Climate Change, Part III

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Sorry my friend but you're Wrong on this one.... I've been waiting to say that. Recent data shows there's more ice up there now and the temps are decreasing. The polar bears are going to be OK.

You can't imagine how disorienting it is to tell someone else they are wrong. There are benefits to being Wrong. Bet I'm the only person who's always going to be Wrong on the internet. Unique, easily remembered (for good or bad) and actually didn't take much effort to earn on CF. Can't say why.

Anyway your WRONG!

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by zeehag

ok wrong so what do you revommend--are you gonna uninstall the parking lots an d plant trees and reforest the rwin forests and kill off all the excess humanity???

lets get real. WORRYING is crap is only gonna shrorten what ever length life you would have had had chicken little not screamed his greedy fat headoff.

how many decades before this earth implodes---wanna count days--then send out a freeking memo about it---we will undergo changes as we ourselves change with this monumental distraction thrown at us so we donot notice the real stuff going on to limit the lifestyles and freedoms we once enjoyed--these changes can have somehting done about them, unlike the changes in nature. what ye gonna do about the polar caps that were spozed to go away for the scheduled increase in water level predicted when i was in 4th grade--i think that was 1958 or 59--even BEFORE glut and wtf halitosis we underwent with petrochemicals.....
seems to be a good time to watch yer bs and live without the stress of worrying about something we can do nothing about---and live life. enjoy it it is all we have..
dont necessarily close your eyes to stuff--but this was predicted since 1950s. and allegedly we are on schedule. so what is the big deal and what ye gonna do about it--restrict folks's freedoms and travel and bbqing??
we all have a responsibility in this life and some of us actually donot ignore that. some do.
there is no reason to sensationalize anything just for profit, which was what this senationalized bs was originally all about. nothing has changed from the predictions from 1958-59 .

i have a boat. i am ready. earth changes. that is fact. you gonna carry ice cubes to re freeze the polar regions when it is time for them not to be frozen--mebbe somewhere else has a turn being north pole for a bit. let them. is due. mebbe you are strong enough to try to help -push the earth into its new axis---and prevent the gradual changing of things as they are supposed to change now that would be tragic.

pete--i has a boat i has a boat--i is soooo very ready...lol. i will be as safe as any other lol with a formosa 41 on the seas....

What, me worry? You've got some great ideas how we might turn the situation around. Especially ripping up the parking lots. My idea though is to plant veggies and fruit trees for food. Talk about ripping stuff up - how about the water guzzling lawns everyone dumps pesticides onto. Great ideas for starters.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Wrong

You can't imagine how disorienting it is to tell someone else they are wrong. There are benefits to being Wrong. Bet I'm the only person who's always going to be Wrong on the internet. Unique, easily remembered (for good or bad) and actually didn't take much effort to earn on CF. Can't say why.

Anyway your WRONG!

Touche' my friend. I just couldn't resist having fun.

I have a more memorable name to tell you about. While in the DJ entertainment business out in So Cal 25 years ago, I had a very good client who booked a party with my company every year. He always seemed to manage to leave a message on the machine which in turn forced me to return the call and ask someone in his office if I could speak to "Mr. Budd Hohl" what a memorable name... I still chuckle about it. And what a nice guy.

Things would get even more comical at the eventual company party when I'd have to introduce him to over two hundred of his employees and family members over the PA system... and be serious and entertaining about the whole thing.

[Delfin]

On the first climate thread, jackdale (ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor Evaluator, CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor, IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor) made a very interesting point I have been thinking about, while another post by Conachair really brought it into focus. I'm pretty sure this train of thought settles the AGW argument once and for all, but we'll see. What jackdale (ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor Evaluator, CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor, IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor) said was a rebuttal to a statement I had made that the sun has been warming continuously over time, which of course it has, being around 20% or so brighter today than a few billion years ago. But he was quite correct in that within that general warming trend, the sun goes through cycles of luminosity and irradiance, and that recently sunspot activity has been less than predicted, which should result in cooler temperatures since sunspots are demonstrable earth warmers. But, our global temps have been quite stable, so jackdale (ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor Evaluator, CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor, IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor) inferred that this proved that manmade CO2 emissions were keeping us warmer than sunspot activity would normally have produced, ergo sum, manmade CO2 is bad and must be reduced and anyone who thinks differently is either an employee of an oil company, stupid, or on a moral par to Holocaust deniers.

Enter Conachair, who can always be counted on to inadvertently make an argument that always proves exactly the opposite position he is taking. What Conachair wrote was to ask what I didn't understand about 'equilibrium' in response to my pointing out that less than 4% of total CO2 was manmade with 96% coming from rotting vegetation, volcanoes, cow farts, whatever. So putting what jackdale (ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor Evaluator, CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor, IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor) wrote together with what Conachair wrote, we have a situation where one AGW fan is arguing that manmade CO2 emissions are keeping us from cooling down as a consequence of reduced sunspot activity, whilst Conachair is arguing the merits of equilibrium, which we have apparently reached by means of manmade CO2 emissions, at least according to jackdale (ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor Evaluator, CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor, IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor) who says they have been offsetting natural cooling from reduced sunspots.

