Climate Change - A Rational Explanation

[ForumAdmin]

Roy Master is not a professional scientist - he is just keen and has done a lot of impressive work on climate change. I think his work is original and, if right, would change the entire view of the way we look at climate change.

He came to me asking me to help improve a video he made on the subject - I responded that his own video does the job well. He then asked me to help with publicity and I have just started to contact the media about his work. I then thought the forum may be interested.

He seeks no monetary gain out of the work.

Here is his video:-Here (http://geologymaster.com/QBOF240809.wmv)

Here is some written details:-
Here (http://geologymaster.com/cctext.htm)


I welcome all comments on his work. The video is well worth watching.

[ato]

nice video, and an interesting theory. sorry if i find the background music is a bit creepy.

[ColdFusion]

Quite fascinating.

There is no question that climate change is happening, although the cause of it is the subject of much debate. I've believed for some time that increasing levels of CO2 is a symptom, not the cause of the problem. This film offers an alternative, and to my mind quite a plausible explanation for the cause, although I would have liked to have seen a specific list of references at the end of the film (rather than just a general 'thank you' to NASA and Natural Resources Canada) and some peer review type interviews too. As convincing as the film was, persuading the general populace that magnetic variation is the cause of climate change is another matter, in light of all the brainwashing that is currently going on. And let's not forget the politicians who have a vested interest in the 'man made global warming' story, as a basis for increasing taxation of course.

Regardless of the cause of climate change, what we should not forget is that we, as a species, are consuming the Earth's natural resources at an unsustainable rate, but that's (probably) an entirely different argument.

[Al Thomas]

I didn't watch the film because of very low bandwidth. I did read the article and it was impressive. It makes a lot more sense to me than what we are being fed by the general scientific community. My primary reason for that view is the volcano that erupted several years ago in the
Philippines. I saw a comparison of the green house gasses from that one volcano to the estimated green house gasses produced by the human race throughout history and the volcano won by a wide margin. It strikes me that some humans are pretty impressed with our importance in the great scheme of things.

I am however a proponent of green technology because it makes economic sense. We have a limited amount of resources and need preserve them for future, more effecient uses. The scare tactics that many scientists and the other groups are using offends me. I know some of them really believe but I think many of them have other motives. There is no doubt we are experiencing global warming BUT, will the wrong response simply leave us vulnerable to the results?

[tidalstreams]

I am sorry to say that I found it all a little boring SORRY, however like all good sailors I am aware of climate change and do my bit to reduce. IE bottle banks, use my own shopping bags and not supermarket plastic ones etc

Peter:)

[KGP]

Can we strip Al Gore of his Nobel prize and give it to Roy Master?
Thanks for sharing.

[ForumAdmin]

http://geologymaster.com/cctext.htm

If you watched the video you may find that all that makes no difference.:)

Roy has done a huge amount of work on this - the video is just a glimpse of it.

There is a great deal of inertia and opposition to overcome - new ideas on this are not welcome unless they agree with the concenus.

[Talbot]

..................There is a great deal of inertia and opposition to overcome - new ideas on this are not welcome unless they agree with the concenus.

The consensus is driven by the number of people in this field who are employed solely due to their support for Global Warming, and the dollars that this industry makes - a lot of hot air IMHO.

At one time the NorthWest passage was ice free and Greenland was a place farmers could keep animals and grow crops. As this was about 1000 years ago, I doubt that global warming was responsible.


At the moment, I suscribe to the cyclic view of weather and temperature change. When I can access the video I will give it a view and see if it makes me change my mind..

[ForumAdmin]

There is no doubt that climate change exists - this video explains that it is caused by the speed of change of the magnetic north pole and its position. The theory explains all aspects of climate change using the same 40,000 years of data that everyone else uses. It explains why one side of the polar ice cap grows whilst another melts, it explains the messing up if the jet stream etc etc.

The video is a must see.

[KGP]

I passed on the video to some friends. Here are some of their comments:

"Besides the spooky music, how the hell did you listen to the entire thing??? I got thru 5+ mins, and promised to believe him just so I wouldn't have to finish watching."

"It was professional (except for the music), but the man is as dry as sand in the desert"

"It was like watching paint dry!"

"I bailed from that faster than a Latoya Jackson concert."

Me thinks you need to help Roy with a better production of it. It needs to be seen. And, he needs some time in front of the media for Q&A.

[Al Thomas]

I would recommend reading the article. Just looked at the video and it is good but I got more out of the article. I think it is because my brain cells are very old and it takes a few moments for them to absorb and understand the information.:p The text allows that. The video immerses me in data but I don't have time to turn the data into information.

[IreAneY]

I agree with Talbot:), but also think that Roy Master has a very good and almost rock solid diagnosis:), I am with them both, not with all the other scaremongers with all their crap:eek:.

Having said that, I do believe in recycling and not destroying our planet, and feel we should find other sources of power and not use up all the fossil fuels, as I want them for my boat ;)

At the moment, I subscribe to the cyclic view of weather and temperature change. When I can access the video I will give it a view and see if it makes me change my mind..

[ForumAdmin]

The video was done by Roy himself.
To do a decent job would take a month that i do not have time for.

The music, the presentation etc is not important - its the message that is the important thing.

If the video was going to be used in a widespread fashion then fine time could be pit into it. I admire Roy very much for the years of work that he has done. So its comments on the work that are being sought after.

[KGP]

The music, the presentation etc is not important - its the message that is the important thing.


I agree that the message should be the most important thing. To me, it is. To many others it takes a slick presentation like Al Gore did. Shame.

Anywho, I hope he gets some attention from the media some day.

[ForumAdmin]

I have worked on the media today and think that i can manage some national coverage. I then have to take that coverage and build on it. .... all before I launch Suliere:):):)

[3Psuite]

I have not done the numbers as I am not really interested in the argument.

But he has left out the huge amount of energy and CO2 not absorbed because of deforestation in all forms.

A large part of the power driving both our air and water comes from gravity and inertia
1. observe water running out a drain to see the effect of our spinning on our axis and around the sun. imagine this on giant scale on rising & sinking masses of water and air.
2. The moon-gravity ala: tides
3 the wind is pretty impressive. Out side my front door which is almost zero tidal 40cm springs. a sustained blow out in the Atlantic can add another 60cm no problem (a vast amount of water when you think of it, banked up against the West coast of Europe.

The reason I'm no longer interested in whether we did it or not is at this point in time it is probably irelavent IT IS HERE. The merits of being "greener" stand up on there own.

Oil is a finite resource, so should not be wasted.
Local climate change because of deforestation is much more wide spread but reversable, bringing allsorts of benifits
Polusion, generaly stinks and is bad for our health along with the health of other organisums we share the plant with.

If carbon trading brings less polution and reforestation all the better

gosh I do enjoy a good rant!!:D

[ka8uet]

Since I also have very low bandwidth, I skipped the video and read the article instead. I'm not sure how he jumps from ocean currents to cloud formations, or why he thinks that deep ocean currents were considered to be caused by wind. The Corriolis effect, caused by the rotation of the earth is the source of some of the movements of water, in addition to differences is temperature and salinity of the water. That there could be some effect from the varying rotational speeds of the layers of the earth's geology is not impossible. I see some leaps of logic with no supportingh data save his charts. He doesn't state in the article the sources of all of his data, only some. That there are sources for the data he claims to be unable to access is obvious. NOAA, for instance, has data sets dating much further back than the sources he cites. I'd like to see this submitted to peer review and published in a scientific journal, so that it can be debated among many scientists from many fields. It is interesting.

[3Psuite]

Oh I forgot.

Not very good engineering to assume from 3 peaks that its evidence of a decaying cycle. I could be just a part of a wave system with more than one element.

By the way it was a good video and I agree his work should be put up against the other theories for scrutiny.

[pir8ped]

It's interesting how many people are prepared to abandon theories based on scientific peer-reviewed publications for a single web page promoting a new theory without any references.

That's great! Because I have a friend who believes his steam Wankel engine will actually produce more energy than is put in, and he's looking for sponsors to help build a prototype.

[Talbot]

It's interesting how many people are prepared to abandon theories based on scientific peer-reviewed publications for a single web page promoting a new theory without any references.

I have never been a believer in the standard global warming dogma. This is the first potential explanation that notes the effects of the cyclic variation (a major part of my own belief) and then attempts to provide some explanation (a feat well beyond my feeble intellect).

I am not converted to his concept, but I do believe that this is a phenomena that needs significant further study.

There is serious potential here for this not to be a cause of the weather pattern, but an effect of those changes caused by some other cause. Either way - well worth investigation.

[TYRNTLZRDKING]

rHM5PLq9KXo

[pir8ped]

Haha - the communists poured out of East Germany, turned into Greens, and now through the climate change treaty in Copenhagen are about to take over the world.

::)

[3Psuite]

Here is a blog that quotes a couple more unpublished theories that the proponents are not rushing for pier review:eek:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

surprised No.

I will try and avoid reading this thread if I can as I'm in danger of digging out notes and names of those I knew who where involved with climate modelling back in 2001. Sensible boring mathematicians who had been working on the subject for many years and happily espoused that there was enough CO2 entering the system to start it on a roll and predicted that there would be an acceleration from massive releases of CO2 as the tundra moved away from being a permafrost.

If most of the sceptics are right, in 20-30 years we will be moving back a they can have a party and feel good about themselves. We will still have a reasonable amount of oil and a slightly cleaner and more energy efficient society. Would we have lost anything by being wrong - NO - most of the policy changes around the issue are beneficial in other ways.

So whats the gripe!!

[3Psuite]

::) sorry only watched about 30% then fell of my chair ::)

cannot write anymore, as being a european I have to get back to subverting the idea of democracy, free speech, personal responsibility twinky bars and coca cola.

::)....::)Its my duty and why I moved to Norway the most socialist country in Europe.. Ops forgot also the richest, free schools and universities, good health systems with free hospitals, decent payments for the unemployed, sick and disabled.

Its a nasty tough place but its fun to be at the new axis of evil ::)

[ForumAdmin]

A lot of comments here and some misunderstandings.

In brief
The reason I'm no longer interested in whether we did it or not is at this point in time it is probably irelavent IT IS HERE. The merits of being "greener" stand up on there own.
I am all for a greener world but knowing what is causing the climate change is basic to nor squandering resources in the wrong direction. I disagree with it is probably irelavent

He has not forgotten the factors mentioned - the video is just his attem[tto simplify the issues.

Roy wants his work to be challenged - the video is just the simple summary of the work - many years of it. I now seem to have the media taking up the issue which is all he wants. He is a blacksmith and I think meets opposition because of his non-professional status. A bit like Harrison did when the solved the longtitude problem.:) I am simply helping him overcome that. The media will be pitting it past 'experts' and that is great.

Oil is a finite resource, so should not be wasted.
Local climate change because of deforestation is much more wide spread but reversable, bringing allsorts of benifits
Polusion, generaly stinks and is bad for our health along with the health of other organisums we share the plant with.
All that is I agree with. I do not agree with the way climate change is being used as the new religion to control people.

The sources he cites are but no means complete in the video. He has used the same data as everyone else (the last 40,000 years) and correlated a much more exact explanation as the main variable. Even down to small amounts of time like a few years of extreme weather over the recent past.

It's interesting how many people are prepared to abandon theories based on scientific peer-reviewed publications for a single web page promoting a new theory without any references.

That is unfair - a new theory that better fits the same data has been put forward for consideration and many people have never fully accepted the theory that it is all down to mankind and CO2. An open mind is needed to consider it against the other theories.

Roy wants his work scrutinised and I simply wish to help bring that about.

[TYRNTLZRDKING]

If most of the sceptics are right, in 20-30 years we will be moving back a they can have a party and feel good about themselves. We will still have a reasonable amount of oil and a slightly cleaner and more energy efficient society. Would we have lost anything by being wrong - NO - most of the policy changes around the issue are beneficial in other ways.

So whats the gripe!!

Whats the gripe?
The Copenhagen treaty may not pass this time (I hope), but this is the ultimate goal.
Here in the USA we have Obama pushing for Cap and Trade (climate bailout).
It would cost us an estimated 6,700 billion dollars!
If interested watch the first 15:25 of this video. It helps explain my point of veiw. I live in Michigan.
if3fKXhBolA

[KGP]

Jeff, did you see Lord Monckton on Beck today?

[TYRNTLZRDKING]

KGP,

Yes I did. Thats how I learned of the video.

[therapy]

Pretty cool.

I am pretty sure cap and trade is going to be bad as I am not going to be one of the "haves".

So I will be fine with the end as we know it in 2012 but is it April or December?

[TYRNTLZRDKING]

December 21, 2012

[44C]

It's an interesting theory, and one that should be looked into further IMO.

I've never been sold on CO2 as being the cause of temerature rise - polar ice core samples have shown that in every previous warming event, CO2 increases have FOLLOWED rises in temperature. To me, that makes it a pretty unlikely suspect as the cause.... yet we're being told it is the cause this time. On what basis?

And the rush to reduce CO2 emmissions CAN have damaging side effects - for instance, mobile environmental disasters such as the Toyota Prius are being foisted on us as being "Green" - because they produce less CO2 per kilometer when being driven. No mention is made of the other types of environmental damage caused by the manufacture of such a car.

