Rebuild or Replace New?

[malbert73]

Ah yes, quoting the against the grain scientists. Singer in particular was funded very heavily by oil companies which he admitted and claimed didn’t bias his work. He also claimed second hand smoke was not dangerous.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

...[Big Money] promotes a climate inquisition that scorns proven science of natural climate variation. To get good climate science info, one has to search for it. Big media and government will not put it before our eyes, for if they did, it would reveal their fraud.

Indeed, some should take their own advice.

The list of 'scientists' you provide illustrates far better than anything I can say about the level of your understanding about the issue.

Leaving aside the logical inconsistencies demonstrated by your 'questions' regarding the role played by various constituents of the atmospheric 'system' and the methods real scientists use to incorporate them into accurate climate models...

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Simon B

I've just bought a 1993 Prout Event with a Perkins Perama M30 Engine from 1993. I telephoned parts4engines in England a they said we STILL have the full rebuild kits. The "STILL" word worries me. Total rebuild just like new, or do put in a brand new Yanmar? I think there is a $7k difference. I got the boat $12k than the asking price, but the electronics are from 2003. What would you do and why. I'm deliberating and debating with myself.

Key questions are:
Which is the better engine?
how many spares do you already own on the old one?

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Ah yes, quoting the against the grain scientists. Singer in particular was funded very heavily by oil companies which he admitted and claimed didn’t bias his work. He also claimed second hand smoke was not dangerous.

Science is not based upon consensus. "Against the grain" is not a relevant comment. Even one lone scientist can do work that would prove all others wrong. True science is based upon truth, not politics. Though not climate related, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis is an example of a man of science who went "against the grain", suffered abuse for it, and was later exonerated. In 1847, before Louis Pasteur's germ theory Semmelweis proved that basic hygiene such as handwashing by physicians reduced puerperal fever (childbed fever) deaths in hospitals from 25 - 30 % to 1 %. Most of his contemporaries apposed and mocked him.


Have you considered the many climate scientists that are funded by sources having a biased climate change perspective ? For example, any climate research funded by the UN IPCC or IPCC associated bodies is biased. The IPCC is not a scientific organization. It is a political organization having its own political agenda. Just do some reading on the climategate scandal. Climate research by University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was revealed in 2009 as laden with fraud. The IPCC relied heavily on this in setting their climate change agenda.


Your comments lack merit with reference to only one source, a very weak position. A valid response would have to critique all sources referenced. It seems that you have succumbed to the climate inquisition. Your comment fails to address even the most basic science of the posting. Were is your reasoning to counter even atmospheric CO2 versus water vapor content ? Where is an argument against solar activity effect on weather and climate? Could such reasoning be missing because there is none? Your dismissal of any science that is counter to biased climate theory is based upon one generalized statement and one scientist, Singer. Singer has become the red herring poster boy of the anthropomorphic climate change crowd. The posting that you criticized cited many sources.


The climate inquisition ascribers behave very much like cultists. They rally to one doctrine and diss anyone who differs. They force their "religion" down everyone else's throat and feign a moral high ground. They fail to comprehend that their mob rule mentality not only victimizes themselves with high costs of needless remediation measures, but they victimize others.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Indeed, some should take their own advice.

The list of 'scientists' you provide illustrates far better than anything I can say about the level of your understanding about the issue.

Leaving aside the logical inconsistencies demonstrated by your 'questions' regarding the role played by various constituents of the atmospheric 'system' and the methods real scientists use to incorporate them into accurate climate models...

Climate change models are computer simulations that contain built in bias of their designers. They cannot simulate real word conditions to any practical degree of accuracy. How many have been correct ? Those cited by Al Gore in his infamous propaganda film would have seen vast coastal areas inundated by now, yet vessels are still mooring to the same docks as before Mr. Gore's sensationalized predictions. The climate sensationalists like to promote fear, yet ignore their failed predictions.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Historical records require no updates, nor can they be updated. The fact that such things as woolly mammoths, frozen human remains and artifacts are found in melting glaciers confirms that the climate of their time was at least as warm as it is now. The fact that they predate recent coal and petroleum use confirms that climate has naturally varied independent of anthropogenic causes. History confirms true science. "Science" that contradicts history cannot be true science.

