Global warming

I love stirring the pot! This could go on for a while! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

"Ya, you know what? This time last year the water temperature was 15 degrees higher than it is this year and I for one am pissed!!!!

Global warming my a$$ <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

--------------------
John
H20 #532 "

Lookey here: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

If Global Warming hasn't affected your water temp this year. Can you explain the dramatic decrease ? (I like stirring to)

El Niño

Read the link above: it's all about salinity and the "great conveyor".

Nope



You see I'm an "I want it now, gas guzzler driving American" who's sick of all this crap. I/we, all of us major metropolitan area dwellers, have to drive straight through a most liberal college town to get to the lake. Why? Because construction of the four lane gas guzzler expressway slated to by-pass the college town was stopped. There was some "wetlands" out there and some little frog may have become unable to hop over the highway without being SMASHED. This college and another local university claimed this area for "research". In the mean time we have to drive through town and a miriad of stoplights sitting behind 1983 Volvos puffing blue smoke and sporting bumper stickers like "Kansas...as bigoted as you think".

And you now what? Since this highway project was stopped (20 years ago) research has proven that this wetland was not natural at all. It was "naturally" created in the 50's due to runoff from the expansion of the city, i.e. parking lots and storm sewers!!! So now what? Ignore the facts. The poor little frogs have claimed it for a habitat.

So what does this have to do with the weather being unseasonably warm last year and unseasonably cool this year? Not a damn thing. Do I know why? Yup, weather runs in cycles. And I'm pissed because I was "cheated" out of three or four weeks of sailing. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Wah, wah, wah! There!

Thanks a BUNCH <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
And look who's sitting out in the middle of the North Atlantic <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />
Tim, How many spare rooms do you have <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

check out the author here

Ooohh! looks like some more good reading

ADHD Secrets of Success: Coaching Yourself to Fulfillment in the Business World.

and

Walking Your Blues Away: Practical Bilateral Therapies for Healing the Mind and Optimizing Emotional Well-Being.

On this topic alot has been mentioned on this side of the pond about the amount of pollution cheap air travel causes. Still youve got to hand it to these airlines they have great names.

I've got a big paddle to stir with!!! You uns over in the UK has got Gore to educate the gov. about global warming. He'll fly over on his private jet, burning more fuel in one trip than I will burn in a whole year (including to heat my house) and he'll say how we're destroying the environment! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Lemme at 'im...

Sometimes politicians are not just full of hot air, just full of it!

Clayton

right, so we get global warming. the polar ice caps melt and what happens? we get more sailing area. more water and a longer season. whats wrong with that?
remember, the earth is 70% race course

now that's almost t-shirt worthy.

Somebody's watched "Waterworld" one too many times!!

When (if) the polar ice caps melt the ocean will rise 300ft.

Most of you in Florida will be underwater. Boston, Philly, DC, SF, NYC all under water.

Waterworld is right.

Find out how far underwater you'll be http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm
I'm at 188 ft above sea level

Bill

WOW! GENIUS! I LOVE THIS QUOTE! can I use it? pretty please!

Just like - "Life is too short for monohulls" - PTP

ahhahaha! That is some serious decal worthy literature right there! AMAZING! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

There is no such thing as global warming...it's just a FAD.

Bob <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Thanks Bob, another voice of reason.

Gee, I hope not. I'm counting on the artic icecap melting so we can drill for oil and gas up there. We don't need no stinkin' polar bears anyway.

<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, what do they do, eat people and baby seals. So if Waterworld happens who survives??? The sailors, we don't need gas, have more intelligence than the average person, plus we would have boats!

I have a comment, I don't think the water is going to rise 300 feet, everything I have read says something like 50 or 60 feet. Where did you find that info.

Take a glass full of ice cubes and top it to the very brim with water, let the ice melt and measure how much water has spilt over the side. Hang on a minute there hasn't been a drop spilt infact the level went down slightly. Now if all the ice bergs in the world melted would we have the same effect. Answers please

Ice bergs? Yes, same effect. Run-off from glacial melt down, different effect.

mostly true, I would think that very little of the worlds total ice formations are bergs. The polar ice caps are not floating ice bergs are they?

It is correct that melting of floating sea ice will do little to raise sea levels. The problem is mostly the huge glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. These are supported by land above sea level. From what I have read, if those melted completely the resulting sea level rise would be on the order of 200 feet. What has some climatologists worried is the Greenland glaciers are now moving much faster than expected.

A lot is floating ice. I don't know the percentage.

Wow, last thread I was chastised for my "man made global warming is BS" view, but... I feel right at home here ;-)

Will, I do not believe that Golbal Warming is man caused (Completely maybe .9%), but the Earth does change!!!!!

Recent studies indicate that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are gaining mass. It is speculated that warmer temperatures will increase snowfall in those areas, more than offsetting increased melting.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898

More mass = more beach, it's all good.

So which is the better investment, property on the beach or property in the mountains? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

the polar cap melting thing has always baffled me - so I ran some numbers. Note that the north pole is a floating ice cap so I've ignored it in the figures. The south pole is an ice sheet over land.

Ocean Surface area of the earth: 361 million km^2
Required Volume of water to raise the oceans 200 feet (.06 km): 22+ million km^3

The south pole has roughly 14 million km^2 of ice surface area and if we were to just look at the contribution of the south pole, the ice would have to be 1.6 km thick (above the water) to contain 22 million km^3. Reportedly (Wikipedia), there is 30 million km^3 of ice on the south pole alone - but I don't know how much of this is ice cap, ice sheet, or submerged.

Greenland's ice sheet surface area is a little over 1.8 million km^3...throw that into the volume calculation and the average ice thickness above the surface for Greenland and the South Pole would need to be 1.4 km thick.

Obviously, there's some more ice in Russia and Canada, so let's just toss in the whole surface area of Canada to approximate them both. Now the average ice thickness above the surface in Greenland, Antarctica, and Canada (assuming completely covered evenly) would be .8 km thick.

Basically, it's not as outrageous as I first thought (assuming that ALL of it would melt - dunno how practical that really is).

If possible, I would have bought land in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Maud_Land <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Should be really nice once the ice is gone. Once it was tropical there, same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard

I have seen only one estimate of total climate change related to "greenhouse gasses", 2%, and cannot vouch for the accuracy. The only thing certain is change, and that includes global climate.

I've no idea how much or how soon, but change is coming.

Jake,

Are we taking into account the "Lay of the land" as it were.

For example, one of our lakes here in NM was sooooo low, (reported 80') Now, this summer, there was enough rain in the area, to cause a 20' rise over 3 weeks, now my guess is that if we have the same amount of water flow (in and out) it would take an ever increasing amount of time (there for water) to completely fill the lake. Islands dissappear and such.

As the water rises, flows past mountains and hills and into valleys.

Humm,

Other than SF Bay getting larger and Florida and Louisiana disappearing everything remains pretty much status quo.

I think change is happening, however I think our contribution is minimal. It's a VERY complicated matter and nobody fully knows the answers. The problem is that the general public are sheep and easily scared. Scared people can be controlled, control is power. There is money and power in global warming and that's why it's a hot issue. I personally am more worried a/b a big cooling than a mild warming. The earth is an open system and continuously changing... a little more complex than what we modeled in class <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Speaking of sea levels. I know Jake simplified it quite a bit by not considering that area will change as levels rise. It was a good exercise in feasibility and got the wheels turning in my head. This would offset the total increase to some extent. I'm not even going to sit down and try to estimate the math. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Pun intended? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Me pun?... never <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Something else to worrieeeeeeee about, somebody told me a few weeks ago that the moon is leaving the earth's orbit!!!!!

Yes, at an alarming rate of 1" per year eeeeekkkksssss.

So, with less gravitonal pull from the moon, let the ice melt <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> in about 1,000,000 years, the water levels will be right back to where they are now. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

The best investment is almost always in reducing uncertainty.

Lets say you think there's a 95% chance of a sea level rise, which will cost $100 billion to mitigate. It's a good investment to spend $1 billion (i.e. 1%) in research if you can increase that certainty to 99% (or decrease it 90%).

Don't forget the time-value of money either. Say you can buy land in Antarctica for $1/acre today, and it will be worth $10,000/acre in 200 years when that 1 km of ice melts off. Is that a good investment?

