Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 22-08-2008, 06:20   #331
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 976
Images: 6
jiffylube....if its bad...its bad! Just because someone else does it, does not make it right. The argument that we did it, now we know its wrong, now they are going to do it, so what the hell lets go for it because it will make no difference, , is not what I would call making up for OUR mistakes. Surely its beholden on US to set an example AND PAY for the solutions. The poorer nations look at the western world and want a slice of the action. We got that action by acting at best, in a commercial way, and at worst in a selfish way. We know that it has had consequences, we know that others want to have the financial benifits.

If we want a future we know that we have to provide a reasonable solution that third world countries will except. THAT DOSNT COST THE EARTH.
__________________

__________________
cooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2008, 07:33   #332
jzk
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertcateran View Post
A good point. What is the worst that can happen with global warming? Check out the possibilities What is the worst that can happen if we modify our behaviour? We reduce our chances of diabetes, heart disease, the need for viagra and opinionated, boring old farts like me live a bit longer. Even without the global warming probability the coral reefs are definitely going to go with the increased CO2 inducing acidification.This is not modeling but simple high school chemistry and strong experimental data on coral grown under higher CO2 levels. I deal with the scientists working on this as part of my expertise as an algal physiologist dealing with the symbiotic algae in coral. That should be enough surely to modify behaviour for any body who cares about being on the ocean. I do not see that modifying our lifestyle to be healthier and less profligate is similar to doling out drugs.
I cannot see your point abut the government taking over your life. Living in society we have constraints. My wife objects strongly if I do a loud smelly fart in company. I wear clothes to avoid upsetting people's sensibilities. I reduce my water use in drought. I cannot see the problem of reducing my CO2 output to help save coral reefs from destruction. If you feel that you have the right to continue to destroy those reefs, then I am not on your wavelength. Please do a google of coral reefs and ocean acidification and see what you come up with.

Sorry for the slight hijack of thread Gordon, but it is fairly closely associated- anthropogenic CO2 inducing global damage.
Robert
What is the worst that can happen if we continue using fossil fuel? Nothing different than if we reduced in accordance with the most strict global warming proposal. Other developing countries will burn every gallon of oil that we don't. Every one and more. The affect that you can have on the matter is insignificant. China and India aren't going to care about your Kyoto protocol or any other global treaty on such matters. Not one care. They will grow and prosper and build their militaries while we sacrifice and struggle. Count me out.

Another huge weakness in the Global Warming position is the laundry list of negative consequences to a small increase in warming. This position presumes that somehow our current climate status quo is somehow the most desirable. The planet and all of its life did just fine in higher temperature climates, and for the most part, each current species has already experienced such climates. What would be negative is if the Earth cooled. But, while that would be bad for life, it is no less "natural" than the current warming we are experiencing. Al Gore wants to point to every tornado and every hurricane and say "See, I was right." Complete nonsense.
__________________

__________________
jzk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2008, 07:51   #333
Registered User
 
Amgine's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 1,384
Images: 1
::shrug::

You're right Jzk, the earth did just fine at higher temps in the past. It just happened to do it without humans, and can do as well again without us.

It's not the earth that won't deal well with the temperature bump. It's us and our food crops.
__________________
Amgine
Blog

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog anchored in a coral atoll.
Amgine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2008, 08:47   #334
Senior Cruiser
 
Therapy's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: W Florida
Boat: The Jon boat still, plus a 2007 SeaCat.
Posts: 6,894
Images: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooper View Post
jiffylube....if its bad...its bad! Just because someone else does it, does not make it right. The argument that we did it, now we know its wrong, now they are going to do it, so what the hell lets go for it because it will make no difference, , is not what I would call making up for OUR mistakes. Surely its beholden on US to set an example AND PAY for the solutions. The poorer nations look at the western world and want a slice of the action. We got that action by acting at best, in a commercial way, and at worst in a selfish way. We know that it has had consequences, we know that others want to have the financial benifits.