Besides the physical records, we have written history that confirms the medieval warming period of about 900 to 1300 AD. This was followed by the little ice age that lasted from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century. All this historic climate variation occurred long before the the large scale burning of petroleum and coal. Long before recorded history, proxy data indicates an era called the Holocene Maximum of 7000 to 4000 years ago in which world wide temperatures were much warmer than today.

How can a CO2, a trace green house gas at about .04 % possibly compare to the effects of water vapor whose concentration is many times higher ?

NASA's CO2 measurement as of Feb. 2021
416 ppm = .0416
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/


Direct quote from NASA:
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/gl...YDAL2_M_SKY_WV


North Carolina Climate Office:
"Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0 - 4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition


Jeff Haby B.Sc, M.Sc Meteorology:
"Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules."
https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/

Facts from credible science provide for conclusion that water vapor far out ranks CO2 as a green house gas by about 3/.0416 = 72.11. So how can CO2 at .0416 % have any significant climate effect compared to water vapor at 72 time higher content ?

Climate enthusiasts would do well to review their grade 3 arithmetic, renounce their misinformation, and leave the rest of us alone.

The climate change industrial complex began with Margret Thatcher who used false anthropogenic climate change theory to bolster the nuclear industry as an alternative to coal. The miners were on strike, and she was determined to break the unions. Years later she recanted. It is Ironic that Thatcher whom commie climate change crowd love to hate, supplied them with ammo.

At least a few Scientists do honest climate research, but they are ignored the media, governments, and climate change enthusiasts. The documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", has interviews with some authoritative climate and climate related scientists.

Prof. Philip Stott, Dept. of Biogeography, University of London: Little Ice Age

Prof. Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Holocene Maximum (7000 to 4000 years ago). Clark discovered that Antarctic ice core data indicates that CO2 concentration increase lags temperature increase by about 800 years.

Prof. Patric Michaels, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Prof Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Centre: Post war boom temp. decrease

Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg: Post War boom Temp. decrease

Prof. John Christy, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Iniversity of Alabama: Water vapor as a greenhouse gas

Prof. Richard Lindzen, Dept. of Meteorology, MIT: Water vapor as a greenhouse gas

Prof. Frederick Singer, Former Dir. of US National Weather Service, atmospheric temp: upper troposphere temp increase insignificant compared to surface temp. increase.

Piers Richard Corbyn, BSc Physics, MSc Astrophysics confirmed that sun spot activity directly effects weather.

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of Danish National Space Centre lead a study that revealed climate variation is controlled by solar variation.

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of Danish National Space Centre analyzed 400 years of sun spot data sun spot activity and confirmed that sun spot activity directly correlates with earth's temperature variation.

Climate science has become the victim of a new inquisition in which many honest scientists are gagged by threats against their careers. The fraudsters and their ignorant followers often reveal themselves through their one sided views that ignore all opposing evidence and by their cocky remarks.

Anthropogenic climate change is only an imaginary problem. It will only be solved by honesty in science, government, education, institutions, and individuals.

Thanks, champ. That small list of academics might just bring me round! I assume you've checked their funding sources too while disregarding the thousands of non-industry funded academics who have carefully and compellingly shown why they are wrong because they might be funded by the UN. You should tell the major oil companies what you've exposed too, because despite every reason not to, they accept the science and also think you're wrong. They're more quiet and bashful about the fact that they ran misinformation lines for decades, like the ones you have parroted.

This might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

[Cadence]

Drift, drift, drift! If people wish to argue climate change, I feel sure there is a forum for that issue. The OP was asking a simple question, rebuild or replace.