So here's the revelation these two have provided. Since we have solar scientists forecasting that it is possible that sunspot cycle 25 (coming in a few years) may be without sunspots at all, and since the last time we had this we entered the little ice age during the Maunder minimum, and since equilibrium is ideal and since manmade CO2 emissions counter low sunspot activity, then clearly WE SHOULD ALL IMMEDIATELY INCREASE OUR CARBON FOOTPRINTS. Please, for the sake of the children!

Of course, I think that manmade sources of atmostpheric CO2 are a gnat fart in a windstorm relative to natural sources, and I also accept the evidence that increased CO2 is an effect, not a cause of warming. But if we stiupulate that jackdale (ISPA Yachtmaster Offshore Instructor Evaluator, CYA Advanced Cruising Instructor, IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor) is correct, and Conachair is correct in setting climate equilibrium as a virtue, then we must admit that increasing CO2 production to offset sunspot cycle 25 cooling is a must!

To disprove this conclusion, you need only do two things, which I don't think any AGW fool can ( or will) do. First, disprove that CO2 from human sources is a problem. I'm happen to agree with you, but if you don't have that, you've got bupkus, so I doubt you'll make that argument. Or, you can disprove current thinking on solar sunspot cycles, which would be tough since there is well established science behind those cycles. If you can't, or won't take up this challenge, then do pipe down. Nobody is listening anyway, so why bother?

Source: Solar Cycle #24: On Track to be the Weakest in 100 Years

Key quote: “If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25,” Noted Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory, hinting that we may be on the edge of another Maunder Minimum."

[Capt Phil]

Who says you don't learn something from these threads (thanks, DOJ)... I learned that Zee was in the fourth grade in 58 or 59... I was already pulling in salmon in the PNW... far too young for me... I'd be robbing the cradle! Zee... you cougar, you!! Cheers, Phil

[bobconnie]

You got that right Capt Phil, she's a YOUNG cougar to us old guy's!! In 58 I was takeing my first real cruise to Hawyee, and gettin ready to go back to crabbing! LOL and as far as the water gettin higher! I live at sea level, here in So Louisiana, and I don't see any rise in the water level down here !! I guess the heat wave must be evaporateing it before it gets here !! Maybe ??

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

whilst Conachair is arguing the merits of equilibrium,
......
and Conachair is correct in setting climate equilibrium as a virtue,

There were never any value judgments included, just pointing out you don't have a clue about short term equilibrium.

And 4% is massively more than a gnats fart.

Very basic mathematics.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

There were never any value judgments included, just pointing out you don't have a clue about short term equilibrium.

And 4% is massively more than a gnats fart.

Very basic mathematics.

Cool, so let's stipulate that this 4% is super critical in a way that the other 96% is not. So, I guess that means that if men increased their percentage from 4% to say, 5%, we might be able to stave off the effects of solar sunspot cycle 25, thereby avoiding another little ice age. Since jackdale (random credentials)says we've avoided cooling during cycle 24 because of that 4% (the 96% has no effect, apparently) that is a reasonable proposition. Is that what your're saying?

[Teknav]

I have a gut feeling that this thread will join the previous threads about the same topic; ...ashes to ashes...dust to dust...

Mauritz
The mule is not for sale!

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Cool, so let's stipulate that this 4% is super critical in a way that the other 96% is not. So, I guess that means that if men increased their percentage from 4% to say, 5%, we might be able to stave off the effects of solar sunspot cycle 25, thereby avoiding another little ice age. Since jackdale (random credentials)says we've avoided cooling during cycle 24 because of that 4% (the 96% has no effect, apparently) that is a reasonable proposition. Is that what your're saying?

Not at all. How on earth did you get there?

It's very basic mathematics.

100 units of stuff get released. 100 units of stuff get absorbed.
Something comes along and releases 4.166 extra units of stuff.
24 years later the amount of stuff has doubled.

Basic numbers seem to be beyond you.

[Travelnik]

Summer gets hot.

Winter gets cold.

Climate change confusion solved!

[Lagoon4us]

The heavy rains that fell on Australia last year LOWERED the worlds sea levels...

So unless 'rainfall over land' is taken into the historical sea level data the whole chicken little "the seas are rising" scenario is shot in both feet.....

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Travelnik

Summer gets hot.

Winter gets cold.

Climate change confusion solved!

"We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.

JOHN MCCAIN, speech, May 12, 2008"

"Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense.

RONALD REAGAN, State of the Union address, Jan. 25, 1984"


dave

[Group9]

Me and Al Gore have got this covered. The rest of you can relax until I tell you where to send the check.

[Teknav]

Tell them Mac sent ya!

Mauritz
Who is Mac, anyways?