Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Don't remember my point ever being about the money....its about replacement theology.

Bro....you are totally off on where you think I'm coming from, I'm the guy who did air emission and pollution control work at power plants for a living and have patents in pollution control. I'm a bigger environmentalist then most of the MMGW Cultists posting in the thread. Where you have a problem with me is that I don't do group think hype think and so much of the MMGW issue is hype it is giving g real science a bad name. Have you ever went to a power plant and left it running cleaner when you left....I have amigo, so my credibility as an environmentalist living off the grid trumps the fake SUV driving "awareness campaign" of today's MMGW Cultists to prove they are good people by caring....

No, as I recall, your main point, besides continuously declaring that any of us who want the issue of AGW to be taken seriously are warmists and members of a MMGW cult, has been that the majority of the US Congress and Senate currently see things your way, and so the rest of us can go suck it.

Technical innovation is a beautiful thing, so congrats for that, truly. Tell us - by what means was pollution deemed to be a problem in need of your solution? How was the market created for your innovations in pollution reduction? Were you just the unwitting accessory in an earlier climate conspiracy?

By the way, from a recent link, one well-meaning cultist accidentally posted the climate scientists' Manifesto for World Domination:

We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:

• Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
  
  
• Launch an international study to explore scientifically-informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
  
  
• Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
  
  
• Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights. Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
  
  
• Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

So... our evil plot is laid bare. Have at it.

[sneuman]

Feel free to have a hand at "manipulating the data" -- the outcome is the same:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Conspiracies are for suckers.
Besides 4 out of 5 dentists believe in MMGW so that makes it settled science.....

I'm an old fart (at least getting there), and remember a Dentyne Gum commercial that said,

Nine out of ten dentists who chew gum recommend Dentyne !

Does that mean 9 out of 10 dentists? Of course not.
A safe bet is 99% of dentists don't chew gum because it promotes bad teeth.
Just another example of people with an agenda twisting the facts.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Key word, "MIGHT".

Oh yeah, settled science.

"Maybe", "might" and "could" are the catch cry of the alarmists brigade

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

I'm neither your "bro" nor your "amigo." Perhaps I was conflating you with reefmagnet or one of the other crazies. Looking back I see you're the guy who thinks the Big Bang theory has been debunked and that climate change is a communist, rather than a capitalist, conspiracy. Lol.

Ohey! Chucking a tantrum are we? Instead of name calling, feel free to challenge the previous numbers and facts I, for one, have posted without the usual fallback to assumptions, cut and paste and links.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

So, for those folks such as Reefmagnet and Third Day, who believe you should just "follow the money" and that climate scientists are getting rich off the funding that has poured in following their complicity in the global AGW conspiracy ... riddle me this ...

What do the Chinese and Russian national academies (which typically represent the top-tier scientists in any given country) have to gain? Remember that Beijing and Moscow were not exactly on board with the various attempts at international agreement on this subject. There can't be much (if any) money coming their way. So, what is their motivation for signing a petition urging governments to take this issue seriously?

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

So tell us all sneuman, why aren't governments mandating banning of high powered engines in passenger cars? That's an extremely easy thing to do if done in unilateral agreement. While you are at it, why not post up your peer reviewed claptrap on measures that will reduce AGW along with expected effects. Heck, just post something that precisely defines the natural and anthropogenic ratios influencing climate change.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by sneuman

I spent 13 years without a car. But, your logic makes no sense -- car or no car makes no difference.

Finally! You've said something that makes sense in this thread. Of course there's no getting away from the fact that cars generate tons of what you seem to think is harmful CO2, but you're right that it makes no difference to climate change, because nobody has proved that CO2 actually drives climate change.

I'm glad you've finally decided to give up the extreme paranoia and relax a little and let science continue to work on this puzzle until they get it all figured out, THEN we can all act together on this if needed. In the meantime, keep driving your car wherever you feel like it just like I, along with just about every supposed AGW alarmist in the world does, because as you so eloquently said, and we all agree "car or no car makes no difference."

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, as I recall, your main point, besides continuously declaring that any of us who want the issue of AGW to be taken seriously are warmists and members of a MMGW cult, has been that the majority of the US Congress and Senate currently see things your way, and so the rest of us can go suck it.

Technical innovation is a beautiful thing, so congrats for that, truly. Tell us - by what means was pollution deemed to be a problem in need of your solution? How was the market created for your innovations in pollution reduction? Were you just the unwitting accessory in an earlier climate conspiracy?

By the way, from a recent link, one well-meaning cultist accidentally posted the climate scientists' Manifesto for World Domination:

We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:

• Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
  
  
• Launch an international study to explore scientifically-informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
  
  
• Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
  
  
• Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights. Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
  
  
• Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

So... our evil plot is laid bare. Have at it.

I'm sure it was just an honest slip, but you seem to have left out any mention of cap and trade or carbon taxes, and back in the quaint old days of 2005, the alarmists were not yet (openly at least) talking about "punishing" those who dared to disagree with their pseudo science or their agenda.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I'm sure it was just an honest slip, but you seem to have left out any mention of cap and trade or carbon taxes, and back in the quaint old days of 2005, the alarmists were not yet (openly at least) talking about "punishing" those who dared to disagree with their pseudo science or their agenda.

Nope. This is the science position, full stop.

Repeated for your benefit:

We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:

• Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
  
  
• Launch an international study to explore scientifically-informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
  
  
• Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
  
  
• Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights. Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
  
  
• Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

That's it.