$1 invested at 5% per year = $17,293 after 200 years. Of course, none of us will be around to enjoy it, but this is all about our children, and our children's children etc. right?

It is heartening to see that, while so many of us can't be bothered to save for our own retirement, we still want to spend so much money on problems that will only affect the next generations. I guess we're not as selfish as we think we are.

Do you get the water rights?

I don't have any kids, may I have the $1 now, instead of investing?

I'm looking forward to my home on the hillside getting some beach front. The only downside is the boards hanging up on the condo below us.

I don't follow you - the melting doesn't have anything to do with rain and is simply a function of the volume of water contained in the ice that melts and contributes to the oceans.

I think he's eluding to what I said. As the water rises, it follows the low contours and surface area increases, so the quantity of water necessary to raise the first inch is less than the qty of water for the subsequent inches.

If you're in to reading about the "human induced climate change", fka global warming, this guy says worst case is seven meters rise. Something to do with land masses rising when glaciers melt.

lightblueline

Correct, but as the water levels rise weather it be from melting ice or rain fall, the change of the shorelines will cause a need for more and more water to cause a rise in water level.

Does that make sence? More surface area, more water per inch in rise.

Yeah ... but geeesh...I only had a few minutes to contribute and I refuse to pull out my calculus books. Even then, you're probably talking about, at most, a 5% difference in the result (for which the amount of error is likely already more than that) since the oceans already consume 71% of the earth's surface.

It must be global warming, weve just had our strangest weather for 40 years which is a relevant time to study the weather patterns considering the worlds only been made for millions of years. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Geeeshhh Jake, get on the ball here. I would like to see your work. Include all terain (again spelling). You have untill 5:00 PM Friday.

<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Property in Canada. Lake ontario is about 247ft above sea level, so just bring your gps and buy land that is higher than that. Then when the waves of displaced people come washing over the country you can rent them land at a high price.

dont like cold weather. do like ocean. Bring it on.

only once and only for the boat.

A major consideration is that as the climate warms, the water mass absorbs much of that heat increase and "disguises" the effects until the water reaches a critical mass at which time there is a greater increase in expansion of that water mass which leads to ocean rise. Another real concern is that the monitoring of the gulf stream seems to indicate that it could be reaching a point where it will stop flowing north and if that should happen, although the planet will still "warm" the land mass serviced by the gulf stream will be covered in masses of ice, creating a very different world i.e. an ice age in the northern hemisphere and droughts and deserts in the southern?

BSEG, I've watched it more times than I care to admit, and only because of the boat!!! I Want that boat!!!!!!

Right on.... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You guys need to get out more often. What about Jean Tripplehorn? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

AMEN!

Well, Yeah, but of course I thought she was part of the Standard Equipment on the boat!!!!!!!! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Probably the lower 1/2 of Louisiana would go and leave the upper section... wait, hmmmm well thats why I have a boat right?

Clayton
(South Louisiana)

you'll be able to buy land in Fourchon dirt cheap...

and I wish Waterworld was a series.

A big part of the polar ice pack is on land. When (if) it melts the ocean will rise. Scientist are saying anything between 3ft and 300ft over the next 10 to 100 years. If it ALL melts its equal to 300 ft in ocean rise.

If you keep track of the research, some of the ice pack is melting at an alarming rate and f***ing up penguins and polar bears. Some of it is actually increasing.

So, what this tells me is that its more about weather change, not just gettting warmer, some places get warmer, some get colder.

The 300ft thing is pretty scary if you believe it.

Bill

And how do you know about Fourchon? Most in Louisiana don't know about that place! I'll be down there in a couple of weeks (work) Always pick up fresh shrimp when I'm in the area... great for Gumbo
<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Clayton

Yes we certainly have had some change over the years, Hannibal and his elephants were rumoured to have crossed the alps to conquer was it Asia, now to cross the alps with elephants one would have had to have a mimimum of snow which at the point he was rumoured to have crossed has definately not been the case for many a year. The Thames at London used to freeze over and yet only 20 years before, the Chilterns, which are only 20 miles from London, was a large wine growing region and grapes need lots of sun and hot weather to grow well.

Now as to recycling explain this one for me. We need lots of trees to hoover all the CO2 that we produce from all those gas guzzlers in the States and all those coal fired power stations in China and yet we are told to recycle paper. Where does paper come from, why trees of course, so if we recycle paper by dunking it in chemicals to get rid of the ink and then wash and heat it in even more chemicals to whiten it as no one would buy brown recycled paper, then surely there will be less demand for paper and by consequence less trees will be grown so even by more consequence less trees to hoover up all that bad CO2 ?

Just maybe we don't yet fully understand what mother nature is throwing at us.

The most concerning thing about global warming is the change in weather and climate not the rise in water. Northern Canadians might see disappearing arctic ice but Latin Americans see lethal storms and floods. The Europeans see glaciers disappearing, an increase in forest fires and fatal heat waves. Warmer oceans mean bigger hurricanes for us in the southern United States. My point is, it does not matter where you live or 'invest'. The affect is global.
Did you know that 19 of the warmest 20 years on record have been since 1980?

Open Artic seas in summer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/earth/12arcti.html

And the record goes back to when? Lets see the earth is several million years old... man is not that old... evidence of previous ice ages... what caused those? Latest report I read shows that "COWS" not man emits more damaging gas (methane) that all of the fossil fuel burning means of transportation etc put together. SO LETS EAT THE COWS!!!
<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Now we've resorted to listening to POLITICIANS telling us what they think about the ozone and green house gasses. The SCIENTISTS can't agree, what makes us think the Politicians know what they are talking about!

Seriously, every report I've seen has a counter report disputing it. Bottom line, we need to protect our enviroment so our children can enjoy the earth as we have.


Peace to all!!

Merry Christmas! To all that celebrate the birth of Christ!
Happy Holidays to those that do not!
<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Clayton

Any of you seen "Inconvenient Truth"? It made me re-evaluate my conceptions a bit.

our water seems a bit cooler out here too. is it because of all the ice that is melting?
no one has mentioned the concept of the sun flares which are creating more heat these days. even mars is hotter theses days according to scientists. no global tax could solve a prolem like that.
the inconvineint truth has the facts backwards acording to some analysts. increased co2 follows a global warming rather than causing it like the movie says. these globalist elite are famous for manipulating data to falsely prove their point. the magic bullet theory being a fine example of this technique.
the movie also fails to mention weather manipulation, which has been popular since th 60's and maybe before that. there have been russian scientists coming forward saying it was their job to make sure it didn't rain on the big parade. all different countries seeding clouds and monkeying with the weather could have unknow effects on someone else's weather.
the movie implies man is responsible for the warming, but many are saying man is only responsible for 2-6% of the change. cutting down trees any paving couldn't be helping the air quality. that would be like cutting out a lung on a person.
if they can gain some traction with the man made global warming theory and institute a global tax we would be that much closer to a global government. but would the taxmoney help cool the planet, or would it pay for weapons?

Agreed - C02 levels and global temperature go hand in hand but how does a sun flare create more C02 exactly? Secondly, how can you explain that C02 levels right now are significantly higher than they have been in 40,000 years on this planet? Can you actually show me the scientific nay-sayers? I looked and am having difficulty actually finding the ones that have scientific background (and are not reporters or political in nature). Sure, I've found people that debate some of the details, but nobody that says that our technology isn't adversely influencing the planet.

Wow Jake.

You let Al Gore's propaganda piece get to you?

You know Al buys his "Carbon Credits" (to reduce his carbon footprint from his 20-room, $1500/mo electric bill mansion in Tennessee) from ... his own company.

Remember, always be skeptical of anyone purporting to be claiming "the truth".

Actually their is a very simple reasoning that show the invalidate of any argument that go along the lines of "Earth is so and so many million years old and back then ...."

The Earth is 5 billion years old and for 60 % of the time it was a hot rocks surrounded by a poisonous cloud of surfur and other acid like components. Life didn't exist back then and carbon based lifeforms are ill equipped to survive in those conditions. That is despite the fact that some micro organism have managed to evolve into a beings that can survive harsh climates as volcanous and underwater hot vents. Both of which are downright fatal to 99 % of all other organism on this planet.