IIRC, a university study in the UK actually found that over the life of the vehicle, a Prius does more environmental damage than a Range Rover.

[pir8ped]

When the climate scientists pointed out the ozone hole, and said the whole world needs to stop using CFC's and change the way we do refrigeration, the whole world jumped, we made the changes and the ozone hole is filling up again.

When the climate scientists point to rising CO2 levels contributing to climate warming, and suggests we need to use less energy, everyone suddenly becomes an expert on climate with a theory of their own, and the Americans assume it's a one world government initiative to curtail their God-given freedom to burn as much carbon as they like in their V8 inefficiency machines.

:rolleyes:

[Al Thomas]

When the climate scientists pointed out the ozone hole, and said the whole world needs to stop using CFC's and change the way we do refrigeration, the whole world jumped, we made the changes and the ozone hole is filling up again.

When the climate scientists point to rising CO2 levels contributing to climate warming, and suggests we need to use less energy, everyone suddenly becomes an expert on climate with a theory of their own, and the Americans assume it's a one world government initiative to curtail their God-given freedom to burn as much carbon as they like in their V8 inefficiency machines.

:rolleyes:
I have to disagree with you on a couple of points.

First, I don't think anyone is suggesting we use burn more carbon. Most of the people I know are Americans and I don't know anyone with a V8. As you point out, they are inefficent. Also, I don't know anyone that isn't doing everything they can to be more effecient. Less than a 20 min bike ride, ride the bike. Recycle. Low wattage lights. That said, America is a much different country than the Europeen countries. Example: Europe has a much more robust cell system than the US. The reason is simply economics. We had a full wired phone system long before Europe. When cells came along it was financially sound to put in cells in Europe rather than wire. The US is slowly catching up but it is controlled by economics. The same with the carbon foot print. IT all boils down to economics. I really don't think nationality or hemisphere applies.

Second - There are a lot of theories about global warming. The commonly accepted one is the carbon footprint of humans. That has never made a lot of sense to me. If one volcano can put out more green house gas than the whole human race in the history of the human race, how much impact is my four banger going to have. The theory at the beginning of this string proposes another theory that, I agree, is one of many. To me, it actually makes sense. However, like many other posters in this string, it does need more study and peer review. The sample time span is way to short for definitive proof but the information available to the author does seem to fit his hypothesis. This may be very American of me but I don't believe in going along with the croud just because everyone says it is the right way to go. I need to understand and believe and I have read just about everything I can find on the argument. The data presented about the carbon foot print and global warming also match but they don't take into account the external forces of nature. Doesn't the rule of Occam’s Razor say to look for the simplest solution and it will probably be right? The history of the planet has many warming and cooling cycles and humans are barely a blip on that radar. How are the rest of them explained? The economics of reducing the carbon foot print does make sense to me. Blaming global warming on it doesn't.

[ForumAdmin]

everyone suddenly becomes an expert on climate with a theory of their own,
Not at all.
Roy has done serious work and seeks no more than his work be examined. Its is wrong to simply trust the crowd.

As recently as just over a decade ago, science told us that 100 foot waves did not exist. Mariners said they did but they were dismissed. Now after waves were measured over 44 feet in the North Sea platforms the subject was re-examined and sure enough science agrees 100 foot waves do an can exist.

A lot of people want a more sensible use of resources and I think many aspects of the change in attitude with the green movement are great but I think others are insane. Knowing what really causes climate change - something that can explain all the past would be better than not knowing. It would enable a sensible use of resources.

Roy has asked me to help get his work looked at and that is what I am doing. He deserves that.

His work explains down to very small periods of a few years - no other throry I know does that as well as work on the big time scale.

[pir8ped]

Last time I was in the US (8? years ago) I bought a motorhome. It had an 89 gallon tank, a V8 engine and it did 5 miles per gallon. It wasn't the only motorhome on the road, and there were an awful lot of huge pickups too. I wouldn't buy such a vehicle again, and I haven't been back since, but it's hard to believe you're all doing 70 mpg now.

European phones: we were all wired up a very long time before they invented mobile phones. I think we may have a more robust system because America is full of holes (population-wise). We've got people everywhere!

You suggest that the blacksmith's theory needs to be peer-reviewed. Why bother? The current theory has become accepted because of this very peer-review system, but you don't want to accept that. You must think those climate scientists must be very stupid to have not considered what you call external forces of nature. You mean volcanoes and other non-man-made sources of greenhouse gases? OF COURSE those factors have been taken into account, and you are only aware of the previous cycles of warming and because of those climate scientists. Why are you happy to accept their data on previous cycles, but then dismiss their understanding of the current situation? What qualifies you to pick and choose like that?

[pir8ped]

Paul,

You say you want to get Roy's ideas looked at. Fair enough, but if you are serious about that, why bother posting it on this forum. Just send it off to a suitable journal.

There's a description of the process here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/

John

[ForumAdmin]

You are making all sorts of assumptions"-
You suggest that the blacksmith's theory needs to be peer-reviewed. Why bother?

1. That it is wrong to challenge a theory - I repeat an theory not a proven scientific law. Yet progress is often made by challenging other theories.
What would be wrong is to close your mind and simply accept the concenus without question and that is what you advocate. Science would not have reached the position it is in today without constant challenges.

2. That this thread is somehow part of the publicity plan. It is not, I posted here because its a subject I was working on and simply thought others would be interested.

3. That I swallow one theory and reject the other. I simply put a theory forward I am impressed with. I am having the theory examined by others. I want to see the outcome.
OF COURSE those factors have been taken into account, and you are only aware of the previous cycles of warming and because of those climate scientists.

Your blind faith that the scientists have taken all into account amazes me!

Many theories have been overturned throughout the history of science.

Pleaser find the research that correlates the last 40,000 years with bot the speed of change and the position of the magnetic north pole. I looked and could not find.

I have no problem in challenging anyone and as a young engineer I did so and had 30 man years of work binned because I uncovered it had all been done on a wrong assumption.

It was not scientists who challenged the maximum wav e height theory 0- it was mariners. The scientists would not listen to the mariners claims. That is recent and a perfect example scientists wrong - lay people right.

You seem to be upset that a theory should even be brought forward for examination ... I am glad I do not have your blind faith.:)

[pir8ped]

Paul,

When I wrote

'You suggest that the blacksmith's theory needs to be peer-reviewed. Why bother?'

I was being ironic. Thousands of peer-reviewed research papers have been reviewed by such as the IPCC, but a large proportion of people seem to prefer their own folk wisdom. Of course we should throw this theory into the mix, and see if it presents a challenge. That is exactly what I am suggesting.

I don't have blind faith in the man-made global warming theory. It isn't a matter of faith. I'm just not qualified to express an opinion with any higher authority than people who have been professionally studying this subject for many years. And of course the theory can be wrong. Scientists proceed by creating a hypothesis based on their observations, and then testing the hypothesis as rigorously as possible. I'd love to prove it wrong myself - I'd save mankind from such a lot of trouble and expense and probably get a Nobel prize!

What disturbs me is how readily people are willing to dismiss scientific theory (as in, I never did think CO2 could be the culprit) when they usually have no better basis for such a notion than a wet finger in the air.

[44C]

What disturbs me is how readily people are willing to dismiss scientific theory (as in, I never did think CO2 could be the culprit) when they usually have no better basis for such a notion than a wet finger in the air.

In every previous warming event, the rise in CO2 levels has come AFTER the rise in temperature.

How then, does it make sense to you to suggest those warming events were caused by CO2?

So if all the previous warming events were caused by something other than CO2, why is it not possible this one was?

Also, remember the same scientistific and political community telling us we are driving the planet into global warming now, were telling us we were driving the planet back into another ice-age, just 30 years ago.

Were they right then?

[therapy]

December 21, 2012

Thanks.

I need to write that down. I keep forgetting it. Stupid me.

[therapy]

To me, that makes it a pretty unlikely suspect as the cause.... yet we're being told it is the cause this time. On what basis?



IIRC, a university study in the UK actually found that over the life of the vehicle, a Prius does more environmental damage than a Range Rover.

To control you and get your money so you can be more deeply controlled.


Over here they compared it to a Hummer - same result.

Similar to having a solar panel on a boat.

[3Psuite]

In every previous warming event, the rise in CO2 levels has come AFTER the rise in temperature.

How then, does it make sense to you to suggest those warming events were caused by CO2?

Once the warming starts (for what ever reason) If I remember correctly one of biggest contributors is melting tundra/ permafrost areas which start to decompose or closer to the mark is maybe ferment. unfortunately the product is not drinkable:rolleyes::p:eek::mad:.

It no good I'm starting to feel hooked and will start to get up to date again (I use to work with a group that was tasked with turning the early IPCC data into graphics that the politicians could understand.

A possibly positive bit of advice to Roy and any helpers is to present the results in 2 formats one with lots of numbers for the scientist and one with lots of colours for the politicians & press:) as the later will never put the effort in to understand the first but will happily plagiarise the second if it looks good enough.

[therapy]

When the climate scientists pointed out the ozone hole, and said the whole world needs to stop using CFC's and change the way we do refrigeration, the whole world jumped, we made the changes and the ozone hole is filling up again.

When the climate scientists point to rising CO2 levels contributing to climate warming, and suggests we need to use less energy, everyone suddenly becomes an expert on climate with a theory of their own, and the Americans assume it's a one world government initiative to curtail their God-given freedom to burn as much carbon as they like in their V8 inefficiency machines.

:rolleyes:

One of the problems with that is that if every car and truck on the planet stopped operating tomorrow. The daily amount of carbon put into the atmosphere would drop by 0.05% if I recall.

I am not going to get deep into this thread because there is one over on Sailnet that is going on and has been for a very long time. Go there and spend a month reading it and ALL the links etc. You will be busy for a long time and realize humans really just think too much of themselves.

Pollution and over population are different subjects.

PS - CO2 is not a pollutant.

ozone? Chicken feed. Now what have we done?

Meanwhile, fixing the hole in the ozone layer may end up worsening some other environmental problems. The hydrofluorocarbons we use in place of many CFCs don't contribute to ozone depletion, but some of them have thousands of times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Given the projected boom in usage in the developing world—thanks to a growing appetite for refrigerators and air conditioners—these chemicals may end up being a major contributor to climate change. (Researchers estimate that HFCs could be one-fifth as problematic as carbon dioxide by the year 2050.) Earlier this month, the United States, Canada, and Mexico issued a joint proposal for a "phase down" in HFCs, which can be replaced in some applications with more eco-friendly options, like carbon dioxide, ammonia, or HFCs with lower global-warming potential. In November, the signatories of the Montreal Protocol will hold their annual meeting in Egypt, so we should hear more on this topic in the next few months.

Thank goodness.

Today's Ozone Hole is not the biggest, but it is very close in size to the largest on record still, so more effort should be made to curb the use of ozone depleting substances. Scientists are also looking into ways to help the process along; one team of scientists may have discovered a way to remove CFCs from the atmosphere with the help of nanotechnology! Further advances in the scientific arena will undoubtedly increase in this area as time goes on, so there's hope that future generations will still be able to enjoy a little play-time in the sun- without wearing the SPF 5000 sunblock!


:rolleyes:

[ForumAdmin]

What disturbs me is how readily people are willing to dismiss scientific theory (as in, I never did think CO2 could be the culprit) when they usually have no better basis for such a notion than a wet finger in the air.

A lot of scientists these day chase budgets - money for their work. Others also chase fame. its these factors that sometimes get in the way of the truth. I have witnessed all this first hand and so have a healthy scepticism for a lot of what is claimed. I fear the the climate change bandwagon is a little out of control.

My local hardware supermarket now provides no bags of any type at checkout .... its a case of bring your own bags but the products they sell are over packaged to an extreme - a simple compact flash card comes in a large box, lots of plastic and yet is a small light item.

I watch large turbo diesels driving small bags to the local recycling centre.
In some place here you have to wash every tin label, bottle label etc of before you place it in the correct wheely bin which used to be one but is now five and growing. Huge growth in plastic wheelie bins, huge growth in trips to the rubbish dump. In some cases there is no market fore the recycled stuff so it used as landfill. Being politically correct is more important than being correct.

On the other hand I am all for balanced sensible policies in these areas.

No paper or program including the Al Gore movie has totally convinced me but i took the view that we could not afford to ignore it just because there was a chance it could be wrong. I really do think the the science is not there yet and it would be oh so wonderful if the answer came from a keen layman.:):)

[44C]

To control you and get your money so you can be more deeply controlled.


Over here they compared it to a Hummer - same result.

Similar to having a solar panel on a boat.

Well, not really. Solar panels do make sense on a boat. Unless it stays in a marina, permanently connected to mains electricity.

[therapy]

. How are the rest of them explained? [/FONT][/COLOR]The economics of reducing the carbon foot print does make sense to me. Blaming global warming on it doesn't. [/FONT][/COLOR]




http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

Could it be sunspots?

Here is a thought.



["In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and [computer] programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage."

Ick.

Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental causes.

None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail. Sceptics are not the only ones who have received funding from sources sympathetic to their viewpoint. (And yes, Lindzen did once receive some money from energy companies.)

[therapy]

. Why are you happy to accept their data on previous cycles, but then dismiss their understanding of the current situation? What qualifies you to pick and choose like that?

