Log in or Sign up

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.

Page 540 of 755

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 135, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1307
Location: Heights of High Wycombe, not far from River Thames

Pericles Senior Member
Beware AGWarmists bearing ropes.

Lynchgate

Hello Guillermo,

Have been very busy over last few months renovating 1930s house with my three sons. Gutted the place and installed new central heating system, copious amounts of insulation, rewired and newly plastered throughout.

We await planning permission for a single storey extension and I'm sleeping in a large tent in the back garden. It's most comfortable.

If the weather gods continue to smile, we should be finished by early October. We have nearly completed one shower room, yet I still prefer taking my ablutions in the old bath, which is sat on the back patio. Filled with hot water via a hose, I lie back in the bath and watch the Red Kites circle overhead.

http://www.chilternsaonb.org/caring/red_kites_where.html

In the meantime, here's my favourite Thames side watering hole.

http://www.theferry.co.uk/

Best wishes,

Perry
Attached Files:
- Lynchgate.jpg
  
  File size:
  
  167.8 KB
  
  Views:
  
  150
Whilst entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts!

Pericles, Jun 29, 2010

#8086

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 135, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1307
Location: Heights of High Wycombe, not far from River Thames

Pericles Senior Member

AccuWeather

European weather forecast from Joe Bastardi. He is more reliable than the UK Met Office.

http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

Whilst entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts!

Pericles, Jun 29, 2010

#8087

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

Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

Hi Perry!
Nice birds, nice drinking place and nice weather site!
I wish you the biggest and warmest smiles from the weather gods, so you can happily finish your home improvements.
All the best.

Guillermo Gefaell
Gestenaval S.L., Naval Architecture & Marine Surveys

Guillermo, Jun 29, 2010

#8088

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,769
Likes: 350, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
Location: The Land of Lost Content

hoytedow Fly on the Wall - Miss ddt yet?

Pericles said: ↑

Lynchgate

Hello Guillermo,

Have been very busy over last few months renovating 1930s house with my three sons. Gutted the place and installed new central heating system, copious amounts of insulation, rewired and newly plastered throughout.

We await planning permission for a single storey extension and I'm sleeping in a large tent in the back garden. It's most comfortable.

If the weather gods continue to smile, we should be finished by early October. We have nearly completed one shower room, yet I still prefer taking my ablutions in the old bath, which is sat on the back patio. Filled with hot water via a hose, I lie back in the bath and watch the Red Kites circle overhead.

http://www.chilternsaonb.org/caring/red_kites_where.html

In the meantime, here's my favourite Thames side watering hole.

http://www.theferry.co.uk/

Best wishes,

Perry
Click to expand...

Beware Geeks bearing rifts.

"The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them." President Calvin Coolidge

hoytedow, Jun 29, 2010

#8089

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

Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

The worst kind of idiotic alarmism

Unbelievable
http://www.congress.org/soapbox/alert/15194771

Guillermo Gefaell
Gestenaval S.L., Naval Architecture & Marine Surveys

Guillermo, Jun 29, 2010

#8090

Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
Location: California

troy2000 Senior Member

Guillermo said: ↑

Unbelievable
http://www.congress.org/soapbox/alert/15194771
Click to expand...

I agree: that's idiotic alarmism.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The truth is that isolated pockets of humanity can probably hold out for at least another two or three hundred years.

Don't let the urgent displace the important...

troy2000, Jun 29, 2010

#8091

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 471
Likes: 30, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 451
Location: Kristiansand, Norway

Knut Sand Senior Member
Guillermo said: ↑

Unbelievable
http://www.congress.org/soapbox/alert/15194771
Click to expand...

Never thought I'd agree to any post from you...

On the other hand; The Gulf of Mexoco is big, like in real big. How can any human activity cause any environmental change there?

BP have an estimate of 100 000 (crude) Barrels/ day for their blunder (internal note)
The normal (world) oil production is estimated to be 85 472 000 Barrels/ day. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html )
So the size of produced oil compared to this oil spill is in a ratio of 1:855.

One barrel used gives approx 300 - 320 kg of CO2.

If we assume that some scienticts are right on measuring some of the ability of CO2, as a gas. It is a not a blind guess that the gas mixture (our atmosphere) will change, and towards the properties of that added gas.

Now, the next, thought experiment; place 855 stickers sized the gulf of Mexico around this globe...?

Where I'm kinda trying to get is:

When the oil is in the ground, we're not worrying too much about it.

When its around our ankles its clear that we've done something wrong somwhere along the path we're on.