The operative section here is "... evolved into ...". This means that they had many generations to slowly adapt themselfs to live in these hot acid conditions. This, my sceptic friends is impossible for complex organisms like human beings to accomplish within a time frame of say less then a million years (=about 3000 generations). Therefor any significantly alteration of the conditions here on earth that proceeds faster then that time frame will have a very good chance of leading to extinction of the human species. EVEN THOUGH THE EARTH ITSELF AND IT FLORA AND FAUNA SURVIVED SIMILAR CONDITIONS JUST FINE IN ITS PAST.

Additionally, even if the human design can sustain itself in these new conditions then our societal structured may well not do so if the change is rapidly enough.

Maybe the environmental reports need to come with a similar disclaimer as the stock exchange advertisements. Results achieve in the past pose no garantee for the future.

Pretty much change is a given here on Earth and yes human beings do evolve continiously to adapt to these changing conditions, but it can only do so at a relatively slow speed. If the changes are much faster then that, ... well I think you see the problem here.

In todays worlds with our rigid societal structure we can't just pack up shop and move en masse to a different spot on the earth where conditions are more favourable. To local populace will not accept their own survival to be japordized by the refugies. The direct result will be wars and a whole lot of violance while the world at large readjusts to the new conditions. Probably decimating the human population at the same time.

And for what reason exactly ? Because people like reborn christian Bubba refuse to drive any sissy japanese car that gets a better mileage then the standard US V6 3 liter overweight pick-up truck.

Basically some dumb hack feels he is entitled to "risk it all" because he ... well, indeed, because he is what exactly ?

Ohh, how stupid of me to forget. Because he will not witness the hardships as the rapture will wisk him away just in time.

And I'm with Jake on this one. I have yet to find some peer-reviewed scientist to claim that the environmental problems are mere conjecture. There is an abundance of "think-tank" related pseudo scientist however and we all know how dependable they have turned out to be lately.

Wouter

One can only hope that you become a hood ornament on a truck such as this.

Al Gore exhales CO2. Everyone must do what they can but...Gore can't "Walk the walk"

from tennesseepolicy.org

Guys, I would like to start a movement to stop the next ice age. 2 degrees colder for us in canada means 2km of ice on our head. no thanks.

Fine, but this is all static. Debate with me the fact that humans are dramatically increasing C02 on the planet and that the US is the worst, by FAR, contributor. Not only that, but even IF all this is crap, we're in the back of the classroom on even considering the ramification's and acting to try and do what we can.

You can't guarantee me that our influence on the atmosphere isn't going to throw us into some pretty dramatic climate changes. On the other hand, neither can those who say that our influences are going to make dramatic differences. However, given that if one of the two sides is correct, we're about to experience some pretty tough times as a species, wouldn't you err on the side of caution?

As he is a politician, I tend to disregard anything they say as "truth". I also agree that if someone that utilizes more energy in a year than I will use in my life shouldn't be telling me that "I" need to cut back. Give me a break!!!

That doesn't mean toss out the baby with the bath water, we should all be mindful of "our" world but how do we get correct and "truthful" information. Last I heard was that COWS are causing the global warming with all their flatulance! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I say eat more cows reduce the gas!

WHATEVER... give me something I can really believe as truth and I'm behind ya, otherwise lets go sailing!!!!


Clayton

Yeah, I drive a TRUCK! But its what I work in/with.

So let's see...

Solar flare activity on the sun is on the upswing trend.

More solar radiation causes minor increases in seasonal temperature averages

Atmospheric temperature increases influence sea temperature

70% of earth's surface is water. Most CO2 ends up in the ocean (as various species - HCO3, H2CO3, CaCO3, etc)

Solubility of CO2 in seawater is strongly inverse of its temperature (decreases as temperature rises)

CO2 comes out of solution and enters atmosphere

Increased CO2 acts to hold in radiative heat from land mass

I'm not getting in to the political debat as to whether man controls global warming or not...

I think that humans are contributing to the problem, but not to the extent that nature is. That being said, I doubt it is our power to control the phenomenon

The CEO of Shell says we've got at least 50 years of oil left (at current production) before the company has to consider itself as "something other than an oil company", which I interpret as the point when alternative fuel production outpaces petroleum production.

So, we could very well see a shift in the petroleum based economy in our lifetime (or at least in our progeny's lifetime)

Perhaps the question is "are you on the leading edge or the trailing edge of this next shift?"

I presume Bubba and his truck will be on the trailing edge, and need government support until he finally has to conform to the new paradigm.

From Jake: [/quote]given that if one of the two sides is correct, we're about to experience some pretty tough times as a species, wouldn't you err on the side of caution? [/quote]

Your premise assumes that the increase in CO2 is going to cause major negative changes in a short period of time which is very debated. That the earth is getting warmer is acknowledged, however, one should remember that is was very much warmer in the middle ages (Greenland was called that for a good reason; it wasn't just clever marketing by Eric the Red). There was also a mini ice age in colonial times.

Second, every action/decision is essentially an economic one wherein cost/benefit analyses are made. For example, we can drastically reduce, if not eliminate, highway fatalities (numbering in the 10s of thousands per year in the US) by setting a 30mph speed limit everywhere. We don't do that because the costs are too great for the benefits achieved (we as a country are willing to sacrifice thousands of lives for the greater benefits of driving faster than 30mph). The "greenies" don't apply any such analysis to the warming situation. The mantra seems to be, "climate change is bad, doubly so if humans have anything to do with it, so we must stop it at any costs".

The third problem I see is that it is, as you point out, not sure that measures to limit CO2 output will have any effect.

You state that given the terrible consquences (not proven) we should take these steps. However, if one looks closely at the possible outcomes of fully implementing CO2 controls (applying the Kyoto agreements?) very severe economic consequences may follow that could devastate 3rd world economies.

One should remember that 99 members of congress in a democratic administration refused to ratify the Kyoto agreements because they understood that they had very negative consequences for the US economy. This agreement also didn't address the coming major contributor, China, which is now obviously making the biggest increases in CO2 output, and polution.

The "greenies" hubris in thinking that they can control the earth's temperature is stunning. The UN statement that they will mandate that temperatures rise no more than 2 degrees over the next 20 years (I think that time frame is correct) shows great ignorance or psychopathic delusion. One would not have to be a "reborn Christian bubba", or paranoid to think that there might just be another agenda at work here; increasing statism in the world, inflicting a blow to capitalism and the US in particular (as the greatest example of the success of capitalism and democracy, as imperfect as it is).

Postscript; a well credentialed atmospheric scientist has recently stated a hypothesis that he researched and discovered much evidence to support, which is that greenhouse gasses actually are a mechanism by which the earth is kept from getting too hot. Quite the opposite from what is being shouted today. Just another example of the lack of certainty of the warming proponent's theories.

David
A cat and big cat

OK...so at what point would you guys suggest consideration should be given to change? When Greenland is completely unfrozen? When the ice caps are gone? At what point is it too late to affect change? You've gone from "there's no problem" to "even if there is a problem, there's nothing we can do about it so we shouldn't try".

Look, I was a really big skeptic at the beginning of the film and I really annoyed Bonnie by going "yeah, well...he says that but you can look at that another way" through half of the thing. While there are some disputable pieces of information, there are some really interesting points...BIG points about how our current administration looks at the "economics" of the Kyosho treaty. How we make make and accept excuses that for our auto makers to make more fuel efficient cars would be to destroy the big automakers. Also how the freakin' head of a petroleum institute becomes ecological adviser, makes a huge ethical mistake by "editing" a scientific report, resigns, and goes to work for Exxon the very next day, and so on. Big oil is at the top and as long as they are making the determination of what is too much of an "economical consequence" (Kyosho Treaty), that's going to mean of consequence to the oil industry...not you and not me. Cars are still going to sell if they get 50 mpg. Electricity might get a little more expensive, but I'll still be designing and selling case packing equipment. It's the oil that will not sell in the same vast quantities if we become more efficient. We are glaringly falling behind the rest of the world in this respect.

I would like you skeptics to watch the thing, then come back and discuss. At the very least, it stays relatively entertaining (and the guy is refreshingly capable of speaking coherently)

I usually try to learn much about both sides of an issue before making a judgement, and if this film is truely of a scientific (and not editorial) nature, I'd be in line to see it.

Everyon'e got an agenda these days, and no one has the time to develop their own opinion. I mean, really, who out there has read ALL of that literature? Isn't it much easier to just swallow what someone else puts together?

