More Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs

[sabray]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The CFCs leaked out?

Should I be concerned or it will it fix itself without intervention?

[Andrew Troup]

The way I see it, sabray, you have three options:

1) Announce that you never liked ice very much anyway

2) Ring your local talkback station and explain your conspiracy theory, repeating until everyone believes you.

The conspiracy to misrepresent your ice non-production in alarmist terms will melt away, and ice-free normalcy will be restored

3) Get rid of the fluff stopping the heat energy radiating off the evaporator coils on the back. Your freezer will probably revert to working much the way it did.

[sabray]

Since my refrigerator is not making the amount of ice I need I have decided to comply with this treaty:
First we will open the ice box door 20 percent less then we do now.. Less ice box door opening means more ice. 20 percent more.
Second all fluff will be removed from the exchanger coils 10 percent faster then prior fluff removal mandates.
Third after dumping the ice cube tray we will refill the tray with water.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by sabray

Since my refrigerator is not making the amount of ice I need I have decided to comply with this treaty:
First we will open the ice box door 20 percent less then we do now.. Less ice box door opening means more ice. 20 percent more.
Second all fluff will be removed from the exchanger coils 10 percent faster then prior fluff removal mandates.
Third after dumping the ice cube tray we will refill the tray with water.

I fear for your safety, including but not limited to your kneecaps, Sabray (I hope that's not your real name and you don't really sail a Peterson and that you are posting through a proxy server with nine levels of isolation....)

You will be making a secret global cabal of scientists and politicians VERY unhappy by subverting their plot to achieve - whatever it is they are trying to achieve. No-one seems to be exactly sure.

Perhaps they get told it when they are initiated with the secret handshake. Yes, that must be it.

[sabray]

I thought I was humbly solving serious life threatening issues using common diplomatic terms and conditions.
Can you imagine if we all stopped opening our ice boxes.

[Lagoon4us]

Andrew i guess in the scheme of things the mix of delicate gases that we breathe have ratios, too much or too little of one causes an imbalance both to our wellbeing and our lifestyle.

My understanding is their has been a shift in where those actual gas concentrations now reside to say where they were 2 or 4 or 6 hundred years ago.

There is still the same amount of each gas, volumes haven't changed. The leaning of this thread was that Co2 was responsible for the climatic change that we are presently witnessing, i disagree with that as their's little scientific proof to back up the theory.

The planets climate has changed many times over history, cooling kills and a warming prosper. Instantaneously now we know of weather events or at least within the hour our reporting is immediate, the great unwashed blame every news event on 'CLIMATE CHANGE' however these events are weather NOT climate.

Joe Average strongly believes that climate should be stable either cold, mediocre or hot, he will often choose where to live based on his belief of stability, in his choice he will look at ******** weather mins and maxes for the area disregarding being in a cyclone belt.

But developers sell him land in historic flood plains, insurance companies accepting the 1 in a 100 year event to base their actuarial calculations upon BUT along comes some event i.e. two storm cells meet up and bang Joe Average is treading water looking to blame someone.

Eventually the blame shifts to whats popular at the time, these days it's Co2, was Global warming after holes in our ozone and nuclear tests prior (always a 'control' boogeyman) my belief is it's simply a cycle of climate which equates to a period of life, a planet cycle.

Pick my words apart, say as you wish i ignore no one but i'm interested in opinion so i build my knowledge some more.

I have no degrees, more an artisan than a scholar i guess, BUT i know ******** when i see it and if i doubt the depth of that ******** i try to find out more, disregarding that i appreciate your comments as you display a high degree of intelligence and tend to talk straight.

