Weather Patterns / Climate Change

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Remember "cold fusion"??? After Pons et al made the announcement that they had demonstrated cold fusion, over 40 laboratories (if my memory serves me right) were able to repeat the results, most notably Georgia Tech. Cold fusion never happened! It was found to be a botched experiment.

As my memory serves, not one single lab' reported duplicating the Pons-Fleischmann results. It was quickly determined to be a botched experiment by numerous scientific laboratories.

Within days of noting some neutron production, the Georgia Institute of Technology withdrew an early report that it had partly confirmed the Pons-Fleischmann Cold-Fusion experiment.

➥ Georgia Tech Team Reports Flaw In Critical Experiment on Fusion - NYTimes.com

➥ Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion

[sabray]

I think I just witnessed cold fusion. Its been quite cold here on the chesapeake.Ice is still a feature in Galesville. listening to an old herb Albert track I tunes froze up and blended a grateful dead drum thing on top of herb.
It was all warm and fuzzy for a moment Just can't recreate the moment at least the warm part. Everything else stays fuzzy. Were we talking about weather patterns.
Sorry for the drift. Pulled the intermediate chain plates today , added a layer of 1802 and epoxy to the knees and nearby tabbing. THings are quite a mess here and stinky.

[hpeer]

How has warming changed my sailing patterns? We greatly. Wife and I do believe that GW will create significant difficulties, perhaps in our lifetimes, if not surely in our kids. My mantra has been to stay flexible and mobile for we can not accruately predict how this will play out. As we live in a big city I find it prudent to have a way to get out of same whenever we need to. This is one of three or more reasons that we have decided to buy a boat, a bug out boat.

There are other reasons as well, not the least of which being that I hope to retire and do some cruising and we hope to enjoy some more time together away from the crowds in the meantime.

To expand just a little more I feel our society is fairly fragile, it is "critically coupled" system. We don't sufficiently understand the system and therefore can not protect some of the fragile parts. One example is the NE power outage caused by a relay tripping. More recently the near financial collapse of last year, while not warming related, is an example of how something can have potentially catastrophic effects. Warming, and other things as well, can stress our system and MAY cause a catastrophic failure perhaps through spread of disease or through crop failure to name just two.

If there are no failures then we have a nice boat to enjoy. If we do have a problem then we have an unusual and useful resource. Any one item alone probably would not have pushed us to make the purchase, in combination it seemed a good idea.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by sabray

well being a conservationist is cool. Its about being efficient with what you have and the way you use it. Making some changes doesn't have to be because you agree with global warming scares.
Natural or not we have some challenges. One of those tipping points occurs as siberia thaws and the peat bogs begin releasing the largest methane reserve huge numbers. This is the kind of event that could disrupt or change weather patterens. Siberia s peat bogs | India Environment Portal

LOL.

UN says eat less meat to curb global warming | Environment | The Observer


Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.
His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.

The UN is really, truly a joke.

[sabray]

then again cathlics were quite proud to denounce birth control while the pope marched about Africa, south america,ETC... because god wants you to fornicate and expand ignorances. Another funny hahhaa or just idiealogy at an extreme. Whatever the un is a joke What are you AND where do you get off calling the UN a Joke. Ohh my some kinda supreme do good errr that exedes all the interpreations Of good ****. your almighty basher stop your babble and do something other then wine.

[bewitched]

Wow - this is getting heated!!

Try to take a fresh view:

CO2 is really bad stuff. Man made emissions per year are around 30 billion tons. That's such a big figure, it's actually hard to picture it: it's equivalent to a cloud a few metres high covering the entire USA.

Of course, if this actually happened, everyone in the USA would die, because we can't breath CO2 and live. But luckily, this doesn't happen because the cloud doesn't form, it disperses into the atmosphere.

It stays in the atmosphere for a very, very long time and we keep adding to it year after year after year.

We may not agree to the precise effect that this will have on our planet, but I would hope that we could agree that this is not a good thing to do.

[meyermm]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Yes. It's all a maasive international conspiracy by climate scientists, governments and the U.N. to impose a global government, take our guns and bankrupt the people.