When its far above our heads, we stop worrying, Its partly the same soup that we just had around our ankles, just somewhat lighter and mixed with a gas (O2)...

but 30-50 years... Naaahhh....
KnutS
"it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses"

Knut Sand, Jun 29, 2010

#8092

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

Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

Hi, Knut! A long time since we met here last time... And to my surprise you are agreeing with me....!

Now, talking norwegians:

Re: My post 8066
I have found the Fröhlich - Lean paper which the representative of the Norwegian goverment complained about it being the only document on Solar-Climate relationship at IPCC's AR4, 2007, and assesed by Lean herself as she was the only solar physicist in the lead authors panel. Here you have it:

The Sun's Total Irradiance: Cycles, Trends and Related Climate Change Uncertainties since 1976
Claus Fröhlich, Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Judith Lean, E.O. Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, U.S.A.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 25, NO. 23, PAGES 4377-4380, DECEMBER 1, 1998 !::!: :!: )

http://ieg.or.kr/abstractII/G0102523037.PDF

Do you remember Willson and Hoyt's critics to this work? Let me bring them here again for the short memoried or lazy ones:

"Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments... He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance...The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean's TSI proxy model."

If any of you know any other sun-climate related papers assessed by the IPCC WG1, I'll be glad to swallow my hat.

Guillermo Gefaell
Gestenaval S.L., Naval Architecture & Marine Surveys

Guillermo, Jun 29, 2010

#8093

Boston Previous Member

start eating

http://www.fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Internacional/HenrikSvensmark/svensmark_96_variations%20of.pdf

interesting that the name of the site is Fake Climate thought
if I have time it will be interesting to see exactly what I just posted

I dont have time to read this so if it was directly adressed by the IPCC WG1 Im not sure, but it did come up under IPCC solar climate relationship and the only other hits were by Lean

all I can say is hopefully you wont be going hungry tonight

PS
best of luck with the project Perry
I have done exactly the same kind of camping trip and as long as there's a shower handy its a great time
specially if you have your kids with you.

B

Boston, Jun 29, 2010

#8094

Boston Previous Member

well that was interesting
I just googled the authors name in association with Realclimate which is where a lot of the guys who are actually involved in the IPCC hand out and this article by several of them came up concerning the subject of my previous post

In a recent issue of the journal Astronomy and Geophysics (A&G), Henrik Svensmark coined a new term: ‘cosmoclimatology’ . I think ‘cosmoclimatology’ is a good and refreshing name for anything combining our cosmos with our climate. However, all other aspects of the article I found very disappointing. We have already covered most of these topics before, but the A&G articles provides us with some new aspects to discuss. Furthermore, Svensmark is the Director for Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, and therefore influential. He is also the co-author of a recent book with Nigel Calder that received some attention. Furthermore, a laboratory experiment of his also managed to make some headlines. It seems that solar forcing is one of the sceptics’ last trenches in the debate about climate change. In my view the A&G paper therefore merits a comment as long as the same old and worn arguments resurface without discussing misgivings from the critics.

There are a number of issues which really make the A&G paper poor in my view. One is the neglect in addressing old criticisms of the hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays (GCR) change our climate by modulating clouds (see here, here, & here). Svensmark is very vague on the lack of any trend in GCR or other solar proxies since 1952. I confronted him about this question on an European Geophysical Society (EGS) conference in Nice a few years ago, and have since published a paper also making the point. The A&G article makes selective references, without answering the serious criticism forwarded by Damon & Laut (2004), Laut (2003), or myself. To be fair, the critical paper by Kristjansson and Kristiansen (2000) is cited, albeit only to say that Svensmarks’s own conclusion is “a counter-intuitive finding for some critics“. The remaining treatment of critical aspects is completed in the A&G article without further qualifications other than the following passage (my emphasis):

The chief objection to the idea that cosmic rays influence cloudiness came from meteorologists who insisted that there was no mechanism by which they could do so. On the other hand, some atmospheric physicists concluded that observation and theory had failed to account satisfactorily for the origin of aerosol particles without which water is unable is unable to condense to make clouds.

I don’t think this is meant as a joke, and I don’t know if the article tries to make a point about classifying critics and supporters of his ideas as ‘meteorologists’ and ‘physicists’ (I’m a physicist). But that’s a tiny detail compared to the more substantial misconceptions embedded in this passage. There are plenty of ’seeds’ in the air on which water can form, also known as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). According to my old text book ‘A Short Course in Cloud Physics’ by Rogers and Yau (1989, p. 95 in Third edition): “Condensation nuclei of some sort are always present in the atmosphere in ample numbers: clouds form whenever there are vertical air motions and sufficient moisture”. The CCN tend to consist of mineral dust, sea salt, or sulphur-based matter.