To set the record straight on my thoughts on our mutual predicament.
1) Climate is changing as it has before.
2) We are parasites in and by nature (pun intended).
3) The development of China and Asia may well tip the balance of pollution to total disaster unless EV transport is taken up and pollution reduced heating employed (can't see that happening).
4) Tourism both commercial and private is killing the natural beauty of places, i suspect this would be the greatest threat to the subject matter of this thread.
5) Eco-tourism must grow but it's not cheap and once again by nature humans demand cheap.
6)Fossil fuels will continue to be burnt, gas is way better BUT fracking will kill the water table by the very nature of the mechanics of extraction, my home town is installing 8 gas trains at present, i have experience knowledge here.
7)I believe climates largest driver is radiation in all forms from our sun.
8)A severe cooling may well answer all the worlds pollution by lowering the population immensely, it's happened before and methinks it shall again.

One thing our modern civilisation has lost is SURVIVAL INSTINCT should a cooling occur for say ten years (a mere fart compared to prior coolings) our modern knowledgable population will be decimated.

Andrew we depend on our life being delivered to our door, we work, we shop and we commute. We want warmth we flick a switch on the wall, we want knowledge we go to the airwaves. A severe climatic cooling stops all that instantly. Crops fail, power stops, transport stops, communication ceases. Our day to day becomes a search for warmth, shelter and food. People expect others to provide their comfortable existence in return for the exchange of money this will be our demise.

Critique me by all means, i'd like to have this discussion over a beer in the cockpit (home brewed) it's just my opinion and i have no degrees but i do have experience in life.

Cheers

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by sabray

I thought I was humbly solving serious life threatening issues using common diplomatic terms and conditions.
Can you imagine if we all stopped opening our ice boxes.

no no no

you don't understand. The ice in your icebox was not "REALLY" melting.

Sure, it was "anecdotally" melting, it should have been melting according to simple physics, it was expected melting according to scientific predictions, it was filmed melting in exquisite time-lapse photographic detail.... but these things are all manipulations of reality by the cabal whose name must not be uttered.

You've basically buggered things up, because, because ....

Look, it's perfectly simple. They need to pretend the ice is melting so that we will do their evil bidding.

Whatever that is.

[Andrew Troup]

Lagoon

Thanks for reaching out,

I'm very moved by the openness your message indicates. I will try to respond to the spirit as well as the content.

Let me think about it, and respond in kind .... and I would love to have that chat sometime, over a 'cool one'

(and I'm NOT going to take the opportunity to insert a cheap gratuitous segue from that unplanned opportunity !)

[sabray]

Critique me by all means, i'd like to have this discussion over a beer in the cockpit (home brewed) it's just my opinion and i have no degrees but i do have experience in life.
Just curious is that beer on ice and if yes could I come by and share my opinion too. Guess that was a cheap but earnest offer

[Lagoon4us]

Mate the beer is always there it's just the Rum has gone (don't know why)!!!!!
Don't knock your hands will be full. Cheers

[sabray]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

no no no

you don't understand. The ice in your icebox was not "REALLY" melting.

Sure, it was "anecdotally" melting, it should have been melting according to simple physics, it was expected melting according to scientific predictions, it was filmed melting in exquisite time-lapse photographic detail.... but these things are all manipulations of reality by the cabal whose name must not be uttered.

You've basically buggered things up, because, because ....

Look, it's perfectly simple. They need to pretend the ice is melting so that we will do their evil bidding.

Whatever that is.

Thanks I am pretending my beer is cold and doesn't taste anything like swamp water sucked off the hairs of a wet dog.
Please tell me how much better I am now that we all agree about fluff and warming and less ice.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

7)I believe climates largest driver is radiation in all forms from our sun.

That doesn't look like the case, though. The numbers just don't add up.

RealClimate: A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success

[Andrew Troup]

regarding Lagoon's comment that the sun's radiation "drives" the climate

and Conachair's rebuttal

Both seem to have merit. I wonder if it's just a semantic difference?

Surely the sun is the only SOURCE of radiation, but it's a relatively constant source; certainly any changes happen at a fairly gentle rate.

And the changes are EXACTLY quantifiable: there are satellites measuring incoming radiation all the time. And to a large degree, predictable, a bit like the tides.