The rest of that stuff you cited... are some things that others have kicked around as possible solutions, and some ("agenda", data faking, etc etc) are just products of a fevered imagination.

The above, and just the above, is all that climate science is asking you to agree to consider.

Question for you and any deniers/skeptics/etc - if you were convinced that the above, and only the above, was the only ask - to study the problem a little harder and think about possible solutions - would you be onboard?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Question for you and any deniers/skeptics/etc - if you were convinced that the above, and only the above, was the only ask - to study the problem a little harder and think about possible solutions - would you be onboard?

Nope, sorry the fix is in. School children are already being indoctrinated (brainwashed). Only time will resolve the question.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I'm an old fart (at least getting there), and remember a Dentyne Gum commercial that said,

Nine out of ten dentists who chew gum recommend Dentyne !

Does that mean 9 out of 10 dentists? Of course not.
A safe bet is 99% of dentists don't chew gum because it promotes bad teeth.
Just another example of people with an agenda twisting the facts.

Nine out of 10 rational human beings see that as an incredibly lame argument. (And yes, we all use logic).

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So tell us all sneuman, why aren't governments mandating banning of high powered engines in passenger cars? That's an extremely easy thing to do if done in unilateral agreement. While you are at it, why not post up your peer reviewed claptrap on measures that will reduce AGW along with expected effects. Heck, just post something that precisely defines the natural and anthropogenic ratios influencing climate change.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Apparently you've never paid attention during the periodic s**tstorm that ensues whenever CAFE standards are discussed. Because if you really want to follow the money, follow it to the people who think they'll lose it by acknowledging AGW -- try the automakers, for one.

[SailOar]

New ocean energy plan could worsen global warming | Climate News Network

An apparently promising way of producing energy from the world’s oceans in fact risks causing catastrophic harm by warming the Earth far more than it can bear, US scientists say.

LONDON, 4 April, 2015 − One of renewable energy’s more outspoken enthusiasts has delivered bad news for the prospects of developing ocean thermal energy. His prediction is that although the technology could work for a while, after about 50 years it could actually exacerbate long-term global warning.

Of all the renewable energy technologies, ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) sounded like the perfect choice. This is a plan to exploit the difference between the warm surface and the cold deeps of the seas, and turn that difference into energy.

The agency that did the work would be a network of vertical pipes floating below the surface: it would not spoil the view from the coast, and it would deliver power day or night, whatever the weather. But there was more….

Now one of renewable energy’s more vocal supporters has taken a closer look at the long-term consequences of the ocean pipes and come up with some discouraging news: an engineering programme intended to cool the planet would end up making it warmer. It would work for a while, he says, but after about half a century it would reduce the cloud cover and at the same time reduce the sea ice, to accelerate climate change once more….

The Carnegie calculations work like this: cold air is denser than warm air. Water funnelled up the pipes on a very large scale from the depths would cool the air above the seas, and increase atmospheric pressure, which would reduce cloud formation over the seas. Since most of the planet is ocean, that means fewer clouds overall, which means more sunlight absorbed by the Earth rather than reflected back into space by the clouds.
And the same mixing of sea waters would bring sea ice into contact with warmer waters, which would mean less sea ice to reflect radiation, with the same result: accelerated global warming.

After 60 years, the simulated network of ocean pipes would cause an increase of global temperature by up to 1.2°C. After a few centuries, the same technology would take temperatures up by a catastrophic 8°5C….

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nope. This is the science position, full stop.

Repeated for your benefit:

We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:

• Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
  
  
• Launch an international study to explore scientifically-informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
  
  
• Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
  
  
• Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights. Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
  
  
• Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

That's it.

The rest of that stuff you cited... are some things that others have kicked around as possible solutions, and some ("agenda", data faking, etc etc) are just products of a fevered imagination.

The above, and just the above, is all that climate science is asking you to agree to consider.

Question for you and any deniers/skeptics/etc - if you were convinced that the above, and only the above, was the only ask - to study the problem a little harder and think about possible solutions - would you be onboard?

I definitely don't "acknowledge that the threat of climate change is real and increasing" and I don't understand how they could make that statement if they truly were open minded scientists who felt it was important to "Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions."

It seems sort of like on a lab report writing your results and conclusions BEFORE doing the experiment.

I am completely onboard with studying our climate and any changes and the "why" of any changes, and then studying whether these changes are mostly beneficial or negative and then studying whether there's anything we can do to positively affect the earths climate, and then have an open and honest discussion about what should be done. But right now, we're still at the early stages of the first step, of studying our climate and trying document changes and understand the "why" of them. But when you jump to asking me to study the "problem" that tells me that you're willing to skip over the first couple of steps of truly and thoroughly understanding climate change and want to jump to implementing "solutions" to a "problem" that you don't even understand. That's not how real science or real engineering works and I can't support that. FIRST we need to definitively nail down exactly what's going on and why.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I am completely onboard with studying our climate and any changes and the "why" of any changes, and then studying whether these changes are mostly beneficial or negative and then studying whether there's anything we can do to positively affect the earths climate, and then have an open and honest discussion about what should be done. But right now, we're still at the early stages of the first step, of studying our climate and trying document changes and ...

Interesting. You're onboard with the 'study' part, but not with the current set of conclusions from the people you're ostensibly ok with doing the 'studying' part.

That's OK. Sounds like we should just get on with the 'studying' part and drop all the mythology, yes? Too much to ask?