If we want a future we know that we have to provide a reasonable solution that third world countries will except. THAT DOSNT COST THE EARTH.
The only reasonable solution is to reduce the number of consumers (population) . I am sure you know that the first world, educated are doing that through family planning. How do you propose to bring that to the rest of the world? The natural course is called starvation, in all of it's forms. Research any group of living creatures. Only humans think they are smart enough to change their environment and then think another change will fix their supposed mistakes. Humans consume till the resourses are less or gone just like all other life forms. Humans are so smart............yea right.....
__________________
Therapy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2008, 09:29   #335
Registered User

Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Coast & Other Forums!
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by anotherT34C View Post
I'm sorry, but that is not at all what I asked for. All that is, is a blurb talking about volcanoes. It says nothing, absolutely nothing, about undersea volcanoes being able (or even "might" be able) to melt ice caps.

Who/what did you hear give that speculation? Did it include talk of specific heat, the volume of water, and units of energy? I'm asking because it sounds pretty fantastic.

I wonder how many "climate scientists" in that list are actual publishing researchers in the field. I doubt many. I've seen that tactic before (via Heartland Institute).
Once again...I did not say volcanoes WERE melting the arctic ice cap. I pointed out that they COULD be contributing to the warming AND that
NASA has conformed a CURRENT SHIFT accounted for much of the melt last year.
As to where I got the idea that VOLCANOES COULD somehow change the climate. DUH?
And even undersea volcanoes? Try this:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/...pe/climate.php
Here's a map of Antarctic volcanoes:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...volcanoes2.jpg
And here's one of temperature trends in the antarctic. Blue is colder red is hotter. Notice any similarities?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...h1982-2004.jpg

"Western Antarctica and the peninsula is also a region of volcanic activity which may be contributing at times to upwelling of warmed water and icemelt. That was confirmed this week in an article in Nature Geoscience and in the National Science Foundation site." 1/23/08

BIG LEAP to think that the discovery of volcanic activity previously unknown under the arctic could possibly do the same thing.
Sorry...I forget sometimes that the science is settled and we need to spend trillions of dollars to save the earth from global catastrophe instead of finding other things to do with our money.
__________________
Cam - I am no longer a member here. Look for me on other forums...same name.

camaraderie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2008, 21:12   #336
Registered User
 
Amgine's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 1,384
Images: 1
Just a comment...

Those temperature trend increases are distincty currents, but the theory doesn't tally well with current theories of volcanism: the rate of volcanism is relatively stable over time, with increases in one region offset by decreases in another, except following cataclysmic astronomical events.

In other words, this might explain warming in the Antarctic if the warming trend were not general planet-wide, unless there is a similar planet-wide increase in volcanism.

Just as a side note, a newly-discovered volcano, or even a region of volcanism newly discovered, is not necessarily "new volcanos". Often we just noticed what's been going on for quite a while.
__________________
Amgine
Blog

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog anchored in a coral atoll.
Amgine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2008, 23:16   #337
Moderator Emeritus
 
Ex-Calif's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Boat: Maxi 77 - Relax Lah!
Posts: 11,514
Images: 4
It keeps getting cool at night around here. It also heats up like the dickens during the day.

If someone wants to give me $100 million I'll mount a study to figure out why. And if the results of my study can advance your political agenda in any way, I will tailor it to your exacting specifications.

What if the ironic joke of it all is that burning fossil fuel "is" bad for the planet but the reality is there isn't enough fossil fuel in teh planet to do lasting damge - i.e. a perfect eco system. The fossil fuel runs out, we stop driving cars and the planet repairs itself.
__________________
Relax Lah! is For Sale <--- Click
Click--> Custom CF Google Search or CF Rules
You're gonna need a bigger boat... - Martin Brody
Ex-Calif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-08-2008, 23:53   #338
Senior Cruiser
 
delmarrey's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Now in Blaine, WA
Boat: Modified Choate 40
Posts: 10,702
Images: 122
Exclamation Warning!

If you are going to post copy-righted materials you post the link as well or it disappears.
__________________
Faithful are the Wounds of a Friend, but the Kisses of the Enemy are Deceitful! ........
A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves!

Unprepared boaters, end up as floatsum!.......
delmarrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2008, 02:37   #339
Armchair Bucketeer
 
David_Old_Jersey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,013
Images: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie View Post
Here's a map of Antarctic volcanoes:
Too lazy to click on the links But, first I have ever heard of Volcanoes in Antartica (then again I do get my science from sailing forums ).