Hell, we've got more talk about which F18 design is faster, and you'd think that the answer would be cut and dried stuff - based on engineering fact.

This is the best documentary I've seen on the subject.
Explains correlations (or supposed correlations-Al Gore)
I'd like to hear a debate on the topic without the rhetoric.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...indle&hl=en

I'm not sure if the prior link worked so I will try again.

If it doesn't type Great Global Warming Swindle in Google and you'll find it.......

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=great+global+warming+swindle

Just came across this news article.
Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth
COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.

It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.

The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

Jake; you continue to speak from the point of view of the Gore movie. Greenland was WAY warmer in the middle ages, as I said before, and the ice cap didn't all melt. It is not proven that extremely bad things will happen if the earth gets warmer, it is not proven that the earth is getting seriously warmer, and it is definitely not proven that mankind can do anything about it if it is getting warmer.

Bullswan; debate is rhetoric. I'm trying to insert some economic reality into a point of view generated by an hysterical documentary.

Jake; if it is all big oil's fault and we are their victims as you indicate, then we should all run to the "greenies" to save us and tell us how to live? You say "cars are still going to sell if they get 50 mpg." Some do now and they don't sell. Should we not let the free market work? Many don't think we should because we are not smart enough to know what is good for us. Let's let some elite group decide how we should live? That has been tried for ages and always seems to come up bad for the average citizen. Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis, one of those "reborn Christian bubbas" although as a professor of Medieval Languages at Oxford, I doubt he was very bubba-like.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Words of wisdom. Certainly you are correct that we should all try to live in a more environmentally friendly fashion; no one would seriously dispute the wisdom of that point of view. And raising everyone's conciousness regarding such a lifestyle is good. But I don't think we should all forget the cost/benefit analyses we make, both as individuals and as a society in our decisions.

David
A-Cat and big cat

Bullswan; great link for an alternate view to Gore's film; even more since it comes from the BBC.

Thanks,
David
A-Cat, big cat

Agreed, good video. And... with names of scientists that disagree, unless of course they are not who they say they are. Maybe Gore is smarter than all of them? (don't take this too seriously!)
<img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Clayton

bullswan,

Thanks for the link to the "documentary", it was excellent. As I get older I'm hoping the current trend (warming) continues.

Jake,

Do yourself a favor and take Bonnie to the movies again, bullswan's buying.

Now, if you can somehow cash-in and get money to advocate catamaran sailing as the only viable alternative to keep thrill seeking bubba on the water, and off of PWC's and powerboats...

Okay I will come out and say it.

That BBC documentary is just as fast and loose with science as it being said about Al Gore's documentary.

Now I'm not totally hot on Al Gore's version either, but that doesn't mean that it proposes things that can only have good outcomes. It is at least more careful to not risk too much.

I'll always amused myself about how normal folk first demand complex things to be exlained by simple means only to come later at you with the accusation that what you have given them is "fast and loose" with hardcore science. How many of you would have watched the whole Al Gore presentation if he had provided 90 minutes of hardcore science ?


Also this whole debate always reminds me of a commercial that used to be shown on Dutch Television back in the 80's, putting across the message of WWF wildlife preservation.

You see a family of neatherthaler humans sitting around a fire in a cave eating roosted meat of the bone. Then the teenager of the family rushes in and grunts (which gets translated by subtitles) :"Each day it is harder to find new Mammoths, we have to do something !". The family as a whole suddenly stops eating looks up at the teenage with a totally bewildered expression on their faces. The teenage continues :"They could become extinct and then ..." . then he gets interrupted by a thunderous laughter of the family. One family member grunts ;"Crazy Uhah never fails to amaze me ! Next time he'll say that elephant are about to go extinct" To which another family members enthousiastic replies :"And there are many many more of those around !" which caused another round of hysterical laughter. Then during the uproar grandfather mumbles :"or even us ..." Then the camera pans out as the family gets back into devouring their food with total devotion, leaving the teenager totally bewildered in turn.

Wouter

In the past the world used to be covered with forests and swamps.

During the last 1000 years the amount of forests have been decimated, but it is indeed a stretch to far claim that humans have caused this with lumbering.

Afterall who is not to say that some solar flare is the cause of this miraculously but natural decline in foolage ?

Don't be stupid. Of course does man have the power these days to influence anything that goes on on this earth. We can even totally destroy it within 24 hours if we launched all the H-boms in a wide spread pattern.

The thing at the discussion here is not so much that man with cause the climate of the earth to totally change ONLY due to man made cause but that man triggers some inbalance that could well lead to very rapid and significant changes in the climate that our modern societies can not adjust too in time.

That my friends does not seem to be a far stretched idea. At least it is considered real enough that the Dutch are planning a new series of dykes and coastal defenses to be ready if it does happen. Premature ? Maybe, but better safe then sorry right ? Why allow a New Orleans to happen when you have the means to prevent it ?


Wouter

Wouter,

if the worst comes to pass, there is plenty of room for you in the northern territories here in Norway, and we could really need you industrious people up there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnmark

I guess even the climate would be suitable for you if the oceans rise that much.

Global warming is happening. How it was started does not matter. The fact is it is now on the way and we will not stop it.
Catastrophic weather event proof society..that is the
where we need to go. Present phone and internet etc is in trouble.

Only problem is that with global warming the gulf stream will end and this will cause new ice age for us <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

--
Valtteri

Then there is always Queen Maud land..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Maud_Land

I am glad someone found the same one dutch scientist that bush has been trotting out for the last eight years to compensate for every other scientist on the planet. There is No debate about this among the gehuinely informed people. WAKE UP! Also, fill up a glass with water all the way, now heat it up. What happens. Molecules expand when they get warmer and so in turn does the VOLUME stupid! You dont even need melting ice to raise sea levels. I cant believe this is even a discussion. what is everyone here gonna do when 2 billion refugees want to get to high ground. Good thing all the doubters have lots and lots of guns and god is on there side too.

Does that mean I will get thinner if I move to someplace cold? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I could be wrong here, but water molecules expand when they freeze. That's why a bottle of water (or beer, or coke) will bust if you freeze it...
Jake?

yeah, it expands when it freezes, but it also expands when it is heated (which is why you need a pressurized expansion tank on a water heater system). That said, however, I've never heard figures about the ocean rise due to expansion of the water and am skeptical that it would amount to much.

The fact about all this though, is that we can do something about the filth we put into the atmosphere. Cheap? Not necessarily but neither is trying to figure out how to live on the moon (that was sarcasm).

If fuel efficient cars aren't selling, why are the Honda and Toyota companies continuing to grow and post considerable profits? The big automakers openly admit that they missed the ball and simply don't have attractive fuel efficient cars available.

Thats what I thought... but hey, I've been wrong before. Of course, I don't know why I blasted my son for putting that soda can in the freezer, forgetting about it and it almost exploded, ends all puffed out. Maybe its the sugar! Yeah, thats right... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Clayton

Yeah, its time to get out on the water again!

This thread has inspired me to go burn tires.

Lots of them.

Because, I can.

Just do it downwind of your house -- and hope the wind doesn't switch. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Around my parts it'd be a community affair. I'd get the kids involved. They could bring their tricycle tires to burn. I'd sell hamburgers and hotdogs that were cooked using a charcoal grill.

The local church might work. Since we're all reborn christian bubbas, it'd be the best target-rich environment.

Maugan, burning tires might cause lower wind speeds in your area, based upon this report (however, it also makes it sound like pollution is actually cooling the earth rather than causing it to heat):

Stanford Report, Jan. 19, 2007, by Maria Jose Vinas
The winds that blow near the surface of the Earth have two beneficial effects: They provide a renewable source of clean energy and they evaporate water, helping rain clouds to build up. But aerosolized particles created from vehicle exhaust and other contaminants can accumulate in the atmosphere and reduce the speed of winds closer to the Earth's surface, which results in less wind power available for wind-turbine electricity and also in reduced precipitation, according to a study by Stanford and NASA researchers.

"These aerosol particles are having an effect worldwide on the wind speeds over land; there's a slowing down of the wind, feeding back to the rainfall too," says civil and environmental engineering Associate Professor Mark Z. Jacobson, co-author of the study with the late Yoram J. Kaufman from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, who died in May 2006. "We're finding a reduction of rain, and that can lead to droughts and reduction of water supply."