Why I believe money is at the heart of it. Firstly many western societies US England etc have aging infrastructure which is in need of large amounts of capital to replace or repair. Freeways etc that were built pre war are know starting to collapse. Aging population with over stressed medical facilities requiring expansion etc etc. Taxes could be increased but with the population aleady saying they are over taxed this would see them out of power very quickly hence the feel good tax. First frighten the populace with doom and gloom, rising water levels, ice belts melting, cyclones by the dozen. But they can fix it by taxing you all to the point that you will turn off the airconditioning. heaters, using cars less stop eating meat and everything will be good. The banks love it as they will make billions as the money ebbs back and forth and they take their handling fees. Third world countries love it as they are going to get a cut as well, as they are so far behind we have to help them catch up (more feel good tax here). Little south pacific atolls with little to look forward to no income no money have worked out that as every one seems to be in the feel good mode around the world they can scream "we are about to be flooded help us" which amounts to money or maybe a quick immigration waiver into Australia, US etc.
I am sure this post will be greeted by sneers and the usual "skeptic" comment but please tell me how many atolls have been flooded that do not have a history of flooding, how is Holland going as they are mostly below ocean level are they ordering lifeboats and sand bags by the thousands.

[bewitched]

This is where I live. When it rains, my boat gets filthy from the pollution, I can look directly at the sun after 4pm, sometimes earlier. Health warnings are the norm - air quality levels are normally below what the WHO considers safe:



Part of a conspiracy to get me to pay more taxes you say? hmmm...interesting analysis

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by bewitched

This is where I live.

You don't have to live there but so many choose to like a school of fish (safer in numbers or for the $)

This is what happens when government tells you that you all have to live in the cities and reserve the outback for nature. Drive inland for a few hours and it's all gone.

This is a perfect example of why most of us are sailors. And this is

Originally Posted by anjou

how do you (I) see the changing climate affecting live afloat?

[meyermm]

Where I live the rain is pure, the air clean. Half way between Australia's third largest city 41KMS and a very large resort city 35Kms both expanding at a great rate of knts. The easy fix for all is less people why is this not the best option. People breath, use up the earth's supplies of oil, coal, uranium etc pollute, eat beef. Less people less production of all the by products. Why do the believers not go down this path? No money to be made, lost sales, lost taxes!

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

This is what happens when government tells you that you all have to live in the cities and reserve the outback for nature. Drive inland for a few hours and it's all gone.

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone in Government in any of the countries I have lived in tell people to live in cities. What I have seen is people moving to cities with a view to earing more. Once they do earn more, they consume more. This is the root of the problem. We have got to a stage where the number of people on the planet and their desire to consume natural resources is far outstripping the planets ability to support those people or their consumerism.

The worst offenders are us - just by reading this post, it probably means that you are (or have been) in the top 1% of consumers.

and it doesn't get cleaner inland - it gets much, much worse

[idpnd]

Originally Posted by idpnd

I'm surprised, and pleasantly so, that no global warming deniers have turned up

Cancel that!

Originally Posted by Therapy

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.
His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.

The UN is really, truly a joke.

Yes, beef does not process its food very efficiently. And they produce lots of methane gas due to their inefficient digestive system. So the GW part is fact. Get used to it. And even though "this is a free country" blablabla the US/UK/part of industrial society obesity crisis may also be helped if we all consume less of it. It's not pretty.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by bewitched

This is where I live. When it rains, my boat gets filthy from the pollution, I can look directly at the sun after 4pm, sometimes earlier. Health warnings are the norm - air quality levels are normally below what the WHO considers safe:
Attachment 12710
Attachment 12711

Part of a conspiracy to get me to pay more taxes you say? hmmm...interesting analysis

This brings back memories for me. I loved living in HK, but hated pollution. I remember the filth that had to be routinely washed off the boats too.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As my memory serves, not one single lab' reported duplicating the Pons-Fleischmann results. It was quickly determined to be a botched experiment by numerous scientific laboratories.

Within days of noting some neutron production, the Georgia Institute of Technology withdrew an early report that it had partly confirmed the Pons-Fleischmann Cold-Fusion experiment.

➥ Georgia Tech Team Reports Flaw In Critical Experiment on Fusion - NYTimes.com

➥ Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion

Gord is right. This goes right to the "global cooling" thing too. The media hyped it, but few scientists signed on at the time. As an argument for "scientists can't figure it out" on the denier side, it's a red herring:

Who sparked the global cooling myth? - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Oh, no, not all scientists are wrong. Not all, because some of them are liars.

Example: East Anglia University & the global warming scam.
Example: swine flue & the WHO scam.

b.

There's actually not a shred of evidence that in the East Anglia University emails that anyone was falsifying data. The much ballyhoed comment about using a "trick" is a fairly common slang phrase for "neat method" in mathematics. If you don't believe me, listen to Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg and the way he uses the phrase:

Intelligence Squared - Steven Weinberg talks to Jack Klaff: part I
(just click the last 30 secs)

As for keeping non-mainstream work out of the IPCC report, that's perfectly legitimate in my mind. Not unlike palentologists who might want to keep out so-called "intelligent design" papers from a body of their work. It's just a meaningless distraction, especially in an environment more charged with politics than science.