Please be true
David_Old_Jersey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2008, 03:06   #340
Registered User

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 31
The West Antarctic Ice sheet is grounded and gradually collapsing/melting due to warmer annual sea temperatures caused by warm water upwelling in parts of the Southern Oceans (result of melting sheets will be higher sea levels as the ice sheets are grounded, not floating as in the arctic). The area shown in blue (getting colder) is at high altitudes. In a globally warming world the higher sea and air temperatures reflect an increase in the energy available within the atmosphere. This is causing increased "storminess" generally; higher rates of evaporation from the sea surface and this is resulting in increased precipitation as snow over the Antarctic highlands where temperatures are getting lower in part due to changes in atmospheric patterns. The volcanoes have nothing to do with increasing global temperatures. In fact increased volcanic activity results in significant volumes of dust which increases the global albedo (reflectance) and so tends to reduce global temperatures. Let me know if anyone wants the references. I don't "publish" in the climate literature but I am a publishing Earth Scientist (who has worked on climate issues) and I believe that although the world has certainly been warmer than at present, it is the rate of change that is truely scarey. We are just not prepared for catastrophic sea level rise that may occur over periods in measured in a few decades or less. Unfortunately, there are already reslts from models that show we have already gone over the "tipping point", so even if we turned of all use of hydrocarbons we're still going to see changes in climate patterns and sea levels rising.
__________________
Onedaysoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2008, 08:08   #341
Registered User
 
Amgine's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Vancouver BC
Posts: 1,384
Images: 1
Onedaysoon: While I'm generally supportive of the climate change model, one single thing has confused me - the reflectance of water vapor. I know there was at least one satellite study which found a surprising variability in energy reflectance (equatorial Atlantic), with much more energy reflected than predicted from solid high cloud cover.

I trust the experts, but sometimes I'd like to understand some of the details.
__________________
Amgine
Blog

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog anchored in a coral atoll.
Amgine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2008, 09:18   #342
Registered User

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 31
NASA has a useful webpage on the (inferred) effects of clouds on climate change: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Clouds/ . Unfortunately, accounting for variability in the type and volume/area of cloud cover and its long-term effects are significant problems in current generation models (whether they be nummerical, EMICs or statistical). That together with the effects of things like carbon cycling and an accurate representation of the variability in ocean water density/temperature mean that the models are not totally accurate or precise, but they never will be and that's not their aim anyway. However, most of the models being used by credible research institues do show the same trends and, as the IPCC has stated, anthropogenic inputs are the obvious explanation. I for one don't doubt that we are seeing the impact of greenhouse gas induced warming superimposed on a background of natural variability.
__________________
Onedaysoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2008, 19:42   #343
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie View Post
Once again...I did not say volcanoes WERE melting the arctic ice cap. I pointed out that they COULD be contributing to the warming AND that
NASA has conformed a CURRENT SHIFT accounted for much of the melt last year.
As to where I got the idea that VOLCANOES COULD somehow change the climate. DUH? <snip>
.
Can you please stop the tangents and write me where you heard that undersea volcanoes might be melting the arctic ice? Why is this hard? Did you just come up with it on your own? Is it written up in a journal? Did it come from AM radio?

I don't consider analysis to be scientific unless it comes from a recognized scientific institution, and makes its way though proper review. Amateur speculation is just that, and I'd like to know what I'm asked to consider.
__________________
anotherT34C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2008, 20:23   #344
Eternal Member
 
Chief Engineer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: North of Baltimore
Boat: Ericson 27 & 18' Herrmann Catboat
Posts: 3,798
Doesn't proof of a theory have to be repeatable?

Global warming.....follow da mon-ayyyy
__________________
Chief Engineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2008, 20:52   #345
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Engineer View Post
Doesn't proof of a theory have to be repeatable?

Global warming.....follow da mon-ayyyy
'Follow the money' is good advice. Look at who exactly is funding what. Which institutions are writing grants, and which individuals are being paid 'honorariums', and by whom.

And theory =! hypothesis.
__________________

__________________
anotherT34C is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lake Water Levels Down GordMay Great Lakes 65 08-10-2007 15:15
Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change GordMay Off Topic Forum 33 11-05-2007 03:07
Please, No Politics, But Re: Pilot Charts sjs General Sailing Forum 15 03-05-2006 16:48



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:29.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.