been the banning of DDT in the seventies. Between 1945 and 1971, malaria was eradicated in 27 countries with a total population of over 700 million, but it returned in later years when the use of DDT was prohibited worldwide. The sponsors from the United States and rich European countries decided that because of the ban, it was unlawful to support the eradication of malaria with DDT. Without financial support, DDT was withdrawn from malaria programs and the results were immediate and disastrous. Millions of poor people in tropical countries again were dying from malaria. Thanksfully the World Health Organization "cayó de la burra" in September 2006 and gave a clean bill of health to the use of DDT for indoor spraying for controlling malaria, reversing the 30-year ban on DDT.

    It has been estimated that the banning of DDT since 1972 has led to 60 million needless deaths, mainly from malaria in developing countries, especially in Africa. To grasp the magnitude of this crime, in the whole of the 20th Century, road accidents worldwide claimed half this number, 30 million lives.

    That's what today neo-Malthusianists are trying to get: the eliminating of millions of human beings by not allowing poor countries to have enough cheap energy to improve their life standards and keeping them always dependant on technologies developed at the rich countries (Mrs. Merkel....?), not allowing them access to products able to eradicate maladies like malary, dengue or AIDS by banning DDT and obstaculizing the access to generics, etc, etc.

    A very, very sad situation still unconsciously backed up by millions of the "nice thinking people" in this world. :(

    Here an interesting reading: The True Story of DDT, PCB, and Dioxin


    Cheers.

    P.S. The WHO thing on DDT gives me some hope we, the Cool Brigade, still have chances to finally bring reason on the climate change issues. Ahead, the Cool Brigade! :D
     
  8. masrapido
    Joined: May 2005
    Posts: 263
    Likes: 35, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 330
    Location: Chile

    masrapido Junior forever

    And how exactly will that make you smarter than you already are? As little as that is?

    Marxism is science, capitalism is nazism. We won once, we'll win again. Ignoring me will change nothing to save your sinking float because it is rotten to the core.

    I am the future, you and your Osama bin presidente are the past. Hasta la vista...
     
  9. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    While I ignore the marxist wackjob I will post some other points. Socio-economic changes have always been at the forefront of the AGW agenda. Zero growth economics is the only way we can decrease C02 emissions in the developed nations as wind and solar will never be anything but supplemental. As the supply of oil dwindles, and the price increases wind and solar may become closer in price but will still be unreliable. That the IPCC is in favor of zero-growth is evident in the way that they withold carbon credits for the use of hydro and nuclear power. Hydro and nuclear are both cheap and offer unlimited continuous energy with next to zero green house gas emissions. In the United States alone, greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by over 70% if we substituted nuclear power for electricity generation and used the inexpensive electricity to replace fossil fuels for home heating. Further this would extend the life of domestic oil supplies for the forseeable future and make the United States genuinely energy independent. Further, nuclear power could be used to supply the energy for HTE hydrogen production to fuel cars reducing HC and NOX gases and extending the domestic fuel supplies even farther. Now while this may seem to only address the U.S., by addressing the U.S., who according to the eco-nazis is the biggest bogeyman, the supply of petroleum is extended worldwide and the 25% of global greenhouse gases we supposedly produce(has anyone ever checked that number??) would be drasticly reduced. Modern nuclear plant designs are far safer than fossil fuel plants. More workers were killed in fossil fuel plants yesterday than have ever died from radiation poisoning in the history of nuclear power production in the United States. The disposal issue is a phoney political one pushed by the no-growth nuts. The 60 plus billion the U.S. has spent so far on Yucca Mountain has been a waste. Each nuclear plant could easily build it own permanent storage facility on a footprint of less than two acres for far less money than we are contemplating for Yucca Mountain and with far less transportation saftey issues. That the "scientific consesus" refuses to consider nuclear power as a solution proves that they are more interested in social engineering and politics than a real solution to a problem they know cannot be solved by anthropogenic mitigation tactics like cap and trade. Their goal is energy rationing in order to control growth. They then can control economic growth and hand it out nation by nation as one would reward a well behaving child. This is the mentality we are fighting.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2009
    1 person likes this.
  10. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 191, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Warming by just warming?

