Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Blogs               
Boat Search (new)






Go Back   SailNet Community > General Interest Forums > Off Topic
User Name
Password
 Not a Member? 


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
 Like this article?  Digg It!  or   Bookmark it!
  #581 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2007
StuMyers StuMyers is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 58
Rep Power: 3
StuMyers is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopdeckpappy View Post
1. 0.01% rise mostly caused by solor flares and sun spots

2. Dr Kai-Uwe Hinrichs and WHOI

3. What was released was 90 million tons (est), not by temp but by possible undersea landslide, dosen't matter how it was released, the effect is still the same, higher global temps

4. You are correct about it being my opinion, as best you can tell and I'm not a climate scientist, as far as you know
I don't doubt that GHG's are being released from melting permafrost. That is of course how interglacial cycles last so long. They are historically kicked off by short term warming events (like Milankovich cycles) then spread out over thousands of years by released GHG's.

What you are presumably trying to claim, is that the flux of solar radiation has increased to such a magnitude as to kick off an anomalous interglacial cycle. Well, your work is cut out for you then. You need to;

1. Quantify the increased solar forcing in W/m^2

2. Show that man-released GHG's have a much smaller radiative forcing than is currently calculated (good luck).

3. Match the increased magnitude of solar forcing with the observed warming.
Reply With Quote
  #582 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2007
denby's Avatar
denby denby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dead Sea, some times called Long Island Sound
Posts: 2,600
Rep Power: 7
denby is a jewel in the roughdenby is a jewel in the roughdenby is a jewel in the roughdenby is a jewel in the rough
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie View Post
NASA says the temp there is rising with ours.

Actually the temps on Mars, Pluto, Triton, and Jupiter have all been found to be rising at the same time. Of course the ManGW advocates have explanations for each of these temp rises just happening to be coincident with ours. How convenient....BUT...

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.
“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

Guess he is one of the insane ones...oh wait, he is not a climatologist, just the head of space research that measures the suns' output!
OH come on Cam, do you really think the sun has something to do with global warming? The next thing your going to tell me is theres money in global warming.
__________________
Dennis
O'Day 302

Be careful or i will do what the voices tell me to do

To get the most from Sailnet, follow the link in Hartley18.'s signature.
Hey stuffit "Get a life"
Reply With Quote
  #583 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2007
denby's Avatar
denby denby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dead Sea, some times called Long Island Sound
Posts: 2,600
Rep Power: 7
denby is a jewel in the roughdenby is a jewel in the roughdenby is a jewel in the roughdenby is a jewel in the rough
PS to post 582, when I have time I will tell you the folly of the ozone and the money to be had by all involved.
__________________
Dennis
O'Day 302

Be careful or i will do what the voices tell me to do

To get the most from Sailnet, follow the link in Hartley18.'s signature.
Hey stuffit "Get a life"
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Ad
  #584 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2007
poopdeckpappy's Avatar
poopdeckpappy poopdeckpappy is offline
Make no bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,944
Rep Power: 5
poopdeckpappy has a spectacular aura aboutpoopdeckpappy has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuMyers View Post
What you are presumably trying to claim, is that the flux of solar radiation has increased to such a magnitude as to kick off an anomalous interglacial cycle. Well, your work is cut out for you then. You need to;

1. Quantify the increased solar forcing in W/m^2

2. Show that man-released GHG's have a much smaller radiative forcing than is currently calculated (good luck).


3. Match the increased magnitude of solar forcing with the observed warming.

1. Wouldn't it be tough to get an actual solar forcing increase when climate equilibrium isn't a fixed sum ??

I don't know how to answer this,except to say that estimates of a 1-2% increase over the last 1000 yrs is ( to quote a IPCC terminology ) likely and add to that the increase of CH4 and increased water vapor and you have a natural climate change with a solar influence


2. Yeah no kidding good luck, even the IPCC is guessing on their current calulations


3. Can I just go outside and look


4. But, that isn't really what I was saying, what I said was, approx. 90 million tons of CH4 was released,( possibly by under sea landslide not a flux in solar radiation ) some 44,000 yrs ago and it just so happened to coincide with a still unexplained rise in earths temps.

5. I also said the CH4 is 21 times more efficient at trapping solar heat than carbon dioxide and water vapor is greater still



Damn, it's late and I'm freezing my ass off
__________________
1978 Tayana 37

Freedom comes when you’re ready to sail away. True freedom comes when you don’t have to return

Last edited by poopdeckpappy : 11-28-2007 at 03:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #585 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2007
PBzeer's Avatar
PBzeer PBzeer is offline
Wandering Aimlessly
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cruising
Posts: 9,620
Rep Power: 10
PBzeer has a spectacular aura aboutPBzeer has a spectacular aura aboutPBzeer has a spectacular aura about
If there were no man-made contributions to climate change, would the earth still be warming? If so, what would be the difference between with man-made contributions and without?

Is global warming harmful to the planet? Or is merely harmful to mankind's current state of existence on the planet?
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria

Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love.
JCP

Music on the Wind -
www.sailaria.net
Reply With Quote
  #586 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2007
Idiens's Avatar
Idiens Idiens is offline
Larus Marinus
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,746
Rep Power: 4
Idiens is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBzeer View Post
Is global warming harmful to the planet? Or is merely harmful to mankind's current state of existence on the planet?
Will we fry before or after we lose the battle against the next pandemic?