Because the current hype is based on MODELS. The worst case ones were waved in our faces and now, the guy that created many of them admits he distorted the data for results that the hyper's wanted to wave.

(can't find that right now, dang)

[therapy]

Paul,

When I wrote

'You suggest that the blacksmith's theory needs to be peer-reviewed. Why bother?'

I was being ironic. Thousands of peer-reviewed research papers have been reviewed by such as the IPCC, but a large proportion of people seem to prefer their own folk wisdom. Of course we should throw this theory into the mix, and see if it presents a challenge. That is exactly what I am suggesting.


.

http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

double ick!

[therapy]

No paper or program including the Al Gore movie has totally convinced me but i took the view that we could not afford to ignore it just because there was a chance it could be wrong. I really do think the the science is not there yet and it would be oh so wonderful if the answer came from a keen layman.:):)

Paul,

Al Gore's film, if I recall correctly, cannot be shown to school children (in school) without a 13 point disclamer stating that these points brought out in the film have been proven to be untrue or are outright lies.

Have you knowledge of that? I thought Britan was one of them.

Too lazy to look it all up right now.

[therapy]

Here is another good one.

Got their bases covered pretty well.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090914-north-america-cooling-warming.html

[ForumAdmin]

No, I hav e not heard ot that with the school kids.

I am sure that Gore is sincere but he drove this matter and the politics led.

Two years ago I was contacted by our local council chief ( aery small area called a Parish Council) to be told that I had been seen violating the recycling rules by dumping some furniture at the local unmanned recycling bins. I protested it was not me and was told someone had seen me (it really was not me) .... I asked to meet the person with the head of the council so that they could see who I was and ask them to withdraw their claim but that was refused ..... I think he believed me but there was no apology and that seems to be the what it is becoming ... the birth of rubbish zeoloats!!:) The rules that now apply to rubbish have become severe. You need a licence to even burn garden rubbish.:)

Most new laws we live by here are made by undemocratic eurocrats in Brussels who we have no real control over.

I must stop my rant now:):):)

[BigCat]

No, I hav e not heard ot that with the school kids.

I am sure that Gore is sincere but he drove this matter and the politics led.

Two years ago I was contacted by our local council chief ( aery small area called a Parish Council) to be told that I had been seen violating the recycling rules by dumping some furniture at the local unmanned recycling bins. I protested it was not me and was told someone had seen me (it really was not me) .... I asked to meet the person with the head of the council so that they could see who I was and ask them to withdraw their claim but that was refused ..... I think he believed me but there was no apology and that seems to be the what it is becoming ... the birth of rubbish zeoloats!!:) The rules that now apply to rubbish have become severe. You need a licence to even burn garden rubbish.:)

Most new laws we live by here are made by undemocratic eurocrats in Brussels who we have no real control over.

I must stop my rant now:):):)

I believe that the globe is warming - there's too much evidence to doubt it - In England, daffodils are blooming earlier and earlier, same here in the Western US, glaciers everywhere are melting, the NW passage is so open that yachts can now transit it in summer, etc.

However, there is also a lot of nonsense about environmental issues - claims that things are good or bad for the environment with no real quantitative analysis. Some members may have noticed my debunking powering boats with solar power and wind generators on another thread. I also debunk biodiesel and bioplastic on my website at http://biogreenproducts.biz .

[TanJera]

For what its worth, New Zealand just had the coldest::) October since 1945 - apparently the average temp was something like 10 C (wish I new what formula they use to calculate average temp)
Hennie

[Autodafe]

I do not have the expertise to speak to Roys theories, but there are a number of factual errors recurring in this thread which I can't let lie.

1. CO2 CAN cause warming. How CO2 causes warming is well understood, and not at all controversial.
It is of course debatable how much warming it will cause, and if other factors may cancel it out, but the basic theory is this:
Sunlight falls on the earth, some is absorbed, and some is reflected. If you increase the amount absorbed, then the world gets hotter. A lot of the sunlight reflected off the earth is turned around (through absorbtion and re-emmission) as long wavelength infrared radiation. CO2 in the atmosphere soaks up this escaping heat and traps it in the atmosphere. This can (and has) be demonstrated simply in the lab and was the main reason warming was predicted long before it was measured (c1950's?).

2. Volcanoes do NOT produce more CO2 than all of human history.
Do some basic sums. Google it. Read wikipedia, or reputable reference.
Volcanoes release around 100million tons/year average (including some pretty big ones recently), while fossil fuels every year are around 24 Billion tons/year, or several hundred times more.

Note that I'm not telling anyone here to believe in anthropogenic climate change, just don't believe everything you hear to the contrary either.
A lot to shit gets spouted on both sides of the climate change coin. Check facts and backgrounds. The climate is complex and I won't claim to know what's going to happen, but most misinformation circulating the web can be debunked with a basic sanity check.

[BigCat]

No matter what the 'cause' of climate change, there is an anthropogenic component, and it's the only one we can do anything about. Global warming is here, and its bad for us. A lot of people are going to starve to death or drown due to global warming. A huge percentage of the world's population lives near the sea, and who should better understand why that the members of this board?

Increases in the world's temperature is disrupting the weather patterns we are used to, and it leads to some places being colder at some times. Average means just that - you take the temperature at many times at many places and average them. People who complain that Al Gore should shovel the snow off of their sidewalks don't seem to understand the simple concept of 'average.'

Averaging doesn't require advanced math - just addition and division! Add the measurements together, divide by the number of measurements, and that's the average. This is the number that is going up, and cold snaps here and there don't disprove this extremely simple concept. The cold snaps are a part of the data pool, ie. are some of the measurements to be added together - they are not being ignored by people calculating the average! The averages are increasing over time -this is global warming.

Some people say, so what, the world always fluctuates in temperature. The answer is, yes, but we live on it, and it has very real consequences for things like sea level and crop harvests that are very important to us.

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

Prevention: In my opinion, the best way to combat global warming is to use energy with more efficiency - eliminate incandescent lighting, increase the insulation of houses in temperate climates, design tropical homes and buildings with good ventilation instead of air conditioning them, building lighter, more efficient automobiles, build more efficient power plants, etc.

So far, efforts to replace fossil fuel with biofuel have led to net increases rather than decreases in environmental negatives-a lot of green initiatives are essentially con jobs by big business interests, and biofuel is one of them. You have to do the math - a knee jerk approach won't work.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp

[thinwater]

The video was done by Roy himself.
To do a decent job would take a month that i do not have time for.

The music, the presentation etc is not important - its the message that is the important thing.

If the video was going to be used in a widespread fashion then fine time could be pit into it. I admire Roy very much for the years of work that he has done. So its comments on the work that are being sought after.

Bright man, but he must realize that a pound of presentation counts for 500 pounds of facts. Politicians often forgo facts entirely (a portion of my job is lobbying) - too confusing and they take away from the message.

[BigCat]

It's an interesting theory, and one that should be looked into further IMO.

I've never been sold on CO2 as being the cause of temerature rise - polar ice core samples have shown that in every previous warming event, CO2 increases have FOLLOWED rises in temperature. To me, that makes it a pretty unlikely suspect as the cause.... yet we're being told it is the cause this time. On what basis?

And the rush to reduce CO2 emmissions CAN have damaging side effects - for instance, mobile environmental disasters such as the Toyota Prius are being foisted on us as being "Green" - because they produce less CO2 per kilometer when being driven. No mention is made of the other types of environmental damage caused by the manufacture of such a car.

IIRC, a university study in the UK actually found that over the life of the vehicle, a Prius does more environmental damage than a Range Rover.


Common sense should lead you to doubt the claim that a very light vehicle uses more energy than a very heavy one.* “This study has been completely contradicted by studies from MIT, Argonne National Labs and Carnegie Mellon’s Lifecycle Assessment Group."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth :rolleyes:

*After all, this is why you expect your Oram to be extraordinarily fast - It's light!

[Southern Star]

I am with 3pSuite on this one. While his theory may merit some peer review (although I suspect footnotes and a bilbiography would be required before any respectable journal would publish it), I also think that it is a huge mistake to disregard the substantial body of evidence that attributes the increase in greenhouse gases (which is demonstrable) as being at least partly responsible. Yes, there are 'natural' climatic variations that can be attributed to diverse sources, including volcanic eruptions and, for all I know, changes in the magnetic pole.

However, as 3pSuite rightly points out:

1. like it or not, global warming is upon us (and I suggest that the impact will be greater now than ever before because of the dramatically increased population of the world and, the number of large cities built at, or near current sea levels);
2. the reduction in plant-life is reducing the amount of carbon dioxide that is being converted to oxygen.
3. oil is a finite resource and burning the same leads to:
4. greenhouse gases - in particular, CO and CO2.; and
5. other pollutants that can lead to respiratory problems in the general public.
6. the ozone layer is being depleted.

If one accepts the foregoing (and I suggest that it is difficult not to) and gives even some credence to the substantial body of evidence that links increased greenhouse gases to the destruction of the ozone layer and the increase in temperatures, then surely we should attempt to reduce our reliance upon burning fossil fuels. Even if one does not accept the connection, then the pollution caused by burning this finite resource and the impact upon our economies of ever increasing fuel costs (not to mention political pressure in having to purchase a required commodity from often less than friendly states) surely demands the same.

In my opinion, those who believe that we should (or even that we can) carry on as we have to date, are being naive. We must change our habits as there is not enough fossil fuel to sustain them for much longer. The added benefits in terms of the environment (at minimum cleaner air) and in terms of the political balance, simply make the case stronger.

Can we stop or even slow gobal warming? Perhaps. And the simple fact that this is debatable, leaves another good reason for pursuing the path to alternative energy. Will it come at a cost? Certainly. Although it is, as in most things in life, a cost that will only increase in time.

Brad

[Bubba]

There has been no talk about the cold weather that will come quickly after the warming period were in now. Another ice age for some locations like the north east with frozen great lakes and rivers and snow lots of snow. It seams like I want to order a great heating unit for our new cat.

I participate in the reinactment of Lewis and Clark from 1806 which was close to the last mini ice age, there was no short sleeve shirts or what we use as summer clothing availiable. If you look at 1800 pirate paintings they were in BVI and wearing coats and long sleeve and long pants in most all there portrails.

[44C]

Common sense should lead you to doubt the claim that a very light vehicle uses more energy than a very heavy one.* “This study has been completely contradicted by studies from MIT, Argonne National Labs and Carnegie Mellon’s Lifecycle Assessment Group."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth :rolleyes:

*After all, this is why you expect your Oram to be extraordinarily fast - It's light!

No doubt the Prius uses far less fuel than many cars while it is being driven. But the manufacture of the batteries for the Prius is a very environmentally "dirty" and costly exercise. And they won't last the entire life of the car. At some stage they will need to be replaced, and disposed of.

Also, depending on how it's driven, the economy of a Prius can at times be no better than cars normally considered to be "thirsty": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk

Interestingly, in the recent economy challenge held in Australia, Toyota decline to enter a Prius, despite apparently being offered considerable incentives to do so.

[pir8ped]

This environmental stuff is complicated! How can we weigh up the dirtiness of manufacturing the Prius batteries against the benefits of better fuel efficiency? I'm not a fan of the Prius. The mileage isn't that great anyway. 50 Mpg if you're lucky. I've had 73 mpg from my VW Golf turbo-deisel. But mileage isn't everything. My brother has a Prius. He lives in London. There, it makes a lot of sense. It's quiet. At traffic lights, it silent. The engine comes on when the car is going at some speed - all the stop/start and slow manoeuvres is done with the battery. My golf would be throwing out clouds of soot. :(

[BigCat]

No doubt the Prius uses far less fuel than many cars while it is being driven. But the manufacture of the batteries for the Prius is a very environmentally "dirty" and costly exercise. And they won't last the entire life of the car. At some stage they will need to be replaced, and disposed of.

Also, depending on how it's driven, the economy of a Prius can at times be no better than cars normally considered to be "thirsty": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTOyiKLARk

Interestingly, in the recent economy challenge held in Australia, Toyota decline to enter a Prius, despite apparently being offered considerable incentives to do so.

They addressed that (nickel mining,) in the link I posted in response to your post. Another issue here is that the forced choice given here is pretty idiotic - Why not choose between a SUV, a Prius, and a Honda Civic? Because the SUV would lose - this source isn't about helping the problem - it's just cheap sensationalism. If this is where you get your science, I suggest you try something a little more serious.

Since weight doesn't matter to efficiency, I suggest you trade in your Oram for a FP, and then load the lockers with lead pigs!

:rolleyes:

[44C]

I sometimes think you just start arguments for the sake of it. Please guide me to where I have ever said weight doesn't matter to efficiency.

However, weight is only one factor in making a car more fuel efficient.

And fuel efficiency is only one factor in making a car less environmentally damaging.

There's more to protecting the environment than just CO2.

BTW the BMW M5 is heavier than the Prius, and yet in that test it DID use less fuel. Go figure.

[BigCat]

I sometimes think you just start arguments for the sake of it. Please guide me to where I have ever said weight doesn't matter to efficiency.

However, weight is only one factor in making a car more fuel efficient.

And fuel efficiency is only one factor in making a car less environmentally damaging.

There's more to protecting the environment than just CO2.

BTW the BMW M5 is heavier than the Prius, and yet in that test it DID use less fuel. Go figure.