    If we cannot blame anthropogenic CO2 as the main driving factor of the mild increase of surface temperatures during industrial times, I wondered if the energy we consume could be blamed instead. This is, I wondered if we could be directly warming the athmosphere with the energy we use and consume.

    So I worked out some quick numbers.

    For the whole Earth, with a cross section of 127,400,000 km2, the total Sun energy rate is 174 petawatts (1.740×10^17 W), plus or minus 3.5%. This value is the total rate of solar energy received by the planet. About half of that, 89 PW, reaches the Earth's surface.

    In 2008, humankind total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules (5×10^20 J). This is equivalent to an average power consumption rate of 15 terawatts (1.504×10^13 W).

    (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption#Alternative_energy_paths )

    One petawatt is equal 1000 terawatts. This means total human power comsumption taken as a contribution to the power acting on the surface of Earth, is presently in the range of 15 / 89.000, this is, under 0.017%, when compared with that due to the Sun.

    So, if I'm not wrong, this doesn't seem enough for anykind of significative warming, in my opinion, as this figure is well under the 3.5% of "noise" of total Sun energy rate reaching surface.


    Cheers.
     
    2 people like this.
  11. Marco1
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 113
    Likes: 28, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 240
    Location: Sydney

    Marco1 Senior Member

    Guillermo, you assume all energy ends up as heating. Since a fair amount (?) is used up as a different form of energy, the direct contribution to warming the athmosphere is probably much smaller.
     
  12. Marco1
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 113
    Likes: 28, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 240
    Location: Sydney

    Marco1 Senior Member

    Spot on Guillermo, the creation of the global warming religion has many adepts. You get the sincere yet misled, the sincerely wrong, the wishful thinking glad, the enviro extremist, the green at all cost, the end justify the means... yet all of this are just boy scouts when compared to the one who from a position of power are taking advantage of the "believers".
    In true TV evangelist fashion, they take the donations whilst screwing the cheer leaders backstage. The very creation of the global warming fraud had only one purpose and one only, and that is to concentrate power across country boundaries, and across political divide, uniting for the first time in human history left and right, environmentalist and conservative, alternative and churchgoers all in one block, the fearful mob who believes what they are told because of scientific so called consensus. The "we must do something" mob.
    Never in human history has there been such a big chance to mislead the whole world into believing a lie and con them into paying taxes towards a mythical solution to a non existing problem. Every single dictator in human history would have given his right arm for this opportunity. Trillions of dollars to throw around and pretend to be grand...who would pass this chance? Who would be so foolish as to uncover the con? This is the emperor's new cloths at the power of 1000 and counting.

    The best part is that the fraud is in the open and the world is slowly waking up in disbelief to this fact. What will happen next? How are all this degenerates going to get out of being dragged to court and throw in jail for, fraud, conspiracy to fraud, grand larceny and 100 more charges I can think of?
    Watch this page, it will happen sooner rather than later, one by one the politicians will fold and find excuses to take the back door exit.
     
  13. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    This was discussed before, though you are the first in the thread to have done the math and put numbers to the hypothesis. My guess was that we are at lest 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller than solar radiation, and your number confirmed that guess as correct at ~4 orders of magnitude.

    The same argument could be made for anthropogenic CO2, which at 8Gt annually at present, is less than the monthly and seasonal variations of +/- 7ppm, where each ppm represents ~2Gt, so that the monthly and seasonal variation in CO2 concentration is +/- 14 Gt.

    Jimbo
     
  14. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 191, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Jim.
    this thread is already so long that it's difficult to remember all of what has been posted and discussed, so we have become circular a while ago. But from time to time some new info or newcomer pops in and it's good to refresh memory and concepts.

    The figure I used for human contribution to energy on the surface includes the renewables and also, as Marc correctly points out, the energy not lost as heat, so the real anthropogenic figure is even lower than the asumed 15 terawatts.

    So it is evident we cannot blame anthropogenic CO2 or direct heating as culprits for the warming.



