Climate Change, Part III

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

I've just realised what's wrong with these Climate Change threads - the posts are wayyy too long, my bet is that the only person who reads them is the writer........

IMO Climate Change is best discussed (and solved?) on Facebook - using the magick of simple words stuck onto pictures..........which is scientific proof that if Man Made (Warming / Cooling / Change / Staying the Same) is real then we are all doomed.

You're quite right David, the posts can be tediously long.

The simple answer to why AGW fans are all wet is because CO2 has been increasing, while temperatures have remained stable. We should have cooled off because of less solar irradiance, but we haven't. If CO2 increases temperatures, then it must be increased CO2 that is keeping us from cooling. And more CO2 is going to be needed if we want to avoid another little ice age when we move into sunspot cycle 25, which is predicted to have almost no sunspot activity, resulting in a much cooler earth.

That's as brief as I can make it, and if anyone want's to disprove this conclusion, they must either show that CO2 is irrelevant to warming, or that low sunspot activity doesn't cool the earth.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I doubt any rational person would dispute with Reagan over the need to be good stewards of the environment. But I also doubt he would want have wanted to spend trillions 'fighting' something of little importance, like manmade CO2, since it would mean you would have a less productive, less prosperous society. Which is what we are becoming, of course.

And John McCain needn't worry. Since he made that political speech in 2008, the earth hasn't warmed a bit even though CO2 has increased. In fact, 2008 was noted in this UK Telegraph article as the year AGW was disproved. John's timing always has been terrible...

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved - Telegraph

But I'm curious Dave. If you believe that anthropogenic CO2 causes warming, and we haven't warmed for almost 2 decades, do you take as support for this belief jackdale's (insert sailing credentials here) assertion that it is the warming effect of CO2 that has offset what should have been cooling during the recent low sunspot numbers of cycle 24? This is a serious question, and I think jackdale is onto something.

As the graph below shows, the number of sunspots began to drop at the same time that the average global temperatures stabilized, and at a time when atmospheric CO2 increased from natural sources from 360 ppm to 384 ppm and from human sources from 15 to 16 ppm. So from the perspective of an AGW fan, the only explanation for why we didn't cool during reduced sunspots has to be because CO2 must be warming us, right? And for the last 15 years or so, that warming has offset cooling from reduced solar irradiance, hence the flattening of the temperature curve. Your thoughts?

A perusal of the evidence seems to suggest we are merely experience a certain hiatus. Artic old ice still continues to reduce , this year by alarming numbers. Both artic and Antarctic sea ice coverage is rising , both are indications of climate change.

I don't think the issue is global warming , the issue is man made climate change. That continues unabated. That we need to begin to reverse mans boot print on the climate.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Delfin

...,blah blah deny

ent that I should take the AGW 'science' seriously because the majority of climate scientists who receive grants from political agencies to provide proof of something those political entities want proved think mankind's 16 ppm contribution to 400 ppm total atmospheric CO2 is worth regulating ourselves into an economic coma over.



......


Blah,.


to counter the effects of sun cycle 25 is to pump CO2 into the atmosphere is not a facetious statement, but the logical consequence of accepting that such manmade contributions warm the planet. If they don't, then shut up already. If they do, then we better fire up our '57 Chevies because we're going to get really cold if we don't.

Not sure where you get your numbers co2 in the atmosphere was typically 200-250 ppm as taken from ice cores. It began to rise from the 1800s on and now reaches close to 400 ppm. That's a lot more then 16ppm

Lets get the facts straight
Dave

[Teknav]

Ok guys...give it a rest and forget about climate change. Any mods around here to deep-six this thread? Whoever does it, I'll send you a home made gallon of coconut ice cream WITHOUT any husks! Kill this damn thread! Grazie!

Mauritz
Ashes to ashes...

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Teknav

Ok guys...give it a rest and forget about climate change. Any mods around here to deep-six this thread? Whoever does it, I'll send you a home made gallon of coconut ice cream WITHOUT any husks! Kill this damn thread! Grazie!

Mauritz
Ashes to ashes...

If you do not like the tread ignore it, who are u to demand its closure

Dave

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

A perusal of the evidence seems to suggest we are merely experience a certain hiatus. Artic old ice still continues to reduce , this year by alarming numbers. Both artic and Antarctic sea ice coverage is rising , both are indications of climate change.