A Hummer weighs an awful lot more than a Prius, so I was hoping you might notice the inconsistency in your viewpoint regarding cars and catamarans. You are a known advocate of very light catamarans, because they are fast. They are fast because they are moving less weight for a given sail area-but you seem to be having trouble following the comparison.

The 2009 MW M5 has 14.1 mpg combined fuel usage, according to the EPA - the Prius gets 46 mpg. The BMW has 10 cylinders! Just where do you get your facts? I get mine from the EPA at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm . I think when your research brings you an unlikely answer, you should do more research.

What will come next from your keyboard, bacon and chips cooked in lard, a healthy alternative to salads with turkey breast?

It's hard to say whether a different technology is more or less negative for the environment, because there is no absolute way to weigh the values of different issues. It is much easier to compare similar technologies, which is why I have no hesitation at all to say that a Hummer is much worse than a conventional car that is considerably smaller, such as a Honda Civic, because there aren't different issues to weigh against each other. Most environmental negatives go with size and older, less efficient design.

No, I don't start arguments for the sake of it. I'm not fond of arguments. I was a counselor (mental health and marriage counseling) for 18 years, and helping people get past pointless head butting is something I've spent a lot of hours doing.

[44C]

I take it you didn't actually watch the video you are criticizing.

In a direct comparison, driving both cars on the same circuit at the same speed at the same time the Prius used more fuel than the M5. The M5 is heavier.

Many government tests are done in laboratories on rolling roads. They are generally useful as a guide only.

In reality for most people the Prius will obviously be more economical on fuel than an M5. But driven in the manner shown it can be less so.

But the real point I'm trying to get across, seemingly with no success in your case, (once again you seem to be deliberately obtuse, and constantly nit pick at arguments I have never actually made - for instance I have never once mentioned a Hummer) is that just focussing on reducing CO2 emissions, because CO2 is the current headline grabber, can lead us into using environmentally harmful or ineffective technologies, such as some hybrids.

Or are you saying that since hybrids use different technologies, we shouldn't even attempt to compare the environmental impact of them to conventional cars?

[BigCat]

I take it you didn't actually watch the video you are criticizing.

In a direct comparison, driving both cars on the same circuit at the same speed at the same time the Prius used more fuel than the M5. The M5 is heavier.

Many government tests are done in laboratories on rolling roads. They are generally useful as a guide only.

In reality for most people the Prius will obviously be more economical on fuel than an M5. But driven in the manner shown it can be less so.

But the real point I'm trying to get across, seemingly with no success in your case, (once again you seem to be deliberately obtuse, and constantly nit pick at arguments I have never actually made - for instance I have never once mentioned a Hummer) is that just focussing on reducing CO2 emissions, because CO2 is the current headline grabber, can lead us into using environmentally harmful or ineffective technologies, such as some hybrids.

Or are you saying that since hybrids use different technologies, we shouldn't even attempt to compare the environmental impact of them to conventional cars?

To quote myself, "It's hard to say whether a different technology is more or less negative for the environment, because there is no absolute way to weigh the values of different issues. It is much easier to compare similar technologies, which is why I have no hesitation at all to say that a Hummer is much worse than a conventional car that is considerably smaller, such as a Honda Civic, because there aren't different issues to weigh against each other." The real world isn't like driving on a race track. In the real world, the Prius uses 1/3 the fuel of your Beemer.

[Bubba]

I really dont think what kind of auto you drive matters when the snow will be too deep for regular auto's. The Hummer may be the only transport that may get around in the artic weather we will get when this planitary warming spell is over.

[BigCat]

I really dont think what kind of auto you drive matters when the snow will be too deep for regular auto's. The Hummer may be the only transport that may get around in the artic weather we will get when this planitary warming spell is over.

Why do you expect a cooling spell in the foreseeable future? Maybe you should be looking for a steel monohull, to break all of that ice that you seem to expect in the tropics.

[44C]

Well there is a theory that global warming will shut down the gulf stream and trigger an ice-age in the Northern hemisphere...

[44C]

To quote myself, "It's hard to say whether a different technology is more or less negative for the environment, because there is no absolute way to weigh the values of different issues. It is much easier to compare similar technologies, which is why I have no hesitation at all to say that a Hummer is much worse than a conventional car that is considerably smaller, such as a Honda Civic, because there aren't different issues to weigh against each other." The real world isn't like driving on a race track. In the real world, the Prius uses 1/3 the fuel of your Beemer.

Christ this is hard - that is EXACTLY the point - if you focus ONLY on CO2 emissions you may overlook the other types of environmental damage done. I tried using the Prius as an example, but obviously that's too hard for you to grasp - how about nuclear power?

It produces no CO2, so clearly if CO2 were the only environmental concern, nuclear would be a prime choice.

But of course, nuclear comes with it's own environmental "baggage". Yet due to the focus on CO2, Australia has begun considering nuclear again.

BTW in the real world, how much fuel a car uses depends a lot on how you drive it. Cruising at 180km/h on an Autobahn, (if it can go that fast) a Prius would very likely use more fuel than an M5.

[Bubba]

I have been working in the nuclear energy world for over 30 years and the waste is a very small part of producing power. With all the homes that are heated and powered by nuclear, the waste is manageable in comparison to oil or coal. Wind is great but other than sail boats it does not pay for the maintance of the wind turbines YET. Solar power is getting there but there is not enough resurch and developement on it yet.

[pir8ped]

'Solar power is getting there but there is not enough resurch and developement on it yet.' The Germans reckon they have the technology: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power-sahara-europe-desertec

[mobydick]

I read the 'written details' and I'm sorry, but it is garbage. Many factual errors which make it incredible to start with, but also no understanding of science, the scientific method, or how to write a serious paper.

MD

[BigCat]

Well there is a theory that global warming will shut down the gulf stream and trigger an ice-age in the Northern hemisphere...

Not in 'the northern hemisphere,' but rather in Northern Europe. The Gulf Stream transfers heat from the Caribbean to Northern Europe.

Germany's autobahns are a pretty small fraction of world traffic, so I won't concern myself too much about them. Yes, there are multiple environmental issues to consider, but the title of this thread is about global warming, so I am not drifting the thread. If we discount the possibility of nuclear war, global warming is the biggest environmental hazard currently, based on the number of people / size of area affected. I am also very concerned about the hazard biofuels and bioplastics pose for the world hunger problem, which is going to be exacerbated by global warming.

[mobydick]

And also an abuse of Forum Moderator power to put this in a sailing forum, in my view.

MD

[BigCat]

And also an abuse of Forum Moderator power to put this in a sailing forum, in my view.

MD Then why are you reading it and posting on it? Maybe it should be in the bar, but calling it abuse is coming it pretty strong! I, for one, appreciate Paul's efforts, made at his labor and expense, and not yours or mine, and frankly, you seem pretty cavalier and ungrateful! If I didn't want to participate in the thread, I wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't abuse my host because I didn't share his tastes in food or wine if I were a dinner guest.

[ForumAdmin]

And also an abuse of Forum Moderator power to put this in a sailing forum, in my view.

Well as a free forum and a subject fairly close to many boater's hearts, I thought it was OK to post in just the same way that any member can post.:)

I cannot see how it is abuse who is forced to read it? Kindly explain how I have abused any small power I have? There is no censorship of comments and you, as anyone are free to criticise the forum administration. That is unlike other forums where critical comment like that is strictly forbidden.

[ForumAdmin]

I also think its best in the bar and so the thread is moved.

I would point out that I have never moved a thread without member permission, so my actions in posting in the sailing forum anyone could have done. It did not require moderator power at any level.:)

[44C]

And also an abuse of Forum Moderator power to put this in a sailing forum, in my view.

MD

Supression of people's opinions would be an abuse of power IMO. This forum is the exact opposite of that.

[44C]

I read the 'written details' and I'm sorry, but it is garbage. Many factual errors which make it incredible to start with, but also no understanding of science, the scientific method, or how to write a serious paper.

MD


Care to elaborate? What factual errors, for instance?

[mobydick]

Sorry, I should have used less contentious wording, such as “I suggest this is moved to the bar”….

But I get a bit exasperated when I see what I assume to be otherwise intelligent people taken in by such things. The statement: “As earth’s moon passes over any stretch of water it strengthens the attraction of earth’s magnetic core toward the moon, which in turn repels water away from earth’s core causing the rise of earth’s seas and consequently our tides” ALONE should surely raise suspicions on a forum like this? As well as the stuff about ocean currents (explained well by temperature, salinity, wind and Coriolis effects, NOT the exceedingly weak diamagnetic properties of water…)......

MD

[BigCat]

Sorry, I should have used less contentious wording, such as “I suggest this is moved to the bar”….

But I get a bit exasperated when I see what I assume to be otherwise intelligent people taken in by such things. The statement: “As earth’s moon passes over any stretch of water it strengthens the attraction of earth’s magnetic core toward the moon, which in turn repels water away from earth’s core causing the rise of earth’s seas and consequently our tides” ALONE should surely raise suspicions on a forum like this? As well as the stuff about ocean currents (explained well by temperature, salinity, wind and Coriolis effects, NOT the exceedingly weak diamagnetic properties of water…)......

MD There is no gravity, the earth sucks? Ho, ho, ho! ::)

[ForumAdmin]

I would agree that there are things that would cause one to question.
What impressed me is the close correlation between the speed of movement of the magnetic north pole and the climate change CO2 and temperature graphs. Also that taking the last 150 years of this theory you get an almost exact correlation with individual small amounts of years and the magnetic north pole.

I really think you should watch the film, which in itself is just a simplification of the work and then comment on any point you disagree with ... then your contribution would have some weight.:)

[BigCat]

When the climate scientists pointed out the ozone hole, and said the whole world needs to stop using CFC's and change the way we do refrigeration, the whole world jumped, we made the changes and the ozone hole is filling up again.

When the climate scientists point to rising CO2 levels contributing to climate warming, and suggests we need to use less energy, everyone suddenly becomes an expert on climate with a theory of their own, and the Americans assume it's a one world government initiative to curtail their God-given freedom to burn as much carbon as they like in their V8 inefficiency machines.

:rolleyes:

"The Americans?" Please, a significant percentage of us aren't wingnuts.

Maybe half of us are wingnuts or listen to them as though they weren't complete raving lunatics. The Republican base, self identified, is now down to to 20%. The wingnuts, ie. those who take Beck and 'Faux' so-called News seriously, will either kick the moderate conservatives out of the Republican Party, or start their own party. Either possibility seems equally likely at the moment.

You really have to view the US regionally - the West Coast and the Northeast are almost European in their views, predominantly. The South and the Midwest are where wingnuts are ascendent.

[mobydick]

I really think you should watch the film...

Well I did, (I hope nobody is getting benefit from clickthroughs) and it is just the same nonsense I am afraid. Added to the claim that crystaline formations are due to macro-magnetic effects..! A change in the rate of pole movement made it colder in the Thames that year, so therefore the global temperature was lower?! What does he claim the change in jetstream is caused by - diamagnetism of the air?

He has no credibility, so his home produced graphs may be right or wrong, and one can't draw anyything useful from them

But the main misconception is he thinks that it is claimed that CO2 increase caused previous warming periods. It is not. Just this one.

MD

[BigCat]

I would agree that there are things that would cause one to question.
What impressed me is the close correlation between the speed of movement of the magnetic north pole and the climate change CO2 and temperature graphs. Also that taking the last 150 years of this theory you get an almost exact correlation with individual small amounts of years and the magnetic north pole.

I really think you should watch the film, which in itself is just a simplification of the work and then comment on any point you disagree with ... then your contribution would have some weight.:)

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

[pir8ped]

Bigcat, '"The Americans?" Please, a significant percentage of us aren't wingnuts. ' I didn't mean to offend all Americans. Some of my best friends etc... I was just playing with the caricature.

[ForumAdmin]

I agree that correlation does not imply causation but the whole cilmate change movement is already based on correlation.:)

[ForumAdmin]

But the main misconception is he thinks that it is claimed that CO2 increase caused previous warming periods. It is not. Just this one.

So what caused the previous climate changes?

[BigCat]

I agree that correlation does not imply causation but the whole cilmate change movement is already based on correlation.:)

Not the case. The mechanism of greenhouse gases has been demonstrated experimentally - pure CO2 absorbs more heat out of sunlight than the earth's atmosphere.

http://www.xlab.tv/experiment-17.php

[Bubba]

I think our wingnut problem starts with folks in the White House or was that the previous 2 terms. I thought the movie was probably correct and those changes will affect the wind and ocean currents as they have already noticed the trade winds moving further north and our warming weather and holes in the ozon layers are bigger than all humanity put together. I really don,t think humanity and all it's poluting toys and camp fires put together could change the location of the north pole, Santa would have to keep moving his toy shop around. Ha Ha

[BigCat]

So what caused the previous climate changes? Any number of causes can cause increased global warming. Green house gasses can increase due to volcanic action, the sun can put out more energy, methane ice becomes a greenhouse gas when it melts, adding to a feedback cycle that takes a slight increase in the earth's temperature and accelerates it, decreased plant life can lead to a higher CO2 level, etc. Except for increased solar energy, all of these mechanisms involve increased greenhouse gasses. Human civilization could hardly do a better job of increasing greenhouse gases if it were designed for the purpose.

[ForumAdmin]

But do we know what caused the previous warm periods?