Jacobson and Kaufman's study, based on NASA satellite data of aerosol accumulation, measurements of wind speeds over the South Coast Basin in California and in China, and computer model simulations over California as a whole and the South Coast Basin, was published online Dec. 27 in Geophysical Research Letters. The researchers used both the model and data to study the effects of aerosol particles on wind speed and rainfall.

Slower winds, less rain
Aerosol particles floating in the atmosphere absorb or scatter solar radiation, and prevent it from getting to the ground. This cools the Earth's surface and reduces daytime vertical convection that mixes the slower winds found near the ground with the faster winds at higher altitudes. The overall effect is a reduction in the speed of near-surface winds, which Jacobson has calculated to be up to 8 percent slower in California.

Clean and renewable, wind power made up 1.5 percent of the Golden State's energy portfolio in 2005, according to the California Energy Commission. But slower gusts may reduce wind's economic competitiveness compared to other energy sources, such as fossil fuels.

"The more pollution, the greater the reduction of wind speed," Jacobson says. Aerosol particles may be responsible for the slowing down of winds worldwide. Wind supplies about 1 percent of global electric power, according to Jacobson. Slow winds may hinder development of wind power in China, where it's a needed alternative to dirty coal-fired plants. Aerosols' reduction of the wind also may explain the reduction in the Asian seasonal monsoon and "disappearing winds" in China, observations found in other studies. Moreover, slack air currents may hurt energy efficiency in Europe, where countries like Denmark and Germany have made major wind-power investments.

Slower winds evaporate less water from oceans, rivers and lakes. Furthermore, the cooling of the ground provoked by the aerosol particles reduces the evaporation of soil water.

What's more, the accumulation of aerosol particles in the atmosphere makes clouds last longer without releasing rain. Here's why: Atmospheric water forms deposits on naturally occurring particles, like dust, to form clouds. But if there is pollution in the atmosphere, the water has to deposit on more particles. Spread thin, the water forms smaller droplets. Smaller droplets in turn take longer to coalesce and form raindrops. In fact, rain may not ever happen, because if the clouds last longer they can end up moving to drier air zones and evaporating.

From Wikipedia "sea level rise"

Sea level rise is an increase in sea level. Multiple complex factors may influence such changes.

Sea level has risen around 130 metres (400 feet) since the peak of the last ice age about 18,000 years ago. Most of the rise occurred before 6,000 years ago. From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr. Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 3 mm/yr;[1] since 1992 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise about 3 mm/yr.[2]

Sea level rise can be a product of global warming through two main processes: expansion of sea water as the oceans warm, and melting of ice over land. Global warming is predicted to cause significant rises in sea level over the course of the twenty-first century.

"Maugan, burning tires might cause lower wind speeds in your area.."

Taller masts and more sail area; we can compensate.

David
A-Cat, big cat

Don't you love it when people volunteer you for stuff???
In this particular case, I don't mind a bit. Jake, for all the help you've given me with your writings in this forum, I'm GLAD to treat you and Bonnie to a new flick with an opposing point of view. IT's on me.

Glad you folks liked the link. I found it fascinating and illuminating. Sorry everyone didn't.

In reply to the C.S. Lewis quote (which I loved) I've got this from Will Rodgers.......
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.
I'm done.
Greg

Global Warming = FAD <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Yes another reason why we _need_ global warming.. more wind..and to thwart the next ice age.

Have to agree with Meteorologist Bob on this one. However, having lived in Pittsburgh, and Seattle before and after the clean up, Our system does work. In Pittsburgh you could not see due to the polution from the Steel Mills and Coke ovens, probably similar to many parts of China. In Seattle, the polution in Lake Washington was eliminated by the Metro Water System, a model system in waste water treatment.

Caleb Tarleton

The Christian bubbas seem to be in an uproar about global warming too.

Global warming "true or false" didn't happen overnight and it won't be fixed overnight. With that said, it is in every ones best intrest to conserve resources and re-cycle when possible, tree hugger or not.

Interesting Site

Global Warming

Gore's dumb butt movie has filled more eco nuts with hope. He said that if all the ice in just greenland were to melt it would make the oceans rise 20 feet. Go get an atlas, a piece of paper, and a caclulator. The ice would have to cover ALL, not 80% of Greenland, and have to be 40,000 feet thick to make this happen. Figure the volume of the ice, divide it out over the surface area of the oceans, thats what it would take.

So are you saying scientists can't even do basic math? I did the calculation and I didn't get 40,000 feet, I got a number that was in reasonable agreement with reality. Better try again.

Besides, haven't we been coming out of an ice age for the last 10,000 years. In the sixties they were concerned with global cooling. As far as polar bears and sea lions go, good. It will help the fish popultions. In nature if one specie is losing, another is winning. Besides if the temp goes up something drastic like ten degrees then it will be a balmy -40 in the middle of winter at the poles. I'm not sure if that will freeze water but I'm willing to go out on a limb. I don't think global warming is as effected by the human race as the eco nuts think. Didn't Mt St. Helens blast more crud into the atmosphere than humans could in a millenia? New Orleans is sinking, not being over taken by waves. Feeding, and supplying energy to you baby mongers is bigger concern. Stop breeding. It's not that we use too much as individuals, its that there is way too many of us. In 1850 there was like 6 cities on the planet with a population over a million, now how many is there? And yeah, my spelling sucks. I'm just a dumb gas guzzling pickup driving, construction worker. Oh and for you Europeans, stupid American.

.

Being skeptical myself, I too ran the numbers. 20' is right.

are you guys assuming that the shoreline is a vertical cliff? Meaning, you aren't integrating the surface area of the ocean growth over the shoreline grade?

How about you crank out your calculus books for that one... smarty.

So what then, it becomes 16 feet instead of 20...it's still a pretty big deal (given these predictions...probably not something we will see in our lifetime...but still dramatic).

Figure the surface area of the oceans at the current level. figure the volume of the added depth, (not including added area of the water going up a shore, its figuring a vertical rise this is rough math), divide the volume by the surface area of Greenland. I'll do it again and actually add some numbers to this when I get a chance. And there are other factors too. But the number I came up with is absurd. Scientist's can't do math? No, politicians will lie in your face because they have an agenda. One has to make the other look more evil than they are. You always have to think with an open mind. Question everything or else you'll end up like the rest of the cattle.

I am full of sh*t. I don't think I transfered a number into to the correct units. But I still get a bigger number than logical for the amount of ice needed in Greenland. Here's how I figured it using Oxford Atlas of the World, Tenth Edition, Published 2002 as my reference.

Area of Greenland is 838,999 Sq Miles
Water surface of earth is 57,000,000 square miles

V=a^2 X H Right?
20 feet = .0037878 miles

area of the oceans X Height of the added sea level
57,000,000 X .0037878 = 215,904.6 cubic miles.

Volume of added sea level divided by area of Greenland
215,904.6 / 838,999 = .2573359 (This should give a mean thickness of the ice required in Greenland to raise the oceans 20' in miles)

5280 X .2573359 = 1358.73 ft.

Refering to my atlas again: "Greenland is the world's largest island. Settlements are confined to the coast, because an ice sheet covers four-fiths of the land." Four fiths of the land, so 80%, close enough. So the ice that is there would have to be 20% thicker than our mean thickness. So 1358.73 / .8 = 1698.41 ft. So all of Greenland's ice is this thick?

Thats alot of ice. I'm sure its a mile thick in places, but it looks like most of Greenland is inside the Arctic Circle. A few degrees just doesn't matter up there. This is the best that a self employed construction worker, high school drop out can figure. Sorry for incorrect number before but I think I forgot to change 20 feet into a fraction of a mile. Question everything. Whether it comes from the right or left. And yeah, I'm not figuring in the added area from the slope of the shorelines, the required ice would be much more. Plus this is figuring ice at a standard volume, not factoring in expansion when water freezes which would also increase the amount of ice required in Greenland to raise the ocean 20 feet. This also does not take into account that as the depth is increased around the surface of a sphere more volume is required to add depth because the bigger the sphere the more area, also requiring more ice to raise ocean levels a given amount. Figuring that out is well beyond my 10th grade education. Maybe my math is incorrect again, prove me wrong. Educate me. Tell me I'm just another dumb redneck, enjoy!