[Bill Seal]

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Climate change models are computer simulations that contain built in bias of their designers. They cannot simulate real word conditions to any practical degree of accuracy. How many have been correct ? Those cited by Al Gore in his infamous propaganda film would have seen vast coastal areas inundated by now, yet vessels are still mooring to the same docks as before Mr. Gore's sensationalized predictions. The climate sensationalists like to promote fear, yet ignore their failed predictions.

As others have asked, much more nicely, what is your problem?

This thread is not about climate change, which, with every post you've made about it so far, you've illustrated that you know nothing at all about.

If you did, for starters, you'd know that models are not built with the 'bias of their designers', that they have simulated "real world conditions" to a very high degree of accuracy, and that the purpose of models is not to be 'correct', but to give a range of possibilities that enables a prudent entity to make an informed decision in dealing with a complex problem.

That you appear to be unaware of how much of your life is dominated by the use of the "practically inaccurate" models that make it so easy for you to be so irritatingly obnoxious, only heightens my amusement at being able to type this post in response.

[Uncle Bob]

Dude, can you PLEASE use the appropriate thread to disseminate your climate change viewpoint and leave this thread for the purpose for which it was started.
Thanks in advance, respectfully yours, Bob.

[mako]

I actually had to go to the top of the thread to remember what this discussion was actually about

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

As others have asked, much more nicely, what is your problem?

This thread is not about climate change, which, with every post you've made about it so far, you've illustrated that you know nothing at all about.

If you did, for starters, you'd know that models are not built with the 'bias of their designers', that they have simulated "real world conditions" to a very high degree of accuracy, and that the purpose of models is not to be 'correct', but to give a range of possibilities that enables a prudent entity to make an informed decision in dealing with a complex problem.

That you appear to be unaware of how much of your life is dominated by the use of the "practically inaccurate" models that make it so easy for you to be so irritatingly obnoxious, only heightens my amusement at being able to type this post in response.

Seeing as Diesel dude only made a brief reference to pollution in his advice about Replace or Rebuild the engine... methinks the dragging of this thread into Climate Change is down to Bill Seal a you Jim... you guys launched the attack so any Drift is down to you..
Skip the Bull Crap blame game FFS..

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Seeing as Diesel dude only made a brief reference to pollution in his advice about Replace or Rebuild the engine... methinks the dragging of this thread into Climate Change is down to Bill Seal a you Jim... you guys launched the attack so any Drift is down to you..
Skip the Bull Crap blame game FFS..

Hmmm...

Originated by Diesel Dude

[Post 37]... CO2 emissions are certainly not the demon that much of our society believes. Climate warming causes atmospheric CO2 increase. CO2 does not cause atmospheric warming to any significant extent. Natural increases in solar radiation warms the ocean. This causes dissolved CO2 already present in sea water to be released to atmosphere. This is the same physical mechanism that makes soda pop and beer go flat as it warms. Eventually the solar radiation decreases and the ocean cools, increasing its ability to dissolve the CO2. Al Gore's theory is backwards. Climate change is a natural occurrence that has been happening since the first large vessel master in recorded history had his vessel ground on a mountain of the Ararat range. Noah and his contemporaries did not burn coal and petroleum. Yet the climate of their time and afterward continually changed. This is evidenced by such things as the discovery of woolly mammoths in the arctic with tropical plants in their bellies. Of course the Vikings were able to settle and farm in Greenland and Ice Land while the north was in a warming period. Their settlements declined as the climate entered a cooling period. Though inventive people, the Vikings were not running Scania diesel engines from Sweden in their vessels. They were not burning coal to produce iron and steel in vast quantities, yet the world saw climate variation before the industrial age of coal and petroleum....

Post 44
Historical records require no updates, nor can they be updated. The fact that such things as woolly mammoths, frozen human remains and artifacts are found in melting glaciers confirms that the climate of their time was at least as warm as it is now. The fact that they predate recent coal and petroleum use confirms that climate has naturally varied independent of anthropogenic causes. History confirms true science. "Science" that contradicts history cannot be true science.

