Are the Seas getting more Violent?

[Matt sachs]

Go back 40 years, replace "global warming" with "impending ice age" and this thread would be accepted as fact by those that thought they actually know what they are doing too. (we would have to first explain what the internet, and a thread is) :-).....Oh, and +1 on what Newt said.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As part of getting older I've given up any notion of trying to save the world. That was me in my younger days. Today, going cruising in a modest sailboat is very much my attempt to stop contributing as much to the social, economic, AND environmental problems facing my favourite little blue planet. The high-resource culture of the developed world, coupled with over-population of the rest, is pushing our planet's systems into new and unstable arrangements. I can't change this, but I can change my personal contribution. I can stop being part of the problem. Cruising is a way I can do this -- or at least get closer to this ideal.

I understand that. And I too enjoy leaving it all at the dock and getting away. But I'd challenge us all not to give up trying to save the planet; don't give up speaking up for what is right. This is the only planet our kids will have, and though the task seems impossible in the face of what you mentioned, that is not necessarily a good reason to give up, is it? Sure, doing more on a personal level is important, but it is not enough. I remember years ago in a class taught by Garret Hardin, a very well-known ecologist we spent 3 months going over basically how trends, research and theories pointed to no hope for the future of humankind. The last day of class a student asked him if he cried at night. His response was surprising, he was optimistic as long as people stayed active and well-informed... and he added, what choice do we have? My take is that we should do our part, and a little more, locally, right where you are, and our children will benefit. It's not for us, it is for them we do these things.

[hpeer]

I don't think I've ever read a book on climate doom that did not conclude with "despite all the previous information I remain cautiously optimistic."

I recently listened to interviews by Farley Mowat and James Lovelock. They were both "optimistic." I don't recall Lovelock's comments well enough to comment, but they were somewhat similar to Farley's. Farley was optimistic that Earth would survive the human pest, and that life would reestablish itself in our absence.

We all take what solace we can find.

Interviews are on "The Green Interview" hosted by Silver Don Cameron.

Tons of 'em. Good stuff.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I don't think I've ever read a book on climate doom that did not conclude with "despite all the previous information I remain cautiously optimistic."

I recently listened to interviews by Farley Mowat and James Lovelock. They were both "optimistic." I don't recall Lovelock's comments well enough to comment, but they were somewhat similar to Farley's. Farley was optimistic that Earth would survive the human pest, and that life would reestablish itself in our absence.

We all take what solace we can find.

Interviews are on "The Green Interview" hosted by Silver Don Cameron.

Tons of 'em. Good stuff.

ok that got a chuckle out of me! I am sure Earth will survive too! It's not Earth of even life in general I am worried about! My dad always said he had the solution for air pollution: everyone just hold your breath for 10 minutes!

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Ah, Ted Cruz. With a fact-checking record that rivals Sarah Palin's for being consistently wrong:
Ted Cruz says satellite data show the globe isn’t warming. This satellite scientist feels otherwise - The Washington Post

Ted Cruz ,he got his start on SLN didnt he?? What a funny fella..

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Now, as far as violent seas, records of average wave heights and wind speeds and such are out there, and it seems most (not all) are showing an upward trend, which makes sense given average temp increases.

Actually, it doesn't make sense. Wind is not determined by temperature, but by temperature/pressure differentials. According to the climate scientists, the poles should warm much more than the tropics - resulting in a smaller temperature/pressure gradient between them and consequently lower winds.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Yeah, IMO the BOM forecasts are getting pretty close to being a waste of time. Every day I write them down, and always try to sail on a favourable forecast - and almost every time I wonder why I bothered.

These days I almost consider the forecasts as a guide to what WON'T be happening.

Yeah, lots of 10-15's where the sea looks like plate glass. Annoying even more when the wind veers 90 degrees from forecast. That one really ticks me off! Still probably better than the time the f/cast was 20-25 and it hit 35. Just happened to be 60 miles offshore in a 25 footer that day! As a fishing mate of mine once said - "The forecast will kill ya".