I have serious misgivings concerning the following – vague yet false – statement put forward in the A&G article :

Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al., 2001) have been less conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule.

Again, no further qualifications or references. The irony is that Svensmark ignores (in addition to the lack of trend in GCR) the fact that the night-time temperature has risen faster than the day-time temperature, which I did pester him about on a Nordic Meteorology Meeting in Copenhagen in 2002. A journalist from Jyllands Posten present at the conference got the message, as my criticism was echoed in a news report the following day (“Klimaforskere i åben krig” [translation 'Climate researchers in open war'], May 28, 2002): It’s tricky to explain how a warming caused by decreasing albedo would be stronger at the night-side (dark) of the planet.

Another newer puzzle is the surprisingly good correlation between low clouds and GCR (se figure below), since higher clouds (global mean cover ~13%) or middle clouds (~20%) which are not influenced by GCR, mask the lower ones (which represents between 28% and 30% of the globe). It’s indeed a surprisingly good fit between the two curves in the A&G article (reproduced below), considering the time structure of both the high-cloud, middle-cloud, and low-cloud curves, and the satellites cannot see the low-level clouds where there are higher clouds above blocking the view. The fact that the variations are small (~1% amplitude!) compared to the total area, suggest that the overlap/masking effect by the higher cloud must be very small for a high correlation to shine through the upper clouds. Even if the clouds hypothetically were completely determined by GCR, one would expect to see deterioration of the correlation if viewed from above due to the presence of higher clouds not influenced by GCR. Another issue is that the cloud data used in this analysis was only based on the infra-red (IR) channel, and a better analysis would include the visible observations too, but if the visible data are included, then the correlation is lower (private communications, Jørn Kristjansen).

Extracts of Figures 2 & 3 in Svensmark 2007

On a more technical note, there seems to be inconsistencies between the GCR presented in Fig 2 and 3 in the A&G article (see red circles in the plot above), and this is not explained in the article. In Fig. 3 (left panel above) the GCR count increases by 10% but the maximum value is about 0% in Fig. 2 (right panel above), and the minimum value is abut -18% in Fig 3 but only -13% in Fig 2. It seems as if Fig 2 & 3 were based on different data sources. To be fair, both GCR and ISCCP are continuously updated and revised. But I am surprised that routine update and revision would result in as large differences as seen here. It looks as if the curve has been readjusted at some stage, but it is then a bit strange that the curve representing the global lower cloud cover doesn’t seem to have been re-scaled: the difference between maximum and minimum is about 3% in both figures (it’s annoying that the vertical axis for the cloud cover are given in different units in Fig.2 & 3). Is this important? I don’t know. But it could be a sign of sloppy work. There is not sufficient information about methodology that I could repeat the results presented here.

The adjusted cloud dataLow level clouds. Global ISCCP low cloud cover from IR measurements

Svensmark must have adjusted the cloud data too. Shown below is a figure from a previous paper where he justified an adjustment from a break in the difference between low and high clouds. The question is: why would the error be in the lower cloud measurements and not the high clouds? I haven’t seen any other independent statements about breaks or problems in the data series for low clouds after ~1995. Apparently, there are some biases in the ISCCP data, and Stordal et al. (2005) suggest that there is a spurious “footprint” from METEOSAT imprinted on the high (cirrus) clouds, and the problems with the ISCCP trends are now becoming well known. Besides, the fundamental error Marsh and Svensmark made in their ‘correction’ has discussed before, but since this issue keeps re-appearing, the ‘adjustment’ is shown again (left) while the ‘adjustment’ cannot be discerned in independent plots of the most recent data (right, and a second opinion sought in an independent analysis by K. Gislefoss).

In the A&G article, GCRs get the blame for the ‘snowball earth‘ episodes, and Svensmark writes:

A surprising by-product of this line of enquiry is a new perspective on changing fortunes of life over 3.5 billion years ago.

Extract from figure 4 in Svensmark 2007 Furthermore, the paper claims to explain the ‘faint sun paradox‘, by the complete absence of low clouds because there were allegedly no GCR at the time. Presumably, it is seriously meant. Proposing that the GCR is the only factor affecting low clouds, is inconsistent with the result shown in his very own Fig. 4 (the scatter plot shown left). In the A&G article, Fig 4 doesn’t really show the relationship between GCR and clouds, but between ion density and numbers of ultra-small (radius greater than 3 nano-meters) aerosol nucleation. The large scatter suggests that the number of ultra-small aerosols is fairly weakly affected by the number of ions – otherwise all the points would lie close to the diagonal line. This implies that other factors must influence the formation of ultra-small aerosols in addition to some effect due to ionization. And this is only in the laboratory environment – on the outside of Svensmark’s test chamber, more factors may play a role.