The suits will tell lies forever and skim whatever they can off the top.
The ologists will write books and go on Oprah.
Who cares about the numbers bro, this is like the car that has started to run off down the hill. Just stay out of its way and hope it dosen't hit you mother.
This decades Y2K. Remember that, when the computers were going to go mad and destoy everyones lives.

Sail now, right now, while you can.

That's the bitch, all my water is frozen. LOL <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

i'll take a high school drop out nail bangers opinion over the entire scientific community any day. Did anyone watch the congrssional testimony on c-span today or were they to busy checking out penthouse forum looking for "data".

And you have a link for that??? <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Clayton

Global warming is a good thing. .....more water and more wind! : )

Don't forget. Also warmer. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But do those "pros" outweigh the long list of "cons"?

1) Increased evaporation
2) Extreme Weather
3) Destabilization of local climates
4) Rise in sea levels, temperatures, acid rain, and decrease/shutdown of thermo-circulation
5) Change in ecology
6) Glacier retreat
7) Methane release from melting permafrost
8) Forest fires
9) Polar Icecap Melt
Those are just environmental issues related to the potential effects of Global warming.

Economic:
1) Decline in agriculture
2) Insurance
3) Flood defense
4) Migration
5) Water scarcity

Health wise we get in to the potential for new strains of disease and more people with such issues as asthma.

I’m currently a student at a university that is very dedicated to sustainable development and environmental issues. I get the opportunity to watch debates about environmental problems including global warming on a regular basis and the issue should of concern to the world. Some believe its just a gimmick and such. But scientists and researchers really to believe its slowly creeping up on us and when it does start to affect us personally at a higher degree it will be to late to take action.

I don’t want to get in to details but those are just my 2 cents.

The thing that bothers me most about the nay sayers is that; even if there is no global warming we still benefit from "green" technology.

The benefits of clean air and water should be self-evident. Saving money at the gas pump or on home heating and cooling should be no brainers.

I don't argue that global warming isn't happening, what I argue is the severity, and the actual cause. Any one who takes up a cause is doing so to make themselves feel better. Global warming is just the latest of trendy, feel good, crusades for people to take up. Save the rain forrest, what ever happened to that?

rise in sea level, glacial retreat, polar ice cap melt all sound like the same thing?
You do realise I was joking???
THe point is this. Permafrost in the Ukrain is melting.
The weather is changing. It does not matter why now. This train is not going to be stopped by an economic attitude that will take too long to help. It is now about what we do to survive. These temperature changes have been tracked in the old ice patterns etc. They do not take thousands of years as was once thought. One hundred years from now, maybe fifty the World will be a very different place. Will our electronics etc survice the crazy weather???? Agriculture etc etc.

20 foot rise. A 2 foot rise would do it. The level is not so much the problem. It is the temperature and where the currents take those tempuatures.

I don't care. I have no children and will have been looking at the lid a long time by then.

Sail now, sail fast.

That would require capitalism out and socialism in. no chance. If the man can make millions out of dirty tech and build a big weather proof home he will.
I am all right Jack.
Do we sailors care about the envioroment because we use it? Maybe more sailing would help. I will go out now and do my bit.

Hers a good doco from Nat Geo the times and dates for viewing are for the Australian and NZ market only.

Very interesting veiwing with some merit and good evidence to support thier claims.

12.00pm The Big Freeze

Earth has plummeted into periods of intense cold, time after time. Some of these drops in global temperature are caused by volcanic eruptions. Despite only lasting a few years, they have the power to cause huge social and political upheaval across the entire world. But the oceans can trigger far bigger, thousand-year freezes. These have the power to trigger mass extinctions and global catastrophes. Worryingly, recent evidence suggests we might be heading towards one of these freezes and, in a bizarre twist, the thing that could trigger it is global warming.



Also showing on

25 March, 6.30pm

25 March, 11.30pm

10 April, 10.30pm

11 April, 2.30am

11 April, 3.00pm

14 April, 12.00pm

So which is worse -- a big freeze or a big thaw?

Both would be just as bad for different reasons...

If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand.

You and your infantile avatar are why the ignore button was invented.

That is very informative. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

One knows what one knows..Ref page 56 of the book of Bandit <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> or page 55 Its Wise to be Wise but only if you have something Wise to Say.. I didn't.. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It's pretty much accepted as a possibility that there is potential that several symptoms of global warming could impact the ocean currents (sudden inflow of fresh water from melting ice reducing the salinity of the ocean water near the poles is one theory I've heard repeatedly). If the currents were to change or shut down, it will dramatically impact global temperatures servicing to make the middle of the earth hotter and the poles exceptionally colder.

This is a quick read and will 'splain a lot.

Oh boy, I'm so in your face aren't I. Here, I'll change the avatar just for you, or are the penguins to intusive to you?

Thank you.

So, how would you know what makes me feel good?

Global warming, destruction of rainforest and general habitat degradation aside. What do you have against saving money at the gas pump? Or saving money to cool and heat your home?

Either I'm going blind or you posted a Rorschach Test.

i have only read a small part of this, but just because somthing is annoying dousent make it untrue, i get annoyed by rich middleclass men who drive big cars, flying round the world telling us not to fly and drive big cars but the science fairly overwelming, we don't need to stop enjoying our selves just be a bit more sensible with pur enegy use, and invest in low carbon tecnologies

vegetable rights and peace - rich

I can go along with that!


Clayton

It is not what one knows or what one knows one does not know but WHAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW ONE DOES NOT KNOW that is important. The people who thought the World was flat did not know they did not know it was roundish.

was that intuitive or intrusive.
What is an avitar?
Just kdding I have a friend caught up in Avitar. She has told me...and told me...and told me.

We are dealing with people who do not think past their low self esteem, huge ego and gread. To open their minds and reevaluate who they are and what they belive to be true is a tough task with them facing what would be called a "rock bottom". This would be something like a bigger version of "Katrina". It would have to happen in their back yard, pick up their SUV and throw it into the next county, leaving them standing in nothing but their underpants.

Save you breath and sail. Remember, we all know that is cool and it is our similarities that can bind us..

Geeeeeeeeez, I recognise this <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
It's Friday Night in NZ <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Okay, so global warming is going to cause an ice age, which means I don't have to worry about whether my house in the Keys is going to be under water?

So is it global COOLING that is going to cause everything to melt and cause the water level to rise in the ocean?

I am totally confused. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Intrusive. I aen't spel sew gudd.

If it weren't for the media and politician's, global changes like this would go unnoticed, other than comments like "the last few winters have been pretty mild". I live in the middle of a continent so wild weather is the norm. its 60 today, 3 weeks ago we had two feet of snow on the ground, a month before that it didn't get above zero for almost a month. Thats cold. Weather is complex, and so many things sculpt it in to what it was, is, and is going to be. There is a rebuttal for every circumstance. Warmer temps mean more water vapor in the atmosphere causing a higher albido (not libido) reflecting more of the sun's energy back into space. There are literaly thousands of scenarios that are that simple. Watch the news tonight, watch the weather forecast for tomorrow and tell me how close it is. The people doing the weather are scientists. They can't tell you with much accuracy whats going to happen in the next 24 hrs much less the next twenty years.

Saturday Morning. It is 20 froom the SouEast and my sail is having a birthday with the sailmaker. Can't get onto the water until Tuesday.... So I am hear writing....wishing...

I was just thinking "those intrusive little penguins"..

I aggree that some events..like Katrina..might just have been a big unhappy time thing....bad weather has always happened and people did say the levies were not going to hold.

But overall temps do seem to be going up.

Conspiracy people I know ask what happened to the plane that hit the pentagon...when they do I ask what happened to the plane that took off that day with peoples loved ones in it and was tracked on radar untill half a K from the pentagon and then disappeared.
I am very left wing but to knowingly defend such wicked nonsense is not helpful.

Lady Di was murdered... That's how I would assasinate someone. I would get in a tiny white Fiat, somehow make sure the driver of the Giant speeding Merc was drunk and then run it off the road....in my tiny white fiat. I had been planning that idea for months.

We live in a World where common sense and truth do run run parrellel with making money. While money remains how we attempt to find happiness and virtue and self we will live in a World where Anna Nicole is thought of as beautiful... I just don't think that greed and panic which are how the West runs its civilisation, if you can all it that, will clear the muddy waters of global warming in any way.