[ForumAdmin]

Not the case. The mechanism of greenhouse gases has been demonstrated experimentally - pure CO2 absorbs more heat out of sunlight than the earth's atmosphere.


Point accepted.

[BigCat]

But do we know what caused the previous warm periods?

Basically, you either get more energy or you keep more energy - that's how the planet gets warmer. So your choices are increased greenhouse gases or increased solar input. It's like heating a pot of water - you can turn up the gas or you can put a lid on it, to get the water hotter faster.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Solar_variation_theory

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what caused past global warming. The globe is getting warmer, and we are putting a lid on the pot. We can see that the consequences of global warming will cause starvation and flooding, tropical diseases will spread to what is now temperate climates, etc. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that if you don't want the water to boil, you don't put a lid on the pot, and arguing about whether past pots of boiling water were due primarily to lids or turned up gas aren't really significant.

[mobydick]

But do we know what caused the previous warm periods?

This is where the layman can get confused. In common usage, yes it is 'known' what caused many of the climate change events in the past. (Add to Bigcat's list variations in the earths orbit and distribution of land masses around the globe.)

In scientific usage, though, it is not 'known' - there are theories with various levels of confidence and support about each event. It is tricky to perform experiments with e.g. continental drift, which is one of the two ways of testing a theory. The second one - using the theory to forecast events - I guess we are trying now.

MD

[ForumAdmin]

I will repeat my question which nobody is answering:)

Do we know what caused the historic increases in CO2 and temperature - global warming.We either do or we do not.
We can guess at what might have caused them but it appears we do not know what did - agreed?

From the answer to that I will do follow up questions.:)

[mobydick]

I have answered.

Maybe you were expecting a single, simple reason for every event?

MD

[ForumAdmin]

Sorry you have not answered.:)
You have given a mix of vague possible causes but not the mix that caused the previous bumps in that 40,000 year history.
It was claimed that they were not caused by CO2 - how do we know that?

It seems nobody can describe the reasons and hence nobody can be sure it was not CO2 given that the CO2 record clearly shows a matching temperature increase.

[pir8ped]

There's a description of the current understanding of the relationship between CO2 and climate temperature here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

There are references too...

We could all pour forth our opinions and misunderstandings, or we could just read what the climate scientists are saying.

[mobydick]

We could all pour forth our opinions and misunderstandings, or we could just read what the climate scientists are saying.

Quite so. I was saying there is not a single reason for all the events, and it is covered elsewhere in other sites much better than I could ever hope to. Any attempt by me to simplify would just raise 'Ah, but...''s

MD

[ForumAdmin]

If you read the references they are opinions. Nobody knows exactly what combination of factors caused the historic events.
What I am questioning is the statement that previous historic were not caused by CO2. That statement surprised me. So I started by asking a simple straight questions
Its seems I cannot get a straight answer like Yes or No.
I was asking if the reasons for the the historic peaks in climate were understood - not how they occurred. I give in at getting a straight answer.

[Autodafe]

If you read the references they are opinions. Nobody knows exactly what combination of factors caused the historic events.
What I am questioning is the statement that previous historic were not caused by CO2. That statement surprised me. So I started by asking a simple straight questions
Its seems I cannot get a straight answer like Yes or No.
I was asking if the reasons for the the historic peaks in climate were understood - not how they occurred. I give in at getting a straight answer.

At the risk of muddying the waters further, your answer is both yes and no for given values of certainty.:rolleyes:

Science isn't in the business of yes or no. Theories are all you're going to get, from which people form opinions... That doesn't mean the evidence isn't good though, after all gravity is still just a theory as far as science is concerned :)
Unfortunately this means that to form your own opinions you have to go through all the evidence and accompanying theories, or blindly trust the experts:eek:

In terms of explaining how CO2 can historically fluctuate with warming, without being the primary cause of the warming, there are a number of plausible er...theories: (Which you didn't ask for - no offence if you skip this :) )
1. Warming thaws frozen peat at high latitudes, which then rots, releasing CO2.
2. Water contains a lot of dissolved gas, including CO2, warmer water holds less gas, so the oceans and lakes release CO2 as the climate warms.
3. There are more wildfires as the planet warms (due to both fires starting more easily in a warm environment, and increase lightning in warm atmospheres) , thus more CO2 released.
4. I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

So while some historical warming events are likely to have been caused by CO2 fluctuation also, even the ones that weren't can be followed by a CO2 rise.

As mentioned in a previous post the earth's irregular orbit takes us closer to and further from the sun over a period of some thousands of years, so the earth is correspondingly warmer and cooler. At the risk of sounding facetious, our orbital path is just a theory based on the theory of gravity, that so far matches the observed data :D

We have observed that the sun's output varies over time on a small scale, and evidence supports the idea that larger variations occur over time. This also (hypothetically) causes some climate change events.

Dust in the upper atmosphere causes global cooling (we think :) ) so major asteroid impacts (of which there is crater evidence) and periods of strong volcanic activity (more common in the past than now) can cause dips in the global temperature graph with (perhaps caused by the CO2 feedback items above) or without falling CO2.

[ForumAdmin]

I accept that there is no certainty about if we know - and its a value judgement as to the degree of probability that is accepted but even having agreed to that you are still striving to explain things which are not an ansdwer to the question.

It is the statement that previous climate peaks for want of a better phrase were NOT caused by CO2 that I am seeking to question.

MobyDick wrote
But the main misconception is he thinks that it is claimed that CO2 increase caused previous warming periods. It is not. Just this one.


Not a probably not the case, in fact so important and so factual that it is not the case. In fact the only warming period caused by CO2 is the current one!!!

I am not a scientific novice and hold a B.Sc and MSc plus professional qualifications. Please do not read into my question a lack of understanding or make assumptions - just try and answer the question:)

Mobydick made an absolute statement about a major misconception in the video - a statement that claims CO2 did not cause the previous warming periods - I already know that there could be multiple factors involved and so the statement with it certainty surprised me that they were not caused by CO2.

Now I am being told that it could have been multiple reasons - I personally agree with that but that is not the answer to my question.


Its seems that the answer is No we do not know. It could have been multiple factors but we do not know what caused them. For certain we do not know that it was not CO2 led.

It also seems that the statement from Mobydick stating with certainty that CO2 did not cause them has not been supported by the answers. In which case his major criticism of the video is incorrect.:)

[Roy]

I accept that there is no certainty about if we know - and its a value judgement as to the degree of probability that is accepted but even having agreed to that you are still striving to explain things which are not an ansdwer to the question.

It is the statement that previous climate peaks for want of a better phrase were NOT caused by CO2 that I am seeking to question.

MobyDick wrote


Not a probably not the case, in fact so important and so factual that it is not the case. In fact the only warming period caused by CO2 is the current one!!!

I am not a scientific novice and hold a B.Sc and MSc plus professional qualifications. Please do not read into my question a lack of understanding or make assumptions - just try and answer the question:)

Mobydick made an absolute statement about a major misconception in the video - a statement that claims CO2 did not cause the previous warming periods - I already know that there could be multiple factors involved and so the statement with it certainty surprised me that they were not caused by CO2.

Now I am being told that it could have been multiple reasons - I personally agree with that but that is not the answer to my question.


Its seems that the answer is No we do not know. It could have been multiple factors but we do not know what caused them. For certain we do not know that it was not CO2 led.

It also seems that the statement from Mobydick stating with certainty that CO2 did not cause them has not been supported by the answers. In which case his major criticism of the video is incorrect.:)

Paul it’s about time I introduced myself to some of your followers but first I must thank you for fighting so had on my behalf. Considering we have never met and only had a few words on the phone two or three times I find it most incredible. I have my bullet proof vest on and this is not one of my usual habits but I shall give it a go, fire away folks.
Roy

[mobydick]

Paul

I'll atempt to make one further clarification for you. I am not a climate expert, just interested. The video claims that (from the graph) "it is thought" that the increase in CO2 caused the pre-historic warming, and this guy is looking for a third factor that caused both. Like he was the only one to even consider a 'third factor'.

Now, one of the main complaints by people about the 'Inconvenient Truth' film is that the same sort of graph was used, but the detail indicates that CO2 levels went up AFTER temperature. However, this is interpreted as indicating that the initial warming was caused by another event (a "third factor") or events. So, for example, changes in the earths orbit (e.g. the famous Milankovitch Cycles) warm the earth, which later causes an increase in CO2 (for example release by oceans as warm water cannot hold as much CO2 as cooler waters) which then increases the warming effect due to the greenhouse effect. Other primary causes have been mentioned, such as the distribution of continents, albedo effects and so forth. The temperature rise due to CO2 is thought to be about one third of the total rise - it increases the effect.

I dont know if any previous event was initiated by CO2 rise. There are a few instances where temperature rise is thought to have been caused primarily by other greenhose gases (Deccan Traps release of sulphur dioxide, or methane release in Paleocene-ocene period). But not primarily CO2. But then, there has not been an industrial age before.

So, the critisism of the video stands

I hope that is clear?

MD

[Autodafe]

Sorry Paul, if your post was directed my way, I didn't mean to patronise :)

I guess I misinterpreted your remarks about vagueness to be more general criticism of the mainstream science.

In terms of looking at a graph of historical temperature average and pointing out the cause of each (or any!) wiggle I have to confess a woeful ignorance. I've never done the reading so won't speculate (further?) here :)

[mobydick]

By the way, I did not state that this was the only warming period caused by CO2. I said:

"But the main misconception is he thinks that it is claimed that CO2 increase caused previous warming periods. It is not. Just this one."

I am making a statement about the scientific consensus as I understand it, and the difference to what the video's author claimed it is.

MD

[ForumAdmin]

By the way, I did not state that this was the only warming period caused by CO2.
Yes you are!:)
By stating that it is not the case and that its is just this one caused by CO2 you are stating that as it is only just this one that caused it the others were not caused by it!:):)

There has just been research done that states that current CO2 levels are the highest for 45 million years!!! That would counter against Roy's theory - I am surprised that nobody mentioned it!:)

The video claims that (from the graph) "it is thought" that the increase in CO2 caused the pre-historic warming, and this guy is looking for a third factor that caused both. Like he was the only one to even consider a 'third factor'.

That is unfair - he never claims to be the only one - he has just considered a third factor. That is the problem I think - you are biased against him and not actually considering the main thrust of his theory. :):):)

[ForumAdmin]

I guess I misinterpreted your remarks about vagueness to be more general criticism of the mainstream science.

Maybe but I am taking this bar chat fairly lightly and I am not criticising mainstream science - just seeking that a new idea be checked out.:)

[mobydick]

Yes you are!


Did you even read my response Paul? Firstly, I am not claiming anything about prehistoric climate. I am saying that current scientific opinion is that that previous warming episodes were not caused by CO2.

Secondly, the author states (about the graph) "These results could be the very reason that scientists were mislead into believing Co2 was the cause of climate change". They aren't mislead in that way.

MD

[ForumAdmin]

I did read your response and still find your black and white statement too black and white!:)

Lets agree that current opinion thinks they were probably not caused by CO2.
That is only opinion though and I know of no strong evidence that points that way - please point me to it if you know of it.

Could there have been other causes than CO2 - yes and in effect that is what Roy is stating.

Even if his claim that most though that previous events were caused by CO2 is not true it does not invalidate his basic theory. Which nobody on here has really discussed.

Would it then be true to say these peaks appear in a cycle that cannot be manmade and it is just that on the current rise mankind is adding the spin with its pollution?

If so could not other unknown factors have also influenced those previous events?
IMHO Yes.

[mobydick]

Did you read post 106 Paul? CO2 rise coming AFTER temp rise is one piece of evidence I think. And it also answers the question you raised.

Of course previous warming periods were not man made. But they need inclusion of CO2 greenhouse effects to account for the full remperature rise.

As to the 'theory' - first a graph is shown covering 400,000 yrs showing CO2/Temp. Then a graph is shown covering just the last 160 years (based on a few datapoints) showing some sort of correlation. That is pretty weak, but suppose there is a strong correlation over an extended period. What is the link? He claims, for no apparent reason - that it is diamagnetism. A VERY weak effect. What evidence is there for this cause? Why not the resulting disruption of cosmic rays causing nucleation in clouds, for example? All the other events he claims are influenced by diamagnetism (tides, current) are well understood without using it.

So, onto wandering poles. I guess on this site we are all aware of magnetic variation on charts, and the change each year caused by movement of the poles, so its is not exactly an unknown area. There is paleomagnetic data going back millions of years, so it should be possible to extend the graph WAY back to check for any warming correlation rather than rely on correlation with 0.05% of the 400K yr warming graph...



MD

[ForumAdmin]

Thank you. Thats a good response dealing with the heart of Roy's theory and I will leave it to Roy to answer.

I he does not - I will respond.

[Autodafe]

Hi Roy,
I'm sure Paul has already welcomed you to the forum so I'll get straight to the name calling :)
I'll take you at your word regarding bulletproofness and not attempt to soften my arguments.

I must confess I haven't watched your video, as I don't have .wmv playback, but I've gleaned what I can from your text page.

It seems a bit of a stretch to claim magnetic variation and diamagnetism as the primary cause for not only climate change, but tides, currents and transitory ice ages as well. Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

It appears that a major basis of your theory is the idea that the greenhouse
effect was thrown together as a quick explanation for observed global warming. As a number of posts in this thread point out this is not the case. The greenhouse effect was predicted and demonstrated in the lab in the 19th century, and the idea the human pollution could cause it on a global scale was proposed long before warming was definitively measured.