In the laboratory experiment ‘SKY’, UV-light was modulated to mimic the variations in the Sun, but it is not clear whether the effects observed due to changes in the UV are transferable to GCR. The experiment also involved natural GCR (as opposed to a particle beam which presumably would be easier to control), supplemented with gamma rays. Then the aerosols were according to the article stable ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid. So, what about the larger aerosols which play a role in cloud formation? According to “Atmospheric particles and nuclei” by Götz et al. (1991), Junge (1963) proposed on the basis of aerosol measurements that ‘large’ and ‘giant’ particles (radius greater than 0.1 micro-meter) constitute the majority of CCN, independently of their chemical composition. Besides, the Köhler curve (also see here) based on theoretical work from 1926 and onwards indicates that droplets only start to grow spontaneously only the droplet is greater than a critical size (they are then ’supercritical’). The number of sulphuric aerosols is also influenced by the availability of sulphur in general. The amount of sulphur can vary, e.g. with the combustion of fossil fuels, volcanic eruptions, as well as due to biological activity (i.e. through the emission of dimethyl sulphide, or ‘DMS’; Götz et al. ,1991, p. 108), and presumably the number of sulphuric acid clusters formed over the past billion years can have been affected by several of geological factors. Besides, it is the vapour pressure (or ’supersaturation’) which really control whether cloud drops or not, seeing as aerosols tend to be around anyway. I also have some general questions regarding isotopic evidence from pre-historic times. Are isotopes from the distance past only created by GCR bombarding Earth’s atmosphere or could there be other sources? Could some be introduced by meteorite/astroid impacts, volcanic activity, or different emission of radon gas from Earth’s interior?

I would expect the albedo effect presented by clouds to be weak over the mostly snow/ice covered Antarctica, but Svensmark argues that the clouds here warm rather than cool the temperature. This claim is not quantified. Is he suggesting some GHG-effect kicking in during the Antarctic winters? Is the sense/chronology of causation really determined? What about temperature affecting the cloudiness (e.g. advection of mild and moist air), and the role of circulation patterns? For sure, there is no simple one-way relationship. I think that the A&G article is bit too cavalier about the complexity involved in the atmospheric processes. The cavalier attitude seems to be a trademark of cosmoclimatology.

I presume that many celestial bodies and complicated calculation of gravitational pull must make the modelling of the galaxy dynamics difficult, and star formation processes must have altered the distribution of mass and hence the gravitational field. So, surely the dynamics of the stars over billions of years can be characterised as chaotic? Is it really possible to re-construct the constellations and our solar systems trajectory around the galaxy more than 2 billion years ago with a precision which precedes that of calculating the effect of increasing the GHG concentrations at present day? Is the story as simple as the one narrated by Svensmark? He even suggests that his ideas amount to a paradigm shift, that ’scientifically speaking’ is as secure as the prevailing paradigm of AGW. I find this sweeping statement a bit puzzling as no further qualification is made on the matter of AGW. Exactly what are the weak points in the AGW paradigm? I wonder if Svensmark really knows what he talks about.

It is possible that GCRs do have an effect on climate through the modulation of clouds, but I don’t think it is very strong. I also think that Svensmark’s claims are wildly exaggerated, but most of my objection lies in the way the arguments have been presented in this A&G article. I have the impression that the A&G article comes from the same school as “The Skeptical Environmentalist“, which also has been criticised for cherry picking references to make mere speculation appear as more solidly founded. To ignore aspects that don’t fit the hypothesis is definitely not science. Neither is adjusting data so to provide a good fit without a solid and convincing justification. Science, however, means objectivity, transparency, repeatability, and in principle the possibility of falsification. Furthermore, it is only a lack of respect for the readers to publish an article that doesn’t provide all relevant sides to the story. I hope that Svensmark reads my comments and responds to them here at RealClimate. I also hope that this is read by scholars and journalists who start asking the critical questions. I do not know the answer to the questions that I pose here, so I’d be interested to hear your view.

AcknowledgementsThanks to Jørn Kristiansen for comments and input to my post and Kristian Gislefoss for one figure on global low cloudiness.
Click to expand...

anyway it kinda looks like your going to go hungry this time Guillermo cause Im not so sure that this article was given very strong consideration by IPCC WG1 as you specified in your dietary plans
looks like they reviewed it but felt it was not up to snuff to make it into the literature

cheers and best to all
B

Boston, Jun 29, 2010

#8095

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 113
Likes: 28, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 240
Location: Sydney

Marco1 Senior Member

Why Global Warming is Bull ****.