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Matt sachs

Go back 40 years, replace "global warming" with "impending ice age" and this thread would be accepted as fact by those that thought they actually know what they are doing too. (we would have to first explain what the internet, and a thread is) :-).....Oh, and +1 on what Newt said.

Not true. There was never a consensus on "impending ice age" -- far from it. That's just another misrepresentation of the denier crowd.

American Meteorlogical Society: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

Actually, it doesn't make sense. Wind is not determined by temperature, but by temperature/pressure differentials. According to the climate scientists, the poles should warm much more than the tropics - resulting in a smaller temperature/pressure gradient between them and consequently lower winds.

The strongest winds in the solar system are on the coldest planets. From memory the theory goes that the lack of turbulence caused by heat energy in the atmosphere allows winds to increase unhindered in speed.

[tropicalescape]

On the South coast of Guam is a village called Merizo (Malesso) when I first moved there one could surf the reef at CoCos island with waves 25 ft over head and 2 ft of water over the razor blades (reef) when the typhoons came in the right way..I was talking with a friend a few weeks back and asked him what the surf was like these days as i havent been on island for close to 5 yrs. he said that the waters edge was now on the roads edge,used to be 30 ft away or more just 20 years ago, and that the reef now produces 30 ft plus waves that have become way way to dangerous to ride due to the fact that there is no water covering the razor blades when this type swell develops.. He told me that in Truk (Chuuck) that they had lost several islands and lots more were going the same way, under water!! In Saipan you could walk around the island and look at the old tanks and war machines abandoned after the 2nd world war 20 yrs. ago at anytime now he says that you have to know where and when to look just to get a glance of what you could at one time climb on and get into from the shore..This only shows that the water has risen not the cause..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I don't think I've ever read a book on climate doom that did not conclude with "despite all the previous information I remain cautiously optimistic."

This is actually a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Most climate activists end their missives with some sort of irrational optimism, saying all we really need to do is change a few small things and all will be well, and most importantly it won't affect how we live our lives here in the rich developed world. BS. We need to do a lot more than change lightbulbs, or switch to electric cars. This will not solve the problems. The problem is we use too many of the Earth's resources. We are using them at unsustainable rates. We are chewing through the capital.

The only real solution is for all of us in the developed world to use less. And for the less developed world, they have to stop having so many children. This will likely mean a fairly significant drop in our standard of living (if by "standard of living" you only measured energy/resource use). Hopefully it will be a rise in the less-developed world, but only after population has come way down.

Originally Posted by hpeer

I recently listened to interviews by Farley Mowat and James Lovelock. They were both "optimistic." ... that Earth would survive the human pest, and that life would reestablish itself in our absence.

Absolutely. The planet is fine. Life is fine. It's just specific species, such as Homo Sapien, that are at risk. I'm pretty much in the Lovelock camp these days. We will continue to do what all successful species do: dominate its ecosystem until it hits an environmental barrier that brings the population in check. Unfortunately our ecosystem now includes most of the planet. Now that we're hitting the physical barriers we're dragging down many species with us. But so be it. The world will get along just fine without us.

Originally Posted by hpeer

Interviews are on "The Green Interview" hosted by Silver Don Cameron. Tons of 'em. Good stuff.

+! on this. Don's a friend and colleague. Everyone should subscribe to The Green Interview. It's money well spent

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The problem is we use too many of the Earth's resources.

That's not really the problem. The problem is we have too many users.

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by Group9

People (Al Gore, for one) tried to make the case that Hurricane Katrina was the result of global warming

then there is the fact that there has not been a hurricane to hit Florida since Wilma in 2005 but the alarmists told us the state would be pummelled into oblivion due to global warming. i guess it just goes to prove that the climate is indeed always changing

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

That's not really the problem. The problem is we have too many users.

Yup!

Not many good answers to that one though.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

That's not really the problem. The problem is we have too many users.

Thats right..After the Black Plague went away it made formally poor people rich as it created a demand for labor and services that would normally been serviced by generational workers..Fewer users yes, but also fewer skilled workers to do what needed doing so it inadvertently created a new class of workers that would not have had the opportunity to do such work before..Maybe we have to many users now also...