Thus we know, with fair certainty, that humans are increasing atmospheric CO2 (we know that we emit adequate tonnage to cause the rise in CO2, and the steep upward curve follows industrialisation), we know that CO2 causes warming (and can demonstrate the effect in the lab), and we know that warming is occurring.
In contrast I can't see a clear mechanism for warming proposed in your theory, or how the location or speed of the pole can cause global and local cooling as you suggest.

It is interesting that your graph of pole velocity is similar to the CO2 curve, but without a longer perspective on pole fluctuations is it impossible to say if this is significant. If, say, there is a frequent large variations in pole velocity then it is not at all remarkable that two curves should happen to coincide with no connection in the causative factors.

In regards to tides, you enlist the diamagentism of water and a repulsive alignment of the moon and earths magnetic fields. This does not account for the effect of the sun on tidal flows. The comparative gravity of the sun and moon are easily calculated, and this matches the observed ratios of tidal influence, comparing springs (sun and moon additive) to neaps (solar and lunar effects out of phase).
Diamagnetism can be demonstrated with water, but observable effects require field strength several hundred thousand times greater than the earths surface field strength.
It would also appear to me that any diamagnetic tidal effect if caused by aligned earth and moon fields would produce tides at 90degrees to the moons elevation, but I'm not confident on that one :)

You also suggest magnet effects are responsible for ocean current flows. It has been clearly demonstrated that current patterns can be well explained by the combination of prevailing wind, sea floor topography and up/down wellings driven by water temperature et al. For example, the currents in trade wind areas are predominantly from east to west, while the antarctic circumpolar current flows with the prevailing westerlies.
You dismiss this on the grounds that wind couldn't drive deep water.
Consider it this way, the wind drives the surface water. As the surface water flows over the deeper water it causes friction, which drives the deeper water towards the same velocity as the water above it. And so on, progressively deeper. With a unlimited wind fetch and infinitely deep ocean this could continue to any depth.
You mention a limit of water movement of three times wave height, but without a reference so I can be sure I'm addressing this correctly, but it sounds more like the depth limit of the typical circular water movement in traveling waves. I think this is more commonly taken as 7? times wave height, but either way it does not mean that wind induced current is limited to this volume. It is significant around coasts, as this gives the depth when waves will stop acting as deep water waves and start to become steeper and eventually break, and it is useful for submariners to know how deep to go to avoid major turbulence.
A net movement of surface water will still cause friction on deep water below this depth.

I realise (from your perspective) that you are fighting to get ideas out in the face of current consensus, but many research establishments love controversy, and I imagine that if your data backs your claims with anything like the force you claim getting an postgrad project set up to investigate independently at a reputable university would provide a way to get the idea out that appears less like self promotion based on hot air.

Your haste to dismiss large blocks of well tested theory, such as prevailing winds driving currents and gravitational tides, without in depth analysis of the shortcomings and strengths of the existing theories does not aid you credibility with any but the anti-establishment fringe.

[ForumAdmin]

That is a great post - I look forward to the response!

[Roy]

Hi Roy,
I'm sure Paul has already welcomed you to the forum so I'll get straight to the name calling :)
I'll take you at your word regarding bulletproofness and not attempt to soften my arguments.

I must confess I haven't watched your video, as I don't have .wmv playback, but I've gleaned what I can from your text page.

It seems a bit of a stretch to claim magnetic variation and diamagnetism as the primary cause for not only climate change, but tides, currents and transitory ice ages as well. Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

It appears that a major basis of your theory is the idea that the greenhouse
effect was thrown together as a quick explanation for observed global warming. As a number of posts in this thread point out this is not the case. The greenhouse effect was predicted and demonstrated in the lab in the 19th century, and the idea the human pollution could cause it on a global scale was proposed long before warming was definitively measured.

Thus we know, with fair certainty, that humans are increasing atmospheric CO2 (we know that we emit adequate tonnage to cause the rise in CO2, and the steep upward curve follows industrialisation), we know that CO2 causes warming (and can demonstrate the effect in the lab), and we know that warming is occurring.
In contrast I can't see a clear mechanism for warming proposed in your theory, or how the location or speed of the pole can cause global and local cooling as you suggest.

It is interesting that your graph of pole velocity is similar to the CO2 curve, but without a longer perspective on pole fluctuations is it impossible to say if this is significant. If, say, there is a frequent large variations in pole velocity then it is not at all remarkable that two curves should happen to coincide with no connection in the causative factors.

In regards to tides, you enlist the diamagentism of water and a repulsive alignment of the moon and earths magnetic fields. This does not account for the effect of the sun on tidal flows. The comparative gravity of the sun and moon are easily calculated, and this matches the observed ratios of tidal influence, comparing springs (sun and moon additive) to neaps (solar and lunar effects out of phase).
Diamagnetism can be demonstrated with water, but observable effects require field strength several hundred thousand times greater than the earths surface field strength.
It would also appear to me that any diamagnetic tidal effect if caused by aligned earth and moon fields would produce tides at 90degrees to the moons elevation, but I'm not confident on that one :)

You also suggest magnet effects are responsible for ocean current flows. It has been clearly demonstrated that current patterns can be well explained by the combination of prevailing wind, sea floor topography and up/down wellings driven by water temperature et al. For example, the currents in trade wind areas are predominantly from east to west, while the antarctic circumpolar current flows with the prevailing westerlies.
You dismiss this on the grounds that wind couldn't drive deep water.
Consider it this way, the wind drives the surface water. As the surface water flows over the deeper water it causes friction, which drives the deeper water towards the same velocity as the water above it. And so on, progressively deeper. With a unlimited wind fetch and infinitely deep ocean this could continue to any depth.
You mention a limit of water movement of three times wave height, but without a reference so I can be sure I'm addressing this correctly, but it sounds more like the depth limit of the typical circular water movement in traveling waves. I think this is more commonly taken as 7? times wave height, but either way it does not mean that wind induced current is limited to this volume. It is significant around coasts, as this gives the depth when waves will stop acting as deep water waves and start to become steeper and eventually break, and it is useful for submariners to know how deep to go to avoid major turbulence.
A net movement of surface water will still cause friction on deep water below this depth.

I realise (from your perspective) that you are fighting to get ideas out in the face of current consensus, but many research establishments love controversy, and I imagine that if your data backs your claims with anything like the force you claim getting an postgrad project set up to investigate independently at a reputable university would provide a way to get the idea out that appears less like self promotion based on hot air.

Your haste to dismiss large blocks of well tested theory, such as prevailing winds driving currents and gravitational tides, without in depth analysis of the shortcomings and strengths of the existing theories does not aid you credibility with any but the anti-establishment fringe.

Hi first of all I’m sorry for not joining sooner as I have to make a living and get on here during the evening normally. Why is it not possible for diamagnetism to move large amounts of water, my experiments indicate it is possible? If you wish to prove me wrong be my guest!
Second point, no I’m not saying the greenhouse effect was thrown together as a quick explanation, I’m merely saying that they did not collate the evidence in the same way that I did, I’m sure they worked very hard on their findings but equally I have spent thousands of hours and amassed an enormous amount of work on mine.
I’m agreeing with you that humans increase CO2 levels but I disagree that we produce enough to cause Climate change. If you study my chart again as feeble as it is, it also shows that the steep upward curve follows industrialisation, (I didn’t just make it up).

Data for the magnetic pole does go back much further but the reason I didn’t extend it back further is that all previous work on the poles path was produce using an uncertain method.

You are quite right that I didn’t include the sun and I should have but taking ten years work and condensing it into 15 minutes is so hard for me in particular as I suffer from a serious form of dyslexia.

It is said that the sun and moon pull water toward them but if you look at the records it’s still a theory, but it is so easy to demonstrate water is repelled my magnetism.

As for the strength of earth’s magnetic field, if you were to increase the size of my magnet to the size of earths core and then get all the oceans in the world into my test tube then?
I’m interested to know why you think a diamagnetic tidal effect would produce tides at 90degrees to the moon.

Current flows, I’m sorry but nothing I across in my studies convinced me that wind produced current flows. The southern and northern tidal flows flow west to east yes of course they are in tune with the moon and earth's core, this could not happen if they could not return in the trade wind area?

In my work I can and often do create hydrogen and ignite it in a fraction of a second but I have never considered it creating friction but will look into it.

I haven’t time I’m afraid to trawl through ten years work looking for a reference on wave depth but believe me it is out there, I do not mean this in a negative way but please be my guest. What I am actually saying in my work is that the jet streams along with north south tidal streams are caused by magnetism as indicated within my work.

I’m sorry if I have upset you as that is not my intension at all; I’m just a simple guy trying to put forward a simple theory using the same data as everyone else.

Just to worry you a little more I have many more finding to do with our planets lithosphere.

[mobydick]

The moon has almost zero magnetic field - about one millionth of the earths.

It is possible to predict tides hundreds of years in advance using calculations based on gravity.

I am afraid it is up to YOU, Roy, to show you can do the same using diagmagnetic effects.

MD

[Roy]

The moon has almost zero magnetic field - about one millionth of the earths.

It is possible to predict tides hundreds of years in advance using calculations based on gravity.

I am afraid it is up to YOU, Roy, to show you can do the same using diagmagnetic effects.

MD

Sorry I don’t remember mentioning the moons gravitational strength?

Your second statement is absurd; now in my view you have no inkling of physics. Anyway don’t be ridiculous we all know we would have drowned from rising seas within a few hundred years.

Your third comment, well I’m happy with my findings and I’m laying my families name on them, would you put your family name to your findings if you have any?

[Autodafe]

In response to another post you made a point about personal credibility. I don't always agree that names are important if theories are to be judged on merit, but for what it's worth:
My name is George Brettingham-Moore, I'm not a professional scientist, but I have a BSc and BEng. I work in the power engineering industry.

...
Why is it not possible for diamagnetism to move large amounts of water, my experiments indicate it is possible? If you wish to prove me wrong be my guest!...
OK. We can move water with magnetism. Lets measure the force produced at a given field strength.
We then compare the amount of force exerted on any water molecule in the ocean by two known quantities, 1. Magnetism and 2. Lunar gravity and see which has a larger effect. I do not have numbers for the amount of interaction between water and diamagnetism, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. Can you provide this info?

Second point, no I’m not saying the greenhouse effect was thrown together as a quick explanation, I’m merely saying that they did not collate the evidence in the same way that I did, I’m sure they worked very hard on their findings but equally I have spent thousands of hours and amassed an enormous amount of work on mine.
I appreciate that collating and comparing data is a lot of work, and you have no doubt put much time in your theory.
But it the last decade thousands of scientists have put millions of hours (not exaggerating here) into researching climate change, including collating historical data. Most are not too shy at pointing out the faults of their peers at competing institutions :)

I’m agreeing with you that humans increase CO2 levels but I disagree that we produce enough to cause Climate change. If you study my chart again as feeble as it is, it also shows that the steep upward curve follows industrialisation, (I didn’t just make it up).

Data for the magnetic pole does go back much further but the reason I didn’t extend it back further is that all previous work on the poles path was produce using an uncertain method.
I you are prepared to post the data with details of source and uncertainty (all data has some after all :) ) I would be interested to see it.
If you would rather not, fine, it's your call.

... hard for me in particular as I suffer from a serious form of dyslexia.
You have my sympathy.


It is said that the sun and moon pull water toward them but if you look at the records it’s still a theory, but it is so easy to demonstrate water is repelled my magnetism.
Yes gravity is just a theory, yet I doubt that your theory has been tested more times than gravity. I've tested it thousands of times so far today. :) Gravity + maths = tides

As for the strength of earth’s magnetic field, if you were to increase the size of my magnet to the size of earths core and then get all the oceans in the world into my test tube then?
You know we have measured the earths field strength right? A decent magnet in your lab could be around 1 tesla, earths field ~50 mirco tesla.
While we are on the subject, we know from measurement that the field doesn't fluctuate rotationally on a daily basis in the way that is required to drive tides.
It would be very cool if the field was rotating and powerful in the way you suggest, as we would then have virtually unlimited free power generation from any wires we have lying around.

I’m interested to know why you think a diamagnetic tidal effect would produce tides at 90degrees to the moon.
As I mentioned, not sure on this one. I'll give it some more thought. :)

Current flows, I’m sorry but nothing I across in my studies convinced me that wind produced current flows. The southern and northern tidal flows flow west to east yes of course they are in tune with the moon and earth's core, this could not happen if they could not return in the trade wind area?
I have seen wind produce large ocean waves 30ft high. In contrast, I have never observed the earths magnetism move water as much as a millimetre.
It is true that bulk waves are not the same as current, but even a small leakage of wave energy could generate the current we see.
Yes, magnetism exerts a force on water, but I have never seen a measurable effect at the earths field strength. If you have shown this I would be interested to hear of it.

In my work I can and often do create hydrogen and ignite it in a fraction of a second but I have never considered it creating friction but will look into it.
Not sure what you're referring to with this one? I talked about friction between adjacent fluid masses at different velocities. I dare say friction is involved in your daily work but don't follow the connection :)


[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]I haven’t time I’m afraid to trawl through ten years work looking for a reference on wave depth but believe me it is out there, I do not mean this in a negative way but please be my guest.
I'm afraid I don't have the time to chase vague references either. Just appreciate from my perspective that I don't give any weight to this as support for your theory if you don't provide a reference so that the quality of the original conclusion can be judged.


I’m sorry if I have upset you as that is not my intension at all; I’m just a simple guy trying to put forward a simple theory using the same data as everyone else.
I'm sorry if I came across upset :)
I have no problem with anyone putting theories forward. This is how we advance knowledge.:D
This is a somewhat sensitive issue though. For those of us who believe that human greenhouse emisions are causing warming it is important that action be taken *soon* to reduce emissions. Every conflicting theory provides another excuse for people emotionally and financially invested in not reducing emissions to argue and delay.:(
As such, where these theories do not appear to have solid scientific grounds it is important to point this out to prevent people becoming distracted.

Wow, I tried to keep that brief but I do run on eh?

[Roy]

In response to another post you made a point about personal credibility. I don't always agree that names are important if theories are to be judged on merit, but for what it's worth:
My name is George Brettingham-Moore, I'm not a professional scientist, but I have a BSc and BEng. I work in the power engineering industry.


OK. We can move water with magnetism. Lets measure the force produced at a given field strength.
We then compare the amount of force exerted on any water molecule in the ocean by two known quantities, 1. Magnetism and 2. Lunar gravity and see which has a larger effect. I do not have numbers for the amount of interaction between water and diamagnetism, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. Can you provide this info?


I appreciate that collating and comparing data is a lot of work, and you have no doubt put much time in your theory.
But it the last decade thousands of scientists have put millions of hours (not exaggerating here) into researching climate change, including collating historical data. Most are not too shy at pointing out the faults of their peers at competing institutions :)




I you are prepared to post the data with details of source and uncertainty (all data has some after all :) ) I would be interested to see it.
If you would rather not, fine, it's your call.


You have my sympathy.



Yes gravity is just a theory, yet I doubt that your theory has been tested more times than gravity. I've tested it thousands of times so far today. :) Gravity + maths = tides


You know we have measured the earths field strength right? A decent magnet in your lab could be around 1 tesla, earths field ~50 mirco tesla.
While we are on the subject, we know from measurement that the field doesn't fluctuate rotationally on a daily basis in the way that is required to drive tides.
It would be very cool if the field was rotating and powerful in the way you suggest, as we would then have virtually unlimited free power generation from any wires we have lying around.


As I mentioned, not sure on this one. I'll give it some more thought. :)


I have seen wind produce large ocean waves 30ft high. In contrast, I have never observed the earths magnetism move water as much as a millimetre.
It is true that bulk waves are not the same as current, but even a small leakage of wave energy could generate the current we see.
Yes, magnetism exerts a force on water, but I have never seen a measurable effect at the earths field strength. If you have shown this I would be interested to hear of it.


Not sure what you're referring to with this one? I talked about friction between adjacent fluid masses at different velocities. I dare say friction is involved in your daily work but don't follow the connection :)


I'm afraid I don't have the time to chase vague references either. Just appreciate from my perspective that I don't give any weight to this as support for your theory if you don't provide a reference so that the quality of the original conclusion can be judged.



I'm sorry if I came across upset :)
I have no problem with anyone putting theories forward. This is how we advance knowledge.:D
This is a somewhat sensitive issue though. For those of us who believe that human greenhouse emisions are causing warming it is important that action be taken *soon* to reduce emissions. Every conflicting theory provides another excuse for people emotionally and financially invested in not reducing emissions to argue and delay.:(
As such, where these theories do not appear to have solid scientific grounds it is important to point this out to prevent people becoming distracted.

Wow, I tried to keep that brief but I do run on eh?

Please give me a little time for this one!

[mobydick]

Sorry I don’t remember mentioning the moons gravitational strength?

Nor did I.

Your second statement is absurd; now in my view you have no inkling of physics.

A degree in electronics and another in oceanography? I think I have a little.

Anyway don’t be ridiculous we all know we would have drowned from rising seas within a few hundred years.

?

Your third comment, well I’m happy with my findings and I’m laying my families name on them, would you put your family name to your findings if you have any?

I dont have research findings. I am reporting the current state of majority scientific opinion.

MD

[Autodafe]

Please give me a little time for this one!

No worries!

A well considered answer is a good answer, and we all have other lives to lead as well :)

[Roy]

Sorry George I don’t remember making a comment about personal credibility perhaps you could point me toward it, if I did it was not intended I promise.

I am far from a professional scientist myself but I do have an unusual job that takes me very close to earths processes. I also have rather an unusual laboratory and some unusual equipment as in a 14ft compass; (You should see the size of the binical). This compass is fairly sensitive and picks up the daily movement of earths north magnetic pole and is only possible because I live at 90degs to the movement of the north magnetic pole also my son who assists in my experiments lives in the USA just about at 90deg to me. In case you are un-aware the north magnetic pole moves some 200km a day in an oval shape and shows how earth’s oceanic and continental lithospheres are unbalanced and look completely un-connected to earths core, this oval movement to me indicates that the continental lithosphere opposite the Pacific Ocean causes this imbalance purely by its excessive weight.

I am so passionate about my findings that some years ago I brought several hundred acres of land in Canada in order to experiment in private. In the end I didn’t need to use it but at least I saved it being built on and I occasionally enjoy the wildlife associated with it!
Sorry as I think I’m running on a little and I’m certainly falling asleep over the keyboard so if you don’t mind George I shall come back to you on this one tomorrow.
Roy

[Autodafe]

Roy,

I have to get to some other jobs myself, so tomorrow is fine for a response.

Sorry George I don’t remember making a comment about personal credibility perhaps you could point me toward it, if I did it was not intended I promise.

The comment I was referring to there was not actually directed at me, but in Post #119 where you were responding to Moby Dick. I realise you were talking about putting attribution to original research but it could equally be applied to rebutal of same research, as in this forum :)

George

[mobydick]

I would be interested to see:

1) The explanation for tides using diamagnetism. Not too detailed, just enough to see how it acounts for the known relationship with earth and sun movements.

2) The experimental approach that was used to "confirm diamagnetism" as the main cause of tides and currents.


(At the end of the day, though, even if pole movement was the initiator of a global warming event, we know that CO2 makes it worse. We cant do anything about pole movements, but we can about CO2.)

MD

[ForumAdmin]

even if pole movement was the initiator of a global warming event, we know that CO2 makes it worse. We cant do anything about pole movements, but we can about CO2.
I very much agree with that.

I also would take some convincing about the tides not being due to moon and sun gravitational pull:)

[Roy]

I very much agree with that.

I also would take some convincing about the tides not being due to moon and sun gravitational pull:)

Ok I have removed the area referring to earth’s core pushing up our seas from my site but as I mentioned it was only a thought and no I can’t prove such a thing is happening, but we all know that discoveries are born from out of the norm thinking.
Also I re loaded the short video I made showing diamagnetism, just in case it was not working.

but I am still adamant that my findings on our north-south ocean currents along with our jet streams are caused by diamagnetism and ultimately earth’s core.
Most of the data for our jet streams comes from the State University of San Francisco. Unfortunately they do not have enough storage space for the data or the time to create archive material.

Tell me please how would you explain away both earth and Saturn’s hexagons, taking into account that earth’s core is said to be a hexagonal structure?
I am able to demonstrate that earth’s hexagon rotates a little over thirteen times a year in an easterly direction but I’m not willing to demonstrate it on here as it is an on going project.

Maybe I have been a little miss understood as I’m not a septic of climate change, neither have I said that we are not creating CO2 all I said is that in my view we do not create enough CO2 to cause climate change. We are way beyond the point that we can live in harmony with our planet, the best thing to do would be reduce our population (sensibly).

Of course in order for any species to survive on our planet it has to use fuel and we are the lucky ones as not only do we have the knowledge to collect aditional fuel we are also able to use it. We have a massive source of fuel that we do not use to our advantage in the form of geothermal heat.
Earth has enough geothermal heat to last us millions of years, so why do only a few countries take advantage of it?

Now wind power; I actually like the look of wind turbines but as an engineer I’m not sure they will produce enough power in their lifetime to cover the cost of building and maintaining them.

Being actively connected with the installation and maintenance of over a hundred turbines at sea I must report they are doing some unexpected good by creating fish breeding grounds within the exclusion zones and it is very noticeable.
In fact we have one of the biggest wind farms in the country about to be put on my doorstep.

I beleive I saw the comment somewhere not necessarily yours that what does it mater if its not CO2 causing climate change as there is nothing we can about it. Well I think its essential we know exactly what is happening, so that much more attention could be focused on understanding our planet in order to better preserve it!

[Autodafe]

Roy,

I am impressed that you have both participated in a open debate on your theories without becoming hostile and revised your site based on that discussion. Kudos.

It still concerns me however that alternative, comparatively untested, theories on climate change distract attention from the need to reduce greenhouse emissions sooner rather than later. But no one is arguing your right to express a theory, so I just have to live with that one :)

There is maths to show how much warming a given amount of CO2 rise will produce. We know the amount of incident and reflected light and heat on the earth, and we can measure in the lab how much increasing the CO2 content of air increases heat absorption from passing radiation. This basic analysis shows that the CO2 we measure can produce the warming we measure.
The reason many climate models come up with widely varying results is not uncertainty about the amount of extra heat trapped by CO2, but the enormous number of complex feedback systems in climate (such as cloud formation, gas absorption by oceans, methane release etc.), many of which were mentioned earlier in this thread.

I feel I don't have the data to attempt an answer to your hexagon question. Based on the picture on your site of arctic cloud patterns, I would say that it is not at all surprising that a vaguely circular weather feature looks hexagonal some of the time. Because I don't know the provenience of the image it may even be due to the lens distortion and the image being a composite of six satellite photos?
If it is clear and persistent then a more systematic explanation is required; I can't tell which from one picture.
I'm not that hot on xeno-meterology either, so my speculation for Saturn is likely to be just as vague. For all I know it's caused by Saturns magnetic field. My knowledge of Saturns field and atmosphere is so limited that I can't tell if it's plausible or not :)

I agree that overpopulation is the major factor in most environmental problems we face.

Lifecycle energy return for any renewable should certainly be examined closely, particularly as more subsidies are applied to renewable generation, but in most cases a wind turbine should have no problem returning a net positive. This is certainly the case where I am in Tasmania, as our windfarms are predominantly on the west coast fully exposed to the roaring 40's.

I believe the inefficiency of "renewable" energy sources is often overstated, for example with solar panels, this argument was put forward in the 1970's, but and is rehashed in the current debate. But modern solar cells are manufactured with less energy, produce more power per area compared to the'70 and we now know that solar cells consistently produce good output power with zero maintenance for 25 years, so they in fact produce several times the energy required to manufacture them.

Geothermal is certainly an interesting possibility, but there seem to be some technical issues with heat exchange and steam collection within the rock at the moment. Hopefully we see more development in this area.

George

[artemidorus]

My primary reason for that view is the volcano that erupted several years ago in the
Philippines. I saw a comparison of the green house gasses from that one volcano to the estimated green house gasses produced by the human race throughout history and the volcano won by a wide margin. It strikes me that some humans are pretty impressed with our importance in the great scheme of things.


I am absolutely staggered by the armchair pundits who genuinely believe that they understand the situation better than the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists, and who will happily believe absolute guff. Here's what a quick scan of the literature actually suggests:

Mt Pinatubo 1991 eruption : CO2 42 Mt H20 490 Mt

1 year's human emissions (from fuel burning): CO2 7100 Mt H2O 20000 Mt

Pardon me if I don't let you run my country, perform my open heart surgery or design my multihull.

[ForumAdmin]

am absolutely staggered by the armchair pundits who genuinely believe that they understand the situation better than the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists, and who will happily believe absolute guff.
But that was the exact situation in the 1990's with wave height and the scientists were wrong. Surely it always best to deal with the issue rather than general statements like that?
On the other hand, your figures on CO2 are dealing with the issue and I look forward to Roy's answer.

My view on the subject is that I still think that the the scientific community is probably right and its not an issue that can be gambled with so action should be taken.

I also think that climate could be changed by the movement of the magnetic pole because that effects how the sun influences earth.

Many years ago I carried out an analysis of river flows by using fourier series analysis until I achieved a tested random residual so as to model the river flows. I found there was a distinct 11 year cycle reflecting the sun spots.

So whilst I think the balance is well to the side of the scientists I also think Roy may have something of value within his theories.

Rather than just throw the baby out with the bath water I tried hard to get a discussion going based on the issues rather than general negatives because part of what he claims does not hold up.

[mobydick]

If we remove the diamagnetism idea, we are just left with a supposed correlation between Roy's pole movement speed graph and global temperature graph.

The fourth graph here:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery

Shows global temperature. Maybe not such a great correlation with Roy's graph?

This graph, below, shows calculated pole position back to 1600, with a fast moving pole between 1760 and 1860. Was there a corresponding warm period?

http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e.php

But I am sure one can hunt around on the internet for graphs that "prove" anything. That isn't science.