Besides the physical records, we have written history that confirms the medieval warming period of about 900 to 1300 AD. This was followed by the little ice age that lasted from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century. All this historic climate variation occurred long before the the large scale burning of petroleum and coal. Long before recorded history, proxy data indicates an era called the Holocene Maximum of 7000 to 4000 years ago in which world wide temperatures were much warmer than today.

How can a CO2, a trace green house gas at about .04 % possibly compare to the effects of water vapor whose concentration is many times higher ?

NASA's CO2 measurement as of Feb. 2021
416 ppm = .0416
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/


Direct quote from NASA:
"Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/gl...YDAL2_M_SKY_WV


North Carolina Climate Office:
"Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0 - 4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is. In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition


Jeff Haby B.Sc, M.Sc Meteorology:
"Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules."
https://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/

Facts from credible science provide for conclusion that water vapor far out ranks CO2 as a green house gas by about 3/.0416 = 72.11. So how can CO2 at .0416 % have any significant climate effect compared to water vapor at 72 time higher content ?

Climate enthusiasts would do well to review their grade 3 arithmetic, renounce their misinformation, and leave the rest of us alone.

The climate change industrial complex began with Margret Thatcher who used false anthropogenic climate change theory to bolster the nuclear industry as an alternative to coal. The miners were on strike, and she was determined to break the unions. Years later she recanted. It is Ironic that Thatcher whom commie climate change crowd love to hate, supplied them with ammo.

At least a few Scientists do honest climate research, but they are ignored the media, governments, and climate change enthusiasts. The documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", has interviews with some authoritative climate and climate related scientists.

Prof. Philip Stott, Dept. of Biogeography, University of London: Little Ice Age

Prof. Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Holocene Maximum (7000 to 4000 years ago). Clark discovered that Antarctic ice core data indicates that CO2 concentration increase lags temperature increase by about 800 years.

Prof. Patric Michaels, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

Prof Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research Centre: Post war boom temp. decrease

Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg: Post War boom Temp. decrease

Prof. John Christy, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Iniversity of Alabama: Water vapor as a greenhouse gas

Prof. Richard Lindzen, Dept. of Meteorology, MIT: Water vapor as a greenhouse gas

Prof. Frederick Singer, Former Dir. of US National Weather Service, atmospheric temp: upper troposphere temp increase insignificant compared to surface temp. increase.

Piers Richard Corbyn, BSc Physics, MSc Astrophysics confirmed that sun spot activity directly effects weather.

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of Danish National Space Centre lead a study that revealed climate variation is controlled by solar variation.

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen, Director of Danish National Space Centre analyzed 400 years of sun spot data sun spot activity and confirmed that sun spot activity directly correlates with earth's temperature variation.

Climate science has become the victim of a new inquisition in which many honest scientists are gagged by threats against their careers. The fraudsters and their ignorant followers often reveal themselves through their one sided views that ignore all opposing evidence and by their cocky remarks.

Anthropogenic climate change is only an imaginary problem. It will only be solved by honesty in science, government, education, institutions, and individuals.

Post 45

Yes, the anthropogenic climate change believers have been watching too much fake news that feeds their prejudice. Have you not noticed that in the subject of climate, big media always broadcasts propaganda that supports the notion of anthropogenic climate change. But they largely ignore honest science that refutes it. In the odd instances in which they do make mention of any honest climate science, it is with scorn and criticism. Honest Scientists are disrespected.



"The arts of power and its minions are the same in all countries and in all ages. It marks its victim; denounces it; and excites the public odium and the public hatred, to conceal its own abuses and encroachments."- Senator Henry Clay, US Senator, 1834.

Big Media promotes a climate inquisition that scorns proven science of natural climate variation. To get good climate science info, one has to search for it. Big media and government will not put it before our eyes, for if they did, it would reveal their fraud.