(Still looking for a mountain home with a jetty.)
Reply With Quote
  #587 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2007
RAGNAR's Avatar
RAGNAR RAGNAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 815
Rep Power: 4
RAGNAR is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by majorm View Post
how many on this forum who consider themselves politically conservative would agree with the following:

Global warming is real, AND it is caused primarily by man, AND we should do something about it.

I just think the pre-existing biases are so strong that any debate is fruitless. At least some seem to agree that no matter what your opinion on the topic, that our energy policy needs to change to decrease our dependence on foriegn oil.
A few things here:

You've assumed your conclusion -- GW -- as fact, then refer to this improper switch to support your assertion that people see this issue purely on political grounds.

Surely you were rushing when you typed this post.

+++

Irrespective of actually or conveniently perceived political inclinations, one's positions are either validated in reality they aren't.

As currently offered, good 10th Graders can take apart the best GW arguments. (Anyone who fell for An Inconvenient Truth needs to hit the Logic books.)

I frequently have convesations with people under the age of 55 or so and, sooner or later, I hear the same thing: "How do we know?"

The answer is the same way the Greeks discovered so much and launched the West, namely, Reason. Problem is Reason hasn't been popular in the higher spheres of Academia for the better part of a century. Hence the collapse to resolving issues like GW by vote, not by fact -- even amongst "scientists."

+++

How one wants to organize society, Politics, is derived from how one thinks Man should live -- Ethics. Ethics, are derived from one's view of Reality, Man, and Man's relationship with that reality, Metaphysics, AND one's theory of knowldege -- Epistemology.

This is either expicit or implicit in every one of us -- it's built into the nature of man's consciousness/mind.

So any correlations you see between people of a particular political inclination and their position on a popular issue isn't a matter of blind loyalty to their political affiliations. Both the political viewpoints and the position on that given issue are the consequence of their metaphysics AND epistemology.

Fact is that both parties xxx on the explicit and implicit ideas in the Founding Documents.

Last edited by camaraderie : 11-28-2007 at 10:12 AM. Reason: languae
Reply With Quote
  #588 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2007
RAGNAR's Avatar
RAGNAR RAGNAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 815
Rep Power: 4
RAGNAR is on a distinguished road
[quote=StuMyers;228831]
Quote:
Originally Posted by retclt View Post

The meta-studies on radiative forcing conclusively point to man-made sources being the overwhelming source. I've linked to one such meta-study.

The ONLY way you can disprove it is to;

1. Conclusively show that CO2 (and methane, etc) is NOT a greenhouse gas (in addition to 3. below).

2. Conclusively show that the additional concentrations of GHG's have a source OTHER than the KNOWN properties of power plants (good luck).

3. (In addition to 1.) Find a DIFFERENT source of radiative forcing of sufficient magnitude to account for the warming trend.

And then get your results reviewed and published in a recognized climate science journal. If you can do that, or find someone who has, I'd be really interested to see.
Temps and variation in temps are within historic norms. That should kill this secularized version of Original Sin in any honest mind.

Further:

The impact of so-called GHGs has never been proven; not in models that account the entire geological history of the planet as we know it, not in small-scale experiments.

Current GHG concentrations aren't just within norms, but they're low historically.

The obvious fact is finally being acknowledged in academic journals: FIRST temperatures rise, then CO2 levels rise.
Reply With Quote
  #589 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2007
RAGNAR's Avatar
RAGNAR RAGNAR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 815
Rep Power: 4
RAGNAR is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie View Post
NASA says the temp there is rising with ours.
Observed surface temps of all planets in our system are rising.

Mars, the one we have the best temp data for, mirrors what little we see on Earth (one hasto apply a massive multiple, but the pattern is there.)

Are we now claiming that human existence is affecting/destroying Mars?
Reply With Quote
  #590 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2007
retclt's Avatar
retclt retclt is offline
Roadkillibus Texanis
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Great State Of Texas
Posts: 1,576
Rep Power: 5
retclt will become famous soon enoughretclt will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAGNAR View Post
Are we now claiming that human existence is affecting/destroying Mars?

Sorry RAGNAR, without a META-STUDY your comment is worthless and being ignored.

Gotta have that META-STUDY!!!
__________________



Bob T

"I cannot not sail" - E. B. White
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fight Club____for Sailors Surfesq Off Topic 6312 13 Hours Ago 11:03 AM
New Passport rules kennya General Discussion (sailing related) 91 06-15-2007 08:43 PM
The Global Challenge waltward General Discussion (sailing related) 2 10-06-2004 05:34 PM
The BT Global Challenge—Halfway Around SailNet Racing Articles 0 03-11-2001 07:00 PM
BT Global Challenge—Adventure for a Price Dan Dickison Racing Articles 0 09-06-2000 08:00 PM

Page generated in 2.5001 seconds (21.47% PHP - 78.53% MySQL) with 16 queries
Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
(c) Sailnet 2000-2006