So while in a sense the Sun is the driver, in that it drives energy into the system, it seems to me it's hard to make the case that it has a primary role in driving climate change in any short-term way. (like tens or hundreds of years)

Of course it's complicated by the fact that some types of cloud can reflect a proportion of the incoming radiation before it has a chance to warm anything substantial, but that's hardly a function of the sun.

Whereas what I presume Conachair's pointing out (my connection's dodgy) is the other side of the energy balance ledger:

While the sun is the only thing which can make 'deposits', re-radiation back into space is the only way of making 'withdrawals'.

And it's possible to affect that quite quickly, in various ways.

Sea- Ice melt during a single season is a good example. Limited melting: much ice: rapid withdrawal from the energy balance.

CO2 buildup takes longer -- from natural sources, much much longer, but by burning fossil fuels, a level can be reached which lowers a sort of ceiling on the rate of withdrawals from the energy balance.

That's a worry, because unless withdrawals match deposits, the earth will progressively heat up.

Summarising my take on this: while it's the withdrawals which "Drive" climate on a human timescale (because they're more variable, in a shorter timeframe), the sun's deposits are a necessary precondition.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by conachair

That doesn't look like the case, though. The numbers just don't add up.

RealClimate: A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success

edit - should have added "in the case of the very rapid recent warming" , longer term it does seem to be a major player.

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

regarding Lagoon's comment that the sun's radiation "drives" the climate

and Conachair's rebuttal

Both seem to have merit. I wonder if it's just a semantic difference?

Surely the sun is the only SOURCE of radiation, but it's a relatively constant source; certainly any changes happen at a fairly gentle rate.

And the changes are EXACTLY quantifiable: there are satellites measuring incoming radiation all the time. And to a large degree, predictable, a bit like the tides.

So while in a sense the Sun is the driver, in that it drives energy into the system, it seems to me it's hard to make the case that it has a primary role in driving climate change in any short-term way. (like tens or hundreds of years)

Of course it's complicated by the fact that some types of cloud can reflect a proportion of the incoming radiation before it has a chance to warm anything substantial, but that's hardly a function of the sun.

Whereas what I presume Conachair's pointing out (my connection's dodgy) is the other side of the energy balance ledger:

While the sun is the only thing which can make 'deposits', re-radiation back into space is the only way of making 'withdrawals'.

And it's possible to affect that quite quickly, in various ways.

Sea- Ice melt during a single season is a good example. Limited melting: much ice: rapid withdrawal from the energy balance.

CO2 buildup takes longer -- from natural sources, much much longer, but by burning fossil fuels, a level can be reached which lowers a sort of ceiling on the rate of withdrawals from the energy balance.

That's a worry, because unless withdrawals match deposits, the earth will progressively heat up.

Summarising my take on this: while it's the withdrawals which "Drive" climate on a human timescale (because they're more variable, in a shorter timeframe), the sun's deposits are a necessary precondition.

I'm quite sure Troup doesn't mean the Sun is the only source of radiation. Indeed, his characterization as it being a "gentle" source serves his purpose of minimizing the sun's role in climate change.
I will add there is strong evidence of Cosmic Radiation ( ambient ionizing radiation) plays a significant role on earths climate. To quote from the conclusion in an interesting paper on the effects of Cosmic Radiation on Climate change:

It is furthermore not excluded that the gradual in- creasing of planetary surface temperature observed in the last hundred years is caused not by anthropogenic factors, but by space factors (mainly by CR intensity variation, see Fig. 4). In my opinion, it is necessary to continue investigations on the connection between CR intensity and climate factors like cloudiness, raining, and surface temperature, not only by sta- tistical investigations in the frame of different timescales, but also by special experiments on accelerators and through the development of physical models.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15289336/angeo-30-9-2012.pdf

Troup will correct his oversight I suppose in time, his soothing obsequious tone
notwithstanding.