    Marc,
    “Global Warming” is, and always was, a policy for (may I say "genocidal"?) reduction of the world’s population. The preposterous claim that human-produced carbon dioxide will broil the Earth, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life, came out of a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, organized by the influential anthropologist Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

    It was at this government sponsored conference, 34 years ago, that virtually every scare scenario in today’s climate hoax took root. Scientists were charged with coming up with the “science” to back up the scares, so that definitive action could be taken by policy-makers. Global cooling—the coming of an ice age—had been in the headlines in 1975, but it could not easily be used to sell the citizens of industrial nations a fundamentalist cut back on consumption mantra. Something more drastic and more personal was needed.

    Mead’s population-control policy was firmly based in the post-Hitler eugenics movement, which took on the more palatable names of “conservation” and “environmentalism” in the post-World War II period. Mead stated: "Only if natural scientists can develop ways of making their statements on the present state of danger credible to each other can we hope to make them credible (and understandable) to social scientists, politicians, and the citizenry". Throughout her presentation, Mead stressed the need for consensus, an end-product free from any troubling “internal scientific controversies” that might “blur the need for action.”

    Mead and her co-organizer William W. Kellogg (a climate scientist from RAND and later NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research), edited a report on the proceedings of the conference into a little book published a year later (The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering) The Mead-Kellogg team also came up, in 1976, with the idea that carbon dioxide emissions should be controlled “by assigning polluting rights to each nation”, an early version of the cap-and-trade program of Al Gore.

    Thirty-four years after this 1975 conference, the world’s population, its science, technology and industry are dangerously in the grasp of Margaret Mead’s minions, including those on the IPCC. A good part of the population is scared, as planned, by the potential effects of human-caused global warming. They are ready to react, as Mead demanded, to “warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane,” and in the process tear down the very institutions and technologies that can obviate the perceived “limits to growth.”

    In the intervening 34 years, most of our scientific institutions have been taken over by an anti-science ideology, typified by the views of a Stephen Schneider or a John Holdren. How can there be a science when the mind and its capacity for creativity is denied, when man is put equal to beast, and when man’s advancements are perceived as ruining the pristine confines of a limited world? Such pessimism is a formula for a “no future” world.

    The question remains, will the reservoir of sanity, in particular in today’s youth, who did not live through the greenwashing of the 1970s and 1980s, be able to force reality—climate reality and financial reality—on the rest of the population? Will the Noösphere, man’s creative ability to change the Biosphere, prevail?


    Cheers.

    (Note: text adapted from an article from Marjorie Mazel Hecht)
     

  15. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 191, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    It seems that the "Global Cimate Change" stuff does not specially rise the conciousness of the people on Earth at this moment.

    At the "Global Conciousness Project", currently going on, the analysis of the "Action 350 for Climate" got a Z-score of -0.220 and probability of 0.587. This event is in a series of peace and world healing days, and was set as a formal event by the GCP, using the whole 24 hour GMT day and a 64 EGGs network.

    The Z-score for an item, indicates how far and in what direction, that item deviates from its distribution's mean, expressed in units of its distribution's standard deviation.

    If there were no deviating effect, the jagged line representing the results would have a level trend, wandering randomly up and down near the horizontal zero line. An special positive reaction would have showed a trend over the horizontal, as that of the death of Michael Jackson, with p = 0.153 and Z = 1.024, or the Obama nov 4, 2008 speech. This means the "Action 350 for climate" event did not specially raised the consciousness of a vast number of the world’s people–likely focused on the event, but rather failed to do so. The average of Z is 0.33 over the full GCP database.

    Action 350 for the Climate: An International Day of Climate Action was set for October 24, 2009. People in 181 countries came together for the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet's history. In over 5200 events around the world people gathered to call for strong action and bold leadership on the climate crisis. The movement was also present at Copenhague.

    The Global Consciousness Project , also called the EGG Project, is an international, multidisciplinary collaboration of 100 scientists, engineers, artists and others. They collect data continuously from a global network of physical random number generators located in 65 host sites around the world. The archive contains more than 10 years of random data in parallel sequences of synchronized 200-bit trials every second.

    Their purpose is to examine subtle correlations that may reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. They predict structure in what should be random data, associated with major global events. When millions of us share intentions and emotions the GCP/EGG network data show meaningful departures from expectation.

    The EGGs are computers running software to collect a 200-bit sample once per second from an attached REG (random event generators), and to send the data over the internet to a server where it is archived and analysed.


    Cheers.
     

    Attached Files:

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.