Sydney and Melbourne are experiencing temperatures that are the lowest in 60 years this winter.

That is enough science for me.

There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
Aldous Huxley

Marco1, Jun 30, 2010

#8096

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

Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

Boston, please do not come again with your usual distracting maneouvres posting here already known info about Realclimate's opinions on Svensmark's work and the like (you have posted about this before). Please post only those documents you know for sure have been asessed by the WG1 at IPPC R4, please. Or then eat your hat.

Cheers.

Guillermo Gefaell
Gestenaval S.L., Naval Architecture & Marine Surveys

Guillermo, Jun 30, 2010

#8097

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 0
Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
Location: Andover

Mariyaa New Member

re:effect of global warming

A report by economist Ross Garnaut has warned Australia must take a lead role in tackling climate change or risk becoming the most badly damaged country in the developed world.

Professor Garnaut has handed down his interim report on carbon emissions targets and the creation of an emissions trading scheme today.

The report was commissioned by the federal, state and territory governments to help develop major policies on climate change.

_________________
http://www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com/

Mariyaa, Jun 30, 2010

#8098

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

Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

http://www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com/global-warming/ :!: :!: :!:
In my humble opinion that site is trying to make business from the worst kind of alarmism.
"Calamity Meter", "Global Warming Survival..." etc, etc

Guillermo Gefaell
Gestenaval S.L., Naval Architecture & Marine Surveys

Guillermo, Jun 30, 2010

#8099
Advertisement:

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE=JavaScript></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT><A HREF="https://www.boatdesign.net/cgi-bin/ads/ads.pl?zone=allforum;banner=NonSSI;page=01" TARGET=top><IMG SRC="https://www.boatdesign.net/cgi-bin/ads/ads.pl?zone=allforum;page=01" WIDTH=728 HEIGHT=90 ALT=Advertisement BORDER=0></A></NOSCRIPT>

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,769
Likes: 350, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
Location: The Land of Lost Content

hoytedow Fly on the Wall - Miss ddt yet?

Mariyaa said: ↑

A report by economist Ross Garnaut has warned Australia must take a lead role in tackling climate change or risk becoming the most badly damaged country in the developed world.

Professor Garnaut has handed down his interim report on carbon emissions targets and the creation of an emissions trading scheme today.

The report was commissioned by the federal, state and territory governments to help develop major policies on climate change.

_________________
http://www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com/
Click to expand...

When did Australia become part of the "developed" world? I thought it was the land of toothy crocs and taipans, boomerangs and brown snakes, platypuses and picturesque places. It sounds more like you are trying to crush capitalism and create crises.

Last edited: Jul 1, 2010

"The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them." President Calvin Coolidge

hoytedow, Jun 30, 2010

#8100

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 540 of 755

< Good manners | Question for the shipyards - Hydraulic Trailers? >

Loading...

Similar Threads

Climate change

rasorinc, Oct 25, 2014, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

22

Views:

2,371

rxcomposite

Oct 27, 2014
Climate Change is Political Football, Not Just a Complex Subject

El_Guero, Sep 5, 2013, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

1

Views:

1,143

Boat Design Net Moderator

Sep 5, 2013
Climate Change is a Complex Subject, Not Just a Political Football

troy2000, Aug 19, 2013, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

168

Views:

11,729

troy2000

Sep 4, 2013
The Climate Change Hoax

gonzo, Nov 29, 2009, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

675

Views:

43,416

Boat Design Net Moderator

Aug 15, 2013
Climate change falsehood

gonzo, May 26, 2009, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

587

Views:

46,126

Boat Design Net Moderator

Jul 14, 2013
How will Climate Change change our boating world, and what can be done?

Grant Nelson, Mar 24, 2008, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

21

Views:

3,278

safewalrus

Mar 29, 2008
Rapid Global Climate Shift and its socio-economic effects

Boston, Dec 17, 2011, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

162

Views:

12,339

Boston

Jan 5, 2012
ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

Boston, Jan 10, 2011, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

4,617

Views:

309,315

Boat Design Net Moderator

May 9, 2013
Water Skiing in Warmer Climates

hmattos, Nov 2, 2008, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

9

Views:

1,462

hmattos

Dec 7, 2008
Cruising boats flee Thailand after rules change

brian eiland, Mar 8, 2014, in forum: All Things Boats & Boating

Replies:

0

Views:

1,357

brian eiland

Mar 8, 2014

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.