Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Oh, but it is.
It's only "up in the air" in your imagination.

I'll type this slower so you understand...

IPCC: "Man is extremely likely to be responsible for climate change". I do apologise that I've been quoting "most likely", but the facts for the record are it's gone from "very likely" in 2007 to "extremely likely" in 2013.

You can read more here:https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...r4-wg1-spm.pdf

If I drive drunk I may be "extremely likely" to have an accident, but there is still a probability I wont.

You are a perfect example of those that take conjecture and twist it into fact.

You made the assertion that wind farms kill more, you provide the evidence.

You provide the evidence I'm wrong. You can't. You can't because birds recorded to have been killed by AGW excluding those run over by climate researchers on their way to do climate research stuff = 0.

But here's a head start: what’s the bigger threat to birds – climate change or wind farms? | Yes 2 Renewables

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

A fun tutorial on how sea level is determined.

That's an excellent presentation. I knew that gravity variations affected sea levels, but was surprised at exactly the extent. Very interesting.

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Even advocates of the free market understand that it cannot account for waste by-products - please note I did not say pollutant.
A home construction company cannot simply dump the excess biodegradable lumber into a ditch.
The fossil fuel industry seems to get a free ride because its waste is odorless and invisible.
___________________________
Garret Hardin, a strong advocate of private property, in his landmark essay The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)
In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream--whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979
Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?
Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other.The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

Jack. Phew. For a while there I thought you had run out of copies and pastes....

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Plastic is probably less than a billionth of the amount of suspended particles in the ocean, yet look at the effect it is already having. Our contribution to CO2 is friggin enormous by comparison. How could it not have an effect?

What are the fixes? You guys are spending so much time denying it's a problem worth focusing on that we'll never get to the fixing part. The best we can manage right now is to simply try to moderate fossil fuel consumption and fast-track the search for cleaner and sustainable energy. And the anti-AGW camp (or better stated, the unwitting proxies for the status quo) won't even let us get on with that.

Round and round indeed.

........999,400 Parts Per Million are not CO2...... Friggin enormous according to lake-effect......apparently.

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by Tensen

The first is backed by evidence, and the second, while speculative, is an extremely safe prediction based on the rate of change we're seeing.

You are referring to the unchanged temperature for theu past 15-20 years Tensen?

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Burning wood releases CO2 that would have been released through decomposition. That is part of the natural CO2 cycle. Burning fossil fuels has the resulted the 40% increase in CO2 over the past 250 years. 400 ppm has not been seen in 3,500,000 years. For the 800,000 years natural cycles keep CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppm.

Today.......999,600 Parts Per Million are not CO2.
.......800,000 years ago 999,700 Parts Per Million were not CO2.
3,500,000 years ago ....999,600 Parts Per Million were not CO2.
Source: Jackdale April 2015.
Hmmmmmmm. I think we have defined hysteria. Thanks Jackdale.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

No-one's pretending that they do (without storage).

The people who care about AGW and the people who dislike nuclear power may have some overlap, but they most certainly aren't the same groups.

Nuclear is quite a good option for combating AGW (although safety, waste and the huge water requirements mean it has problems of its own), and there are plenty of supporters for it.

And it isn't the only realistic non-fossil fuel base load. Hydro is one, wave power is another. And energy storage is a fast-advancing field, with the potential to make wind and solar capable of base load.

Solar and Wind energy could be stored very easily with today's technology if combined with suitable hydro-electric generation systems. Hydro electric schemes can store energy by turning generators into pumps that pump water back up to storage reservoirs. Not a cheap undertaking and it would tick off a lot of greenies, but entirely doable with today's existing tech.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

You are referring to the unchanged temperature for theu past 15-20 years Tensen?

This unchanged temperature?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/ua...m:1994/to:2014

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If I drive drunk I may be "extremely likely" to have an accident, but there is still a probability I wont.

Even when you drive sober, do you wear a seat belt, or do you wait until the accident occurs before buckling up?

I wouldn't even ask about safety on your boat.

In 40,000 miles, including 5 passages, no one has ever gone overboard. But we still use pfd's. harnesses, tethers, jacklines, etc..

The precautionary principle.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

Today.......999,600 Parts Per Million are not CO2.
.......800,000 years ago 999,700 Parts Per Million were not CO2.
3,500,000 years ago ....999,600 Parts Per Million were not CO2.
Source: Jackdale April 2015.
Hmmmmmmm. I think we have defined hysteria. Thanks Jackdale.

No you exemplified a complete lack of comprehension about trace compounds and elements.

In the ozone layer, ozone is 3 ppm. That is enough to protect us from UVB.

Selenium is an essential trace element in the human diet. At 400 ppm it starts to become toxic.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Even when you drive sober, do you wear a seat belt, or do you wait until the accident occurs before buckling up?

Out of context. I'm explaining how "extremely likely" isn't equivalent to "will occur"

The precautionary principle.

There's undeniable evidence - more so than that of catastrophic global warming - of severe meteorite strikes on planet Earth with an "extremely likely" potential of more to come. On the basis of "precautionary principle", why should not billions be spent on research and building anti-meteorite defense systems? A cynical person may say that it might be because there is no "bogey-man" to blame or political advantage to be gained?

Again, I note that there is nothing but conjecture so far to indicate that some kind of major climate catastrophe is unfolding after a quarter of a century of intensive climate research. Should that change at any time, I'm pretty sure you'll find this sea of "denial" will quickly evaporate.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I wouldn't even ask about safety on your boat.

Up to 20-25's inside the Barrier Reef in daylight with company I don't even wear a lifejacket. The SOLAS life ring and GPS MOB function are fine.

At night, 30+ or alone on deck then full lifejacket, jacklines and tether are used.

It's a moderated response.

Remember when the airlines were caught out with the one million dollar per passenger limit on safety ROI?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

There's undeniable evidence - more so than that of catastrophic global warming

Try the PETM, it resulted in mass extinctions.. If you wish a link I can provide one.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Up to 20-25's inside the Barrier Reef in daylight with company I don't even wear a lifejacket. The SOLAS life ring and GPS MOB function are fine.

In typical gear.



I also wear googles on the squash court.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In typical gear.



I also wear googles on the squash court.

You really don't want to see a picture of me in budgie smugglers

Edit. Found some pics in my gallery...

Semi-serious cruising:


Casual Cruising: