Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Catalysis]

boat alexandra,
Nope, diesels are ~10% more efficient than gasoline and therefore ~20% more efficient than E-85 corn derived ethanol


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[savoir]

Originally Posted by Going Walkabout

Savoir you need to be careful. Al Gore wants to round up people like you in put you in a re-education camp. Don't you realize that the US Department of Defence gas named global warming as a greater danger than terrorists. Be very careful because with the nutty and dangerous talk going on these days you could be targeted for special treatment.

Poor old Al. It took the British judicial system to drag him in to line.
Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge | Environment | The Guardian

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Catalysis

boat alexandra,
Nope, diesels are ~10% more efficient than gasoline and therefore ~20% more efficient than E-85 corn derived ethanol

You are comparing blended fuel. Please consider pure ethanol in an engine with 12:1 instead of 10:1 compression.

How do you calculate efficiency? Starting with sunlight (the original source of energy for both fuels) ethanol is an order of magnitude more efficient than gasoline or diesel.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Ethanol...ha ha ha
You mean the fuel that wouldn't be economically viable in the USA without Big Government subsidies and tax credits and breaks?

Now that's a good Friday Night Funny....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Science has nothing to do with consensus or what percentage believe it, it's about facts. That the MMGW cultists have to cite the fake 95% number...that's telling since they don't have the facts, they need the mob rule consensus....

Ok. Pitchfork's over in the corner, torch extinguished. Regale us with some facts.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Lets make this a little more accurate



Science has nothing to do with consensus or what percentage believe it, it's about facts. That the MMGW cultists have to cite the fake 95% number...that's telling since they don't have the facts, they need the mob rule consensus....

Rich - did you read Thomas Kuhn in your studies

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922–1996) is one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential. His 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time. Kuhn's contribution to the philosophy of science marked not only a break with several key positivist doctrines, but also inaugurated a new style of philosophy of science that brought it closer to the history of science.

In the postscript to the second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn says of paradigms in this sense that they are “the most novel and least understood aspect of this book” (1962/1970a, 187). The claim that the consensus of a disciplinary matrix is primarily agreement on paradigms-as-exemplars is intended to explain the nature of normal science and the process of crisis, revolution, and renewal of normal science. It also explains the birth of a mature science. Kuhn describes an immature science, in what he sometimes calls its ‘pre-paradigm’ period, as lacking consensus. Competing schools of thought possess differing procedures, theories, even metaphysical presuppositions. Consequently there is little opportunity for collective progress. Even localized progress by a particular school is made difficult, since much intellectual energy is put into arguing over the fundamentals with other schools instead of developing a research tradition. However, progress is not impossible, and one school may make a breakthrough whereby the shared problems of the competing schools are solved in a particularly impressive fashion. This success draws away adherents from the other schools, and a widespread consensus is formed around the new puzzle-solutions.

Thomas Kuhn (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

When I read it in grad school, his book had a tremendous effect on my own philosophical views. I still have on my bookshelf 35 years later.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok. Pitchfork's over in the corner, torch extinguished. Regale us with some facts.

Some facts have already been presented in this thread...but the messenger and motives of the posters were easier for the MMGW cultists to deal with, so lets start with the many items already presented shall we.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by savoir

Poor old Al. It took the British judicial system to drag him in to line.
Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge | Environment | The Guardian

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.

'"

Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills [2007] EWHC 2288 (Admin) (10 October 2007)

BTW - I have not seen the movie, not do I use Gore as any sort of expert.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Some facts have already been presented in this thread...but the messenger and motives of the posters were easier for the MMGW cultists to deal with, so lets start with the many items already presented shall we.

Facts have been remarkable for their complete absence from your comments in this thread.

And what have you got against Big Banks?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Rich - did you read Thomas Kuhn in your studies

Thomas Kuhn (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

His book had a tremendous effect on my own philosophical views. I still have on my bookshelf 35 years later.

Absolutely, I think my collage copy is in storage since there's no room for all those books while living on a boat. But what I think you are failing to come to terms with is the corruption of thought. Look, we all have an easy time agreeing that politicians are mostly corrupt these days. But we can't come to terms yet with the fact that it isn't politics that is corrupt, but the integrity and moral character of man that is corrupt. What logic can be brought to the table that the men entering science (or journalism, or business or the clergy or all of the mainstay societal institutions) are somehow immune to this general moral and ethical corruptness? Why are politicians and businessmen known to be corrupt yet someone calls himself a "Scientist" and he has only pure and honorable intentions? Boloney.

The very construct of the basic scientific method has been corrupted by the prevailing consensus of thought. You can see this in the basic terminology the "scientists" use to attach the "Denyers". We know that is a charged word, having it's roots in the denying of the Holocaust, but these people are views as dangerous to the establishment, so they must be taken out any way possible. As Al Gore said....they much be punished. You can see the anger and rage directed that those that dare question and say,

"hey...the measured data is not predicted by the climate models, so how can you say your models for CO2 doom and gloom are accurate? "

To ask that question is to be a Denyer, to be written off as someone in the pocket of big oil, etc. Yet the question remains unanswered and ducked. The models are all wrong....yet we are to change the entire economy of the world based on wrong models? No...sorry. Hundreds of thousands of people died over the fake DDT scare and this time millions of people will die, which in all honestly is what the eco-nazis want. They really do believe the Population bomb scare tactics and think the worlds carrying capacity has been surpassed. Remember them? Where are those doom and gloomers today? Where are the Peak Oil Wolf Cryers today?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The models are all wrong....

Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.

The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.

The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

Nice try....
Nice Duck....
Based on the current levels of C02 in the atmosphere...what temperature increase do the models project....bingo, checkmate.

Now for the fun...post us your link to those talking points...ha ha ha

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Nice try....
Nice Duck....
Based on the current levels of C02 in the atmosphere...what temperature increase do the models project....bingo, checkmate.

Now for the fun...post us your link to those talking points...ha ha ha

What climate scientist or model proposes that CO2 is the only factor in climate change.

The link

Models

References at the bottom.

[jackdale]

Atmosphere

3 decades of SAT warming

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Hydrosphere

A few decades of OHC

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ (temporarily not available)

Cryosphere

The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:

- 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, Increased ice losses from Antarctica detected by CryoSat-2 - McMillan - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
+ 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

- 261 Gt Arctic sea ice, Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis
- 378 Gt Greenland, An improved mass budget for the Greenland ice sheet - Enderlin - 2014 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

- 259 Gt other land based glaciers, A Reconciled Estimate of Glacier Contributions to Sea Level Rise: 2003 to 2009

= - 1,031 Gt, total

[tcpip95]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

You know Rich, for a supposed self proclaimed scientist you are quick to throw names and labels at others. Maybe you need to take a good long look in the mirror.

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

What are you talking about tcpip95. Where is your head? Well, I have a pretty good idea so never mind.

I'd introduce you to the black kettle, but I don't think you'd recognize it.

Priceless.