Post 49

Science is not based upon consensus. "Against the grain" is not a relevant comment. Even one lone scientist can do work that would prove all others wrong. True science is based upon truth, not politics. Though not climate related, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis is an example of a man of science who went "against the grain", suffered abuse for it, and was later exonerated. In 1847, before Louis Pasteur's germ theory Semmelweis proved that basic hygiene such as handwashing by physicians reduced puerperal fever (childbed fever) deaths in hospitals from 25 - 30 % to 1 %. Most of his contemporaries apposed and mocked him.


Have you considered the many climate scientists that are funded by sources having a biased climate change perspective ? For example, any climate research funded by the UN IPCC or IPCC associated bodies is biased. The IPCC is not a scientific organization. It is a political organization having its own political agenda. Just do some reading on the climategate scandal. Climate research by University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was revealed in 2009 as laden with fraud. The IPCC relied heavily on this in setting their climate change agenda.


Your comments lack merit with reference to only one source, a very weak position. A valid response would have to critique all sources referenced. It seems that you have succumbed to the climate inquisition. Your comment fails to address even the most basic science of the posting. Were is your reasoning to counter even atmospheric CO2 versus water vapor content ? Where is an argument against solar activity effect on weather and climate? Could such reasoning be missing because there is none? Your dismissal of any science that is counter to biased climate theory is based upon one generalized statement and one scientist, Singer. Singer has become the red herring poster boy of the anthropomorphic climate change crowd. The posting that you criticized cited many sources.


The climate inquisition ascribers behave very much like cultists. They rally to one doctrine and diss anyone who differs. They force their "religion" down everyone else's throat and feign a moral high ground. They fail to comprehend that their mob rule mentality not only victimizes themselves with high costs of needless remediation measures, but they victimize others.

post 50

Climate change models are computer simulations that contain built in bias of their designers. They cannot simulate real word conditions to any practical degree of accuracy. How many have been correct ? Those cited by Al Gore in his infamous propaganda film would have seen vast coastal areas inundated by now, yet vessels are still mooring to the same docks as before Mr. Gore's sensationalized predictions. The climate sensationalists like to promote fear, yet ignore their failed predictions.

Really?

As usual, someone needs to take their own advice.

"Skip the Bull Crap blame game FFS"


My total 'contributions' to the subject.

Post 41 Demonstrably wrong on virtually every point. Someone's been watching too much TV...


Post 47 Indeed, some should take their own advice.

The list of 'scientists' you provide illustrates far better than anything I can say about the level of your understanding about the issue.

Leaving aside the logical inconsistencies demonstrated by your 'questions' regarding the role played by various constituents of the atmospheric 'system' and the methods real scientists use to incorporate them into accurate climate models...

Post 54

As others have asked, much more nicely, what is your problem?

This thread is not about climate change, which, with every post you've made about it so far, you've illustrated that you know nothing at all about.

If you did, for starters, you'd know that models are not built with the 'bias of their designers', that they have simulated "real world conditions" to a very high degree of accuracy, and that the purpose of models is not to be 'correct', but to give a range of possibilities that enables a prudent entity to make an informed decision in dealing with a complex problem.

That you appear to be unaware of how much of your life is dominated by the use of the "practically inaccurate" models that make it so easy for you to be so irritatingly obnoxious, only heightens my amusement at being able to type this post in response.

Do I detect a 'flexible' definition for 'brief'? Why am I not surprised?

"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"

(and yes, I'm aware of the irony of me making this statement "...that make it so easy for you to be so irritatingly obnoxious, only heightens my amusement at being able to type this post in response.")

[boatman61]

I'm not the one crying about the 'Thread Drift'.. maybe it's you should stay outa the kitchen..
As for the 'obnoxious'... Coming from the likes of you that's high praise indeed..

[Stewie12]

I am surprised that a moderator has not stepped in by now.