I don't think the issue is global warming , the issue is man made climate change. That continues unabated. That we need to begin to reverse mans boot print on the climate.

Dave

So, ice that is old is different from ice that is new? That sounds a bit like Conachair's two CO2 molecules - one made by outgassing from the oceans (good) and one made by SUV's (bad). I don't quite get that, but perhaps the massive increase in sea ice in 2013 will one day qualify to be called 'old'? And I'm afraid you are going to have to explain why the same phenomena that melts old ice make lots of new ice. That seems like the global warming causes both more total snow and less total snow that I see promoted, which to most of us seems like a bit of a contradiction.

When you say the issue is not 'global warming' but 'man made climate change' what exactly does that mean? More hurricanes? I know those were predicted, but it hasn't happened. Fewer hurricanes? Warming? Cooling? It must mean something I should think, but if to you it means anything and everything that happens, then it means nothing at all. So please quantity what happens under 'man made climate change'.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, ice that is old is different from ice that is new? That sounds a bit like Conachair's two CO2 molecules - one made by outgassing from the oceans (good) and one made by SUV's (bad). I don't quite get that, but perhaps the massive increase in sea ice in 2013 will one day qualify to be called 'old'? And I'm afraid you are going to have to explain why the same phenomena that melts old ice make lots of new ice. That seems like the global warming causes both more total snow and less total snow that I see promoted, which to most of us seems like a bit of a contradiction.

When you say the issue is not 'global warming' but 'man made climate change' what exactly does that mean? More hurricanes? I know those were predicted, but it hasn't happened. Fewer hurricanes? Warming? Cooling? It must mean something I should think, but if to you it means anything and everything that happens, then it means nothing at all. So please quantity what happens under 'man made climate change'.

Seriously delfin , your close to trolling. You can read all about sea ice , land ice , etc and the difference All over the net. Old ice in the artic is ice that remains from year to year , new ice reforms each winter

You constantly provide wrong data , ( Co2) , mislead or obscure. There no point debating these topics if you are going to " idiot-ise" the arguments. The anti bridage have been guilty of huge lies ( 600 scientists at un meeting lie for example) , vast web sites of mis information and just foaming at the mouth rhetoric. ( and to what end )

There is a concensus on man made climate change. It really doesn't matter if you accept that or not. Most of the world sane countries are attempting to introduce polices and processes to mitigate it. Hopefully in doing so, well reduce pollution , improve energy efficiency and wean the western world off its drug like addiction to energy and over consumption. Yes sone of those policies will need tweaking , some will have to be redesigned over time. That's the nature of progress.

The fact is even on this thread , there are clear clear majorities arguing in favour of climate change and one or two deniers basically attempting to obfuscate the debate. That is indicative of the " debate " in general worldwide


We can implement efficiencies we can lower or energy footprints and all this without seriously impacting on our standard of living. So why not do it anyway. No one needs a v8 .
Dave

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Not sure where you get your numbers co2 in the atmosphere was typically 200-250 ppm as taken from ice cores. It began to rise from the 1800s on and now reaches close to 400 ppm. That's a lot more then 16ppm

Lets get the facts straight
Dave

Yes, let's do. CO2 emissions since 1800 have come from two sources - those that men contribute and those that are natural products of the environment. The ratio today is around 96% natural and 4% man made. So of the increase from 225 ppm in 1800 to 400 ppm today, 96% of the increase is due to natural sources beyond man's control. Today, each year, humans only contribute a very small portion of total atmospheric CO2, which means any efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 by going after the piddly amount contributed by humans is an exercise in folly.