Global Warming and carbon credits are the next big rip off of the masses. They are looking right now for where they will put the drip into us all and start the blood flowing.

We don't register our boats here. We don't have boat licences of any sort. When I am on the water I am entirely my own man and I love that my boat and the wind and the water represent real and present truth and self reliance.

With their lies and mendacity our leaders destroy our love of our fellows and we fall into a dark place of fear and cunfusion. Fear and confusion make us easy to manipulate. The corruption of truth starts at the top.

Well put. I can change the penguins back to something a little less violent if there are any sensitive types out there. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I said it once and I'll say it again...........

GLOBAL WARMING = FAD

Go sailing. Do something besides bang on a stupid keyboard. Go kiss the Weather Channel girl <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> and punch Al Gore in the nose <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />. It doesn't matter what you think <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />. "Mother Nature" doesn't care that you exist <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />. We all will be long passed before anything global happens again.

HA! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

typical example of a BS argument applied to confuse uneducated people :



Methane is a burnable gaz and as such will not be emitted by any significant quantities by internal combustion engines as, of course, those will BURN the gas before it gets to the exhaust.

Fossil fuels predominantly exhaust CO2 which, together with methane, is one of those greenhouse gases. In affect both cows and cars produce quantities of green house gases but only of different kinds.

With uneducatedness like this going around, any scientific discussion with the larger populace is useless. And any easy to understand "science" will get thrown out because the people who don't understand any more complex will quote some scientifics who says that it is "fast and loose"

Nice situation to be in.

Wouter

An average, yes !




On antartica it is even several miles thick. During the last ice age the ice sheet on top of New York was an mile high.

1698 feet is less then 1/3rd of a mile, not a biggy in glacier terms.



No, it wouldn't. These planes are not that large compared to the total surface area of todays oceans. Alot of shoreline is pretty vertical when looking at 20 feet or less sea level rise.




This expansion ratio of ice is less then 10% and that is why a iceberg is only showing 10% of its mass above the surface. 10% on 1608 feet is only 160 feet which is peanuts when it comes to permanent icesheet. Again the icesheets on antartical can be several miles thick.



Radius of the earth is roughly 6300 km, 20 feet = 6 mtr and so the increase in surface area due to the spherical nature of the eath when sea level rises 20 feet is :

0.000000000000000086384 % (= 8.6384e-17 % for scientifically schooled people)

I would call this effect totally negligiable.




Here you are.

Wouter

I'm with you, Bob. FAD.

I watched Al Gore's movie and I read Michael Creighton's book (State of Fear, the other side of the debate) and what I got out of the movie was, it's already too late. If this is real, we are at least 20-30 years behind the curve in developing alternative fuels, and I see no real changes in how we live our lives (burning oil for electricity, transportation, heating, etc.) of the size and nature that would make a difference, being promoted or legislated.

The fact is that our politicians need lots of money to get elected. The fact is that the Oil companies have lots of money, and will only back any politician who will see things -their way-. Unless politicians pass laws that madate a change to the way we live, nothing will change. In America, we have the best Politicians money can buy.

You and I can "Go Green" but what are we, less than 1% of the world's population? So how are we going to fix it when we have to deal with the other 99% of the population, around the world? (I'm thinking of China, India, etc.)

So what I got out of Al's movie was, it's too late and Big Oil won't cut their own throats to change the way we live.

Do you think the Big Oil lobby is going to allow any politician to favor Wind or Solar energy, both of which would provide FREE Energy to the consumer, after the initial purchase of equipment? NO WAY! Follow the money. The money is in Oil.

hi i am not having a go at you in particular but you say we are only responsible for 1% of the worlds polution but the US is responsible for about 1/4 it, china and india just want the wealth we have but we need to lead the way.
As low carbon tecnologies exist we need to invest massively in them they will become more effichant and no one will want to build coal fired power stations or eventialy drive smelly petrol cars, at that stage maybe we will have developed effective carbon sinks and we can can stop this, the chinese know how bad this is as the desart is getting closer and closer to bejing so, let us show them the way on this

with you on this.

I live in the wops with my own water and sewage etc and it is great NOT paying those blood suckers EVERY month for what a little enginuity can provide for free.

My partner is Chinese. I have spent time in China with her well educated, very hard working young nieces and nephews. They have all of the latest gadgets and will be wealthy. It is too late to take up a leadership roll with them. They have no respect for Western leadership and look to outstrip the West not follow.

Intresting comments about China. I worked with a woman that was an expat in Japan. She said they're still fighting the war but they're using economic instead of fire power.

Boy did you put words in my mouth! Where exactly did I say "WE" were only "responsible" for 1% of Global Warming??

What I MEANT by WE, is onl the Catsailors reading this board. WE Are NOT EVEN 1% of the entire population of the free world, so any effecy you and I will have, vs. China and India, and yes, the rest of the USA and Europe, will be little to none. And my POINT is, unless WE elect politicians who see it as a real problem and have a plan to fix it, nothing will change. BUT the big money Oil Lobby is not going to let that happen.

What about that most of the ice is so far north though? 2 degrees can't effect much above/below a certain latitude when it 40 below all winter long, and a steamy 10 degrees in the summer.

The easiest way for all of this to come to an end is for some nut job to let loose a virus that kills off 99.99% of the population. No more pollution, (except rotting corpses all that methane again), no need for large agri-business to feed the planet. No more companies dumping toxic waste into rivers. No war for at least a few years. No more anything. How far back do you suppose that would take the population to. 10,000 years? Just wondering, would that be a adequate solution? or a bit too extreme? Once you get over the everyone dying thing it would do an effective job.

Didn't that cows emiting methane thing come from the UN?

Which virus do you prefer? The one in The Stand or the one in Cell? Stephen King has a wild imagination.

How about instead, we all start eating Soilent Green?

Singapore is a tiny island of no import compared to 1.4 billion people who have the most thriving economy on the planet. The Chinese see it as their time. And it is.
I saw hard working, arrogant people, full of desire to prove themselves as the best. It is a heady mix of money, emotion and self belief. The World thinks it is understanding China and its rise but the jaws will drop when the Olympics are braodcast. Then the West will get some idea of the energy, wealth and ego that is the new China. China still has a billion people desperate to step into wealth who will work 24/7.
I believe China will track the growth of Japan. Remember them, they once had more cash than the rest of us combined. China will make them look like also rans.
My partner speaks Chinese and her family are big in politics and that is what I call an insurance policy.

BTW NZ is getting a new 14 foot tri design made there for export to the rest of the World. F18s etc will follow the same path. Chinese made cats.....what's the bet?

Re cows and methane! The government here tried to start up a fart tax! We just could not take it seriously and we try to be green.
Too many people is correct.
What about ballots for children. The rich could buy the ballot winners baby tokens and the poor who won could get ahead.

We would have to stop the more people make more money idea though.
We could have little plastic children for the losers.

I haven't seen Cell, but I'm a big fan of The Stand. Its good to watch when you're sick being its 6-7 hrs long. And yes I've also read the book.

Cell hasn't made it to the big or little screen yet. It'll make you think twice about answering a cell phone.

sorry to put words in timbos mouth its just how i read it, but as for china my point was they know about this, they are very worried about it and investing heavely in green tecnologies, it is just we are in a position to do somthing about this and the chinise would be happy to follow when it is economicaly better for them than burning their dirty brown coal, we don't have to perswade them this is happening they know whats happening, its all down to the economics once low carbon tecnologies are cheeper than coal oil and gas every country will do it

10.000 years ago Neatherthal man walked along the outskirts of the glaciers of the last ice-age. One of which covered new-york and Chicago all year around and was a mile hight. The whole of Canada was covered by a massive icesheet. I think he said much the same thing as you do right now.

How much difference can 1 or 2 degrees make ?

Wouter

Wouter just indirectly called me a neanderthal. Grow some balls.

I'm done with this thread. Wouter is way smarter, educated, better looking than I could hope to be.

The green party in NZ suggested taxing waste instead of production. I am still confused why that is a bad idea. Still provides gov. funds and still gives people something to evade..but it does less damage.

It is a bad idea because people can find all sorts of creative ways to get rid of their trash and garbage -- bury it, burn it, chuck it into the jungle across the street.....