A big chunk of natural CO2 emissions come from out gassing of dissolved CO2 in the oceans. If they warm, more CO2 is released. When we enter the next sunspot cycle, the oceans will cool, which will result in a drop in atmospheric CO2. This has happened many times before and will happen again, and all without our spending huge sums fooling ourselves we're accomplishing something.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Seriously delfin , your close to trolling. You can read all about sea ice , land ice , etc and the difference All over the net. Old ice in the artic is ice that remains from year to year , new ice reforms each winter

You constantly provide wrong data , ( Co2) , mislead or obscure. There no point debating these topics if you are going to " idiot-ise" the arguments. The anti bridage have been guilty of huge lies ( 600 scientists at un meeting lie for example) , vast web sites of mis information and just foaming at the mouth rhetoric. ( and to what end )

There is a concensus on man made climate change. It really doesn't matter if you accept that or not. Most of the world sane countries are attempting to introduce polices and processes to mitigate it. Hopefully in doing so, well reduce pollution , improve energy efficiency and wean the western world off its drug like addiction to energy and over consumption. Yes sone of those policies will need tweaking , some will have to be redesigned over time. That's the nature of progress.

The fact is even on this thread , there are clear clear majorities arguing in favour of climate change and one or two deniers basically attempting to obfuscate the debate. That is indicative of the " debate " in general worldwide


We can implement efficiencies we can lower or energy footprints and all this without seriously impacting on our standard of living. So why not do it anyway. No one needs a v8 .
Dave

Could you show one example where I have posted incorrect information? Try to be specific, if you can.

If you are still working the CO2 contribution question, I understand that there are AGW fans who will argue that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is solely the result of human activities. But that ignores the fact that if warming exists, the oceans warm, vegetation rots faster and the whole biosphere exhales more CO2, so I don't think that theory holds much water, although it is absolutely key to the calls to reduce carbon emissions by the AGW crowd. Or are you saying that if the oceans warm, they won't emit more CO2? Want to give that a try?

And again, please define what 'climate change' is, if it isn't global warming.

[captain58sailin]

In the early 80s I was a proponent of tidal electrical generation for Alaska, ala Bay of Fundy, even went there to learn how they do it. It was marvelous, inexpensive etc... in the town I stayed in they only issued an electric bill every 2 months, $17.00 Canadian. Despite my best efforts, no politician would take up the cause, no money in it. Why on earth would you build a hydroelectric dam on the shores of a bay that has a 25' tide change 4 times a day? There are a multitude of coves that could be used to generate electricity, barring that there are 2 vortices out by the mouth of the bay that never stop moving regardless the state of the tide, if you put up a monopod, you could use the bottom part as a science station and bring school classes to it so they could see first hand the things crawling around on the bottom. There has been a lot of published information on green buildings that are inexpensive to heat and cool, and environmentally friendly. There are a lot of answers out there they just have to be employed, to do that the proper incentive has to be there (money).

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

In the early 80s I was a proponent of tidal electrical generation for Alaska, ala Bay of Fundy, even went there to learn how they do it. It was marvelous, inexpensive etc... in the town I stayed in they only issued an electric bill every 2 months, $17.00 Canadian. Despite my best efforts, no politician would take up the cause, no money in it. Why on earth would you build a hydroelectric dam on the shores of a bay that has a 25' tide change 4 times a day? There are a multitude of coves that could be used to generate electricity, barring that there are 2 vortices out by the mouth of the bay that never stop moving regardless the state of the tide, if you put up a monopod, you could use the bottom part as a science station and bring school classes to it so they could see first hand the things crawling around on the bottom. There has been a lot of published information on green buildings that are inexpensive to heat and cool, and environmentally friendly. There are a lot of answers out there they just have to be employed, to do that the proper incentive has to be there (money).

Agreed. Where you have 25 foot tides, tidal generation makes a lot of sense. Elsewhere, it's pretty expensive and doesn't produce enough to compete with alternate sources.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You're quite right David, the posts can be tediously long.

Especially when the same points are being made by each side on the issue over and over again...fun though

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

If you do not like the tread ignore it, who are u to demand its closure

Dave

Which is one of the many reasons why I put him on ignore.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

Hey, DOJ... here come the mods"... time to start another climate thread! Cheers, Phil

Hmmmm.

[captain58sailin]

There have been some developments in the ocean electrical generation front where the wave movement can be harnessed, and that does not require any tide, just wave action. Which is constant.

[zeehag]

for what it is worth- the current presidunce of usa did not plant the whirlygigs in kali--those have been there since i went sporty car race working i know i passed them when i went to the race ways...lol... and visiting friends. and to work and .....

unless he was out on the freeways planting them... was in 1970s-- but the planters didnt look like he does