But, illegal dumping is already. . .illegal. Maybe some sort of recycling deposit, like we have for glass bottles and aluminum cans.

How 'bout 2 cents apiece for old cigarette filters!?

Yeah, right. That only matters if they catch you. And can they keep you from burying cans in your back yard? And can they keep you from burning your garbage on your grill? Or flushing it down your toilet? Or taking it to work with you and putting it in your company dumpster?

It's a lot harder to track waste than production. For instance, if you are actually putting all your waste out in cans by the road like you are supposed to, the people who pick up the trash would have to weigh everybody's trash every pickup and keep a record of it, so they would know what to tax you. Somehow, I don't think that is ever going to happen. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

You are right Mary. Since we've started charging fees for trash at New England dumps, litter, and illegal dumping have increased dramatically. Gooseberry Island where I sail, is part of a state "reservation". The state puts out a large trash can to help combat the litter, but some locals bring their trash from home and routinely fill the barrel. I am amazed by the quantity of litter, and that it seems most people in our society think nothing of it. I used to pick up what I saw, but now there is just too much. It could be a full time job at that small beach alone! The streets and highways up here are loaded with trash, most of it plastic. Less and less of the litter is actually recycled. What is collected/picked up, is usually burned up here. I wonder what the effects of all that unnatural stuff in our air is going to do to future generations. Then there is the threat to wildlife. Plastics left outside are the gift that keeps on killing, much like lost lobster pots, balloons, ribbons, fishing line, plastic bags, and things like Yoplait Yogurt containers kill huge numbers of wildlife every year. The trash/litter is so bad at Horseneck Beach, that they use machines to rake the beach, and then build dunes of trash and sand. They don't look or smell nice, but so far they can't process the trash/litter in any more responsible way. There is a strange thing going on in our society today. I see it at every level.I call it "The King's New Clothes Syndrome". It is people failing to see what is right in front of them, and refusing to take responsibility for it. I work for Marriott, one of the best hotel companies in the world. I routinely see management ignoring, or refusing to recognize things that end up costing the company tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't know what can be done. I think perhaps people really need to suffer in order to wake up. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

In Ireland, we have 2 bins and even 3 in some areas. One for refuse which cannot be recycled, the others are for recyclable materials. There are charges for refuse collection in all areas. In some areas (depends on local councils) the refuse bin is WEIGHED and the householder is billed accordingly. Most of us recycle plastic, paper, aluminium and tin cans, and glass. Also there is a recycling charge on electrical goods and no charge for dumping same at local facility. Human nature being what it is, I have seen people dumping refuse in bins at a beach where I holiday.

We had the same problem on Maui. They finally got smart and made dumping free. Now all we have to figure out is how to keep da brahs from dumping their Maui cruzzahs along the roads.

What are "brahs" and "cruzzahs"?

I was talking business waste guys. If IRD had to track it they would. Germany does it and successfully.
Normal house hold rubbish should be done for "free' as the rates should give something back, right? And remember. if the businesses were taxed on rubbish they would not deliver so much to you with what you purchase. : ) everyone wins.
Aren't I just the Pollyanna?

Warbird,
Nobody will ever accuse you of being a pollyanna. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I have lived in a lot of different areas of this country and trash removal is never free. There are just different ways to pay for it.

In the Keys, the garbage and trash pick up is an addendum on your property tax bill. If you only live at your house in the Keys for three or four months out of the year, you still pay for trash pickup 12 months a year. It's a really good deal for the trash-removal company.

When we lived at Catawba in Ohio, seasonal residents could buy blue bags at the grocery store. You paid X amount for each blue bag, and you put those blue bags out at your curb and they got picked up.

At Put-in-Bay (island in Lake Erie), they used to have the greatest free recycling system ever -- sort of a little plateau you drove up on with your "stuff." Radiating out from the plateau were big dumpsters labeled paper, tin cans, aluminum, plastic, clear glass, brown glass, green glass. It made everybody on the island feel good about having a place to take their stuff to recycle it. I used to have at least 10 different trash cans in my garage, all labeled with the appropriate thing for the recycling hill.

And then it got eliminated, so now we have NO recycling whatsoever and just throw everything in together in our trash. It bothers me a lot. And I don't know where all the stuff goes after it leaves the island on the ferry.

Anyway, at Put-in-Bay we have a choice of (at this point) two trash pickup companies, and you have to contract with them yourself.

In many parts of the country you are dealing with private pickup contractors, it can get really "dirty" when they are competing against each other for your garbage. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

There have always been rumors, of course, that the mafia is involved in the trash removal business.

Thanks for seeing through the Pollyanna thing Mary because it is not easy being Doctor Evil.
Seems to be no argument that we make a lot of rubbish.....so......maybe if we made less........??

I think it is really funny, meaning in a curious sort of way. I bring in one bag of stuff from the grocery store, and somehow I end up with three bags going out for trash pickup. And that is AFTER we have supposedly consumed most of what I brought in from the grocery store. How does that happen?

You do live with Rick. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Rick who?

They say matter is neither created nor destroyed, it just changes form. All I know is that what goes out of the house seems to be larger than what comes into the house. I'm not sure what happens to it during the time it is in the house, but it's kind of scary.

And what about burning the rubbish instead of burying it in a land fill? At least that way you could power a steam turbine for electricity. Yes, you will have to find a way to clean the smoke, but there are ways.

We have one here. It was a hell of a battle but the incinerator people won. In retrospect I think it was a good idea. I don't see any smoke coming from it or smell anything when I'm at the site.

btw- The incinerator site is a major recycling center. They take our old house paint (and everything else) and SELL it to other countries. Not so sure that's good for the other folks, but solves our problem.

Another take off on brother, like bro, usually locals.

Any motor vehicle on its last legs. Can be bought cheap and dumped when it dies. After it's dumped it'll be stripped by da brahs and then torched.

Mike, you have your share of abandonded vehicles on Maui. But you are right, does not take long for them to be picked clean. Glad to see the Islands finally getting a recycling program going. Can't imagine why it took so long.

The government did it. There were so many abandoned cruzzers the governor finally declared a state of emergency so they could be towed and stashed illegally on an old airport. Once a recycler came on line it was almost a year before the backlog was taken care of.

I'm smokin' and I'm clean.

global warming my butt.

Text Forecast from Environment Canada
Toronto: Issued 5.00 AM EDT Sunday 8 April 2007

Today
Cloudy with 60 percent chance of flurries. Wind becoming northwest 30 km/h late this morning. High plus 2. UV index 3 or moderate.
Tonight
Cloudy periods. Wind northwest 30 km/h becoming light this evening. Low minus 4.
Monday
Cloudy with sunny periods. Wind becoming northwest 20 km/h in the afternoon. High plus 4.
Tuesday
A mix of sun and cloud. Low minus 6. High plus 5.
Wednesday
Rain. Windy. Low minus 3. High plus 5.
Thursday
Rain. Low plus 2. High 6.

And 100-year low temperatures in the Atlanta area -- near where Spring Fever is going on. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

No kidding! The overnight temp here fell into the 60s. Brrrrrrrrrrrr.

It snowed in Ashville, NC, last night, and all up through Ohio. It's APRIL for crying out loud! That's why I moved to the southern half of Florida. And when my wife talks of moving back "up north" I tell her I want to move further SOUTH! It still gets into the 40's at night here and that's just too cold for me!

Hey, Happy Easter too! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Happy Easter <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Snow in Potomac - Sister was on today <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well the temp here right now is about 75 (24C) but the wind has died, just as I was about to go out on the cat too. I think I'll rent a little plane and go flying instead. It's too nice a day to sit indoors. I hope the Spring Fever sailors have wind.

I think this is a fairly common disagreement with couples, that women tend to like living where there are four distinct seasons, and men like living where it is warm all year round.

We have four distinct seasons on Maui; Christmas/New Years, Spring Break, Summer, and No Tourists.

So when exactly is "no tourists" season?? I thought it was busy there all year!

September, just after school starts, to mid October when the first snowbirds arrive. It's not exactly no tourists but it definitely gets quiet.

Are the annual average temperatures getting warmer in Hawaii?

My subjective opinion is I don't believe so. We did see a big change in rainfall this winter compared to last year. This rainy season wasn't much. Last year it rained straight for over 40 days. Oahu and Kauai really got hammered including a reservoir on Kauai that broke and killed seven people.