MD

[Bubba]

I have been involved in resurch and development of energy studies with Bettell North West a goverment R & D funded studies and 20 years ago they came up with a solar cell 4 inches in diameter that can power a 4 bed room house but it got covered up by oil and coal money from both Republican and Democrat and probably will stay covered up untill there money is gone. I spent 10 years building turban generators for oil, hydro, coal and nuclear power, because of politicts we still use oil and coal and the rivers are filling hydro dams with silt. Our country (USA) needs to get over the fear of nuclear like many other countries, like France who has almost 100% nuclear power with less politicts on oil or coal and less polution. I guess politicts is causing global warming more than anythig. We still live in a Golden Rule world ( those with the gold make the rules ) and thay don't want individual homes and bussiness to be off the grid and not be controaliable by them thru our goverment
Around here in the desert we have very very few trees on the hills and lots of wind farms along the Columbia river but they say there not paying for themselfs but the point is they don't pay as much as oil or coal in the long run.

The hex shape of our planet core has been known for a long time and some nuclear fuel core design is based on this pattern for almost 30 years or more.

I currently do not work in the energy field but several of my tenants do and many of my friends still work on R & D prodjects to produce and strech our existing energy. I think if we used high output LED lighting in our homes along with other energy savings ideas we would be better off.

[pir8ped]

'I have been involved in resurch and development of energy studies with Bettell North West a goverment R & D funded studies and 20 years ago they came up with a solar call 4 inches in diameter that can power a 4 bed room house but it got covered up by oil and coal money from both Republican and Democrat and probably will stay covered up untill there money is gone.' Isn't the internet a magnificent tool for promoting conspiracy theories, even if presented in a semi-literate way?

[Roy]

If we remove the diamagnetism idea, we are just left with a supposed correlation between Roy's pole movement speed graph and global temperature graph.

The fourth graph here:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery

Shows global temperature. Maybe not such a great correlation with Roy's graph?

This graph, below, shows calculated pole position back to 1600, with a fast moving pole between 1760 and 1860. Was there a corresponding warm period?


http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e.php

But I am sure one can hunt around on the internet for graphs that "prove" anything. That isn't science.

MD


Hi MD, Yup it does correlate reasonably well but as I said earlier I tend to leave out data that is not collected directly for a happening. The chart at the bottom of this page shows the poles path reasonably well, but how accurate the data is before 1800 none of us know, http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e.php (http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/long_mvt_nmp2_e.php) the data set was produced if I remember correctly from mariner log book records of deviation.
If you look closely at this chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png) you can see that temperature did rise during that period and it also shows the period the pole changed direction. This discussion is exactly what I have been wanting to happen for years.
Roy

[mobydick]

?? There is very liitle correlation that I can see! But even if there were, correlation does not equal cause. I could probably draw a graph of number of multihulls afloat against time for the last 50 years and get as good a match with temperature......

I must correct a misunderstanding that I have not bothered with so far, but it has come up again. There is no claim or evidence that I know of that the earths iron core is a giant, iron hexagonal crystal! There is a theory that it has a heagonal crystaline stucture at the molecular level but macro scale shape could be anything - most probably a sphere given the external factors like gravity, pressure etc.

MD

[Roy]

Are you serious Roy? There is very liitle correlation that I can see! But even if there were, correlation does not equal cause. I could probably draw a graph of number of multihulls afloat against time for the last 50 years and get as good a match with temperature.

I must correct a misunderstanding that I have not bothered with so far, but it has come up again. There is no claim or evidence that I know of that the earths iron core is a giant, iron hexagonal crystal! There is a theory that it has a heagonal crystaline stucture at the molecular level but macro scale shape could be anything - most probably a sphere given the external factors like gravity, pressure etc.

MD

Try this one MD, http://www.crystalinks.com/corecrystal.html or http://www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0906013.htm

I have improved data for my theory that I am working on at this time, but I need another week or so before I can demonstrate it to you.


Roy

[artemidorus]

But that was the exact situation in the 1990's with wave height and the scientists were wrong.
That's a bit like saying Newton was wrong. The linear model of wave heights is correct >99.99% of the time, with the quantum model exceptions occurring at a rate of, what was it, 24 individual crests over a number of years at one location?

[artemidorus]

Bettell North West a goverment R & D funded studies and 20 years ago they came up with a solar cell 4 inches in diameter that can power a 4 bed room house but it got covered up by oil and coal money from both Republican and Democrat and probably will stay covered up untill there money is gone.
I call porkers on this!! You are talking about 0.008 m^2 of collecting area. At an average insolation of 1 kW per m^2 on a clear day, and with a magical 100% efficiency, you are producing a mighty 8 W, and 2 W on an average day. I guess that this household doesn't have a plasma screen, right?

This is the standard of scientific debate on any forum I have seen that pits well-intentioned or less-well intentioned amateur scientists and conspiracy theorists against the few people qualified and patient enough to contribute. (Please note, I'm not including myself in the latter group, I'm just an amateur.)

[mobydick]

Try this one MD, http://www.crystalinks.com/corecrystal.html or http://www.unisci.com/stories/20013/0906013.htm

I have improved data for my theory that I am working on at this time, but I need another week or so before I can demonstrate it to you.

Roy, as I said, you are making the laymans mistake of confusing microstructure with macro shape. Those articles say nothing of the macro shape.

Here is an anology: carbon can exist as diamond (cubic structure) and graphite (hexagonal sheets). But the macro shape is anything you want. An uncut diamond is just an irregular rock, and a lump of graphite is just a lump.

The 'hexagonal' refered to in the article is just the repeating pattern when atoms are closely packed. Like stacking apples in a box.

MD

[Tabs]

I have no idea if Roy's theory makes any sense, and feel that reducing our use of natural resources and production of pollution can only be a good thing, but, having just followed the links above, I read:
" This led Stixrude and Cohen to try a computational experiment. If all the crystals must point in the same direction, why not one big crystal? The results, published in Science, offer the simplest, most convincing explanation yet put forward for the observed seismic data and have stirred new thinking about the inner core. Could an iron ball 1,500 miles across be a single crystal? Unheard of until this work, the idea has prompted realization that the temperature-pressure extremes of the inner core offer ideal conditions for crystal growth. Several high-pressure laboratories have experiments planned to test these results. A strongly oriented inner core could also explain anomalies of Earth's magnetic field, such as tilted field lines near the equator. "To do these esoteric quantum calculations," says Stixrude, "solutions which you can get only with a supercomputer, and get results you can compare directly with messy observations of nature and help explain them -- this has been very exciting. Researchers: Ronald Cohen and Lars Stixrude (http://www.psc.edu/science/Cohen_Stix/Cohen_bio.html), Carnegie Institution of Washington"
Surely this is suggesting that the "Macro Shape" is crystaline?

[mobydick]

Nope. It just proposes a uniform crystal lattice throughout the bulk material. It doesnt say anything about crystal faces.

Have you seen a "crystal ball"? Sometimes made from a single quartz crystal (six sided lattice) but it is a sphere. I have a model of a silicon crystal matrix in front of me, which is eight sided. But the pure, single silicon crystal grown for microelectronics manufacture is a cylinder.

Now, in certain ideal environments, crystals will naturally grow into the shape you are imagining, but I have read nothing that indicates that is the case in the core. In fact, I would imagine the shape would be deduceable from seismic studies (as the crystal 'corners' would be further from the earths centre than the faces), but there is no mention of that.

The 'strongly orientated inner core' mentioned refers to the orientation of the crystal lattice to the earth's poles.

MD

[Tabs]

direction, why not one big crystal? The results, published in Science, offer the simplest, most convincing explanation yet put forward for the observed seismic data and have stirred new thinking about the inner core. Could an iron ball 1,500 miles across be a single crystal

[mobydick]

Yes I know. But, I repeat, one big crystal could be any shape! It does not have to show crystal faces. A single crystal has an uninterupted crystal lattice. Doesnt have to have flat sides!

Did you not read my examples? Even your extract says 'iron ball' ....

The definition of a crystal is '...has a uniform, repeating molecular structure...". Here is a picture of a single crystal of silicon ..

http://www.hisupplier.com/product-41691-Monocrystalline-Silicon-Ingot/http://www.hisupplier.com/product-41691-Monocrystalline-Silicon-Ingot/

and if you look at

http://www.diytrade.com/china/4/products/1822685/Single_Crystal_Copper_Wire.html

It shows a roll of single crystal copper wire......

So that role of wire is 'one big crystal' too

MD

[Roy]

Roy, as I said, you are making the laymans mistake of confusing microstructure with macro shape. Those articles say nothing of the macro shape.

Here is an anology: carbon can exist as diamond (cubic structure) and graphite (hexagonal sheets). But the macro shape is anything you want. An uncut diamond is just an irregular rock, and a lump of graphite is just a lump.

The 'hexagonal' refered to in the article is just the repeating pattern when atoms are closely packed. Like stacking apples in a box.

MD

You are for some reason misunderstanding my presentation and maybe it is my fault for not presenting it correctly. I am known to have an odd way of approaching problems!
What I am trying to indicate is that I have evidence that I am at this time still working on that strongly indicates earth has a hexagonal magnetic area that creates earth’s jet-streams along with its north south ocean currents.
Cheers Roy

[Roy]

Yes I know. But, I repeat, one big crystal could be any shape! It does not have to show crystal faces. A single crystal has an uninterupted crystal lattice. Doesnt have to have flat sides!

Did you not read my examples? Even your extract says 'iron ball' ....

The definition of a crystal is '...has a uniform, repeating molecular structure...". Here is a picture of a single crystal of silicon ..

http://www.hisupplier.com/product-41691-Monocrystalline-Silicon-Ingot/http://www.hisupplier.com/product-41691-Monocrystalline-Silicon-Ingot/

and if you look at

http://www.diytrade.com/china/4/products/1822685/Single_Crystal_Copper_Wire.html

It shows a roll of single crystal copper wire......

So that role of wire is 'one big crystal' too

MD

Who is to say that magnets of any shape do not have uniform magnetic fields?
roy

[artemidorus]

I have no idea if Roy's theory makes any sense, and feel that reducing our use of natural resources and production of pollution can only be a good thing, but, having just followed the links above, I read:
" This led Stixrude and Cohen to try a computational experiment. If all the crystals must point in the same direction, why not one big crystal? The results, published in Science, offer the simplest, most convincing explanation yet put forward for the observed seismic data and have stirred new thinking about the inner core. Could an iron ball 1,500 miles across be a single crystal? Unheard of until this work, the idea has prompted realization that the temperature-pressure extremes of the inner core offer ideal conditions for crystal growth. Several high-pressure laboratories have experiments planned to test these results. A strongly oriented inner core could also explain anomalies of Earth's magnetic field, such as tilted field lines near the equator. "To do these esoteric quantum calculations," says Stixrude, "solutions which you can get only with a supercomputer, and get results you can compare directly with messy observations of nature and help explain them -- this has been very exciting. Researchers: Ronald Cohen and Lars Stixrude (http://www.psc.edu/science/Cohen_Stix/Cohen_bio.html), Carnegie Institution of Washington"
Surely this is suggesting that the "Macro Shape" is crystaline?
No, not at all. All the papers in question are debating the nature of the packing of the iron and nickel atoms in the earth's inner core, as three possibilities exist, of which one is hexagonal (the "hcp" option). ALL of the papers refer to the inner core as a "sphere" or a "ball". Note that a hexagon is a planar (two-dimensional) shape, a fact that seems to have escaped many of the posters on this thread. The term cannot be used to describe a three-dimensional shape, only the way in which its atoms are put together.

[Roy]

No, not at all. All the papers in question are debating the nature of the packing of the iron and nickel atoms in the earth's inner core, as three possibilities exist, of which one is hexagonal (the "hcp" option). ALL of the papers refer to the inner core as a "sphere" or a "ball". Note that a hexagon is a planar (two-dimensional) shape, a fact that seems to have escaped many of the posters on this thread. The term cannot be used to describe a three-dimensional shape, only the way in which its atoms are put together.

Sorry but an hexaginal crystaline structure is not two dimensional?
Roy

[artemidorus]

Sorry but an hexaginal crystaline structure is not two dimensional?
Roy
All crystalline structure is three dimensional, but the "hcp" or hexagonal type of iron/nickel structure, as I understand it, is described as hexagonal because that is how an image of the lattice looks from the correct angle:
http://www.psc.edu/science/Cohen_Stix/crystals.gif

[mobydick]

You are for some reason misunderstanding my presentation and maybe it is my fault for not presenting it correctly.

I was actually initially responding to another poster, but you said "a large hexagonal crystalline structure".

Also, you say earths core rotates at more than 378 times per year, compared to surface of 365 times per year. Current opinion from scientists that I can find indicates a rotational difference of <1 degree per year. i.e. less than one rotation difference per 360 years.

Also, it seems you commit one of the worst science crimes - preferential selection of data. The jet stream has an annual cycle, with maximum strength in December and minimum in August. And yet you compare diagrams from December 2005 and August 2008 as evidence of the jet streams breaking up! For the full story, with animations, see

http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/nhemjet_archloop.html

and select your year.


MD

[mobydick]

Note that a hexagon is a planar (two-dimensional) shape, a fact that seems to have escaped many of the posters on this thread. The term cannot be used to describe a three-dimensional shape, only the way in which its atoms are put together.

While a hexagon is indeed a two dimensional shape, 'hexagonal closed packed' (HCP) describes both the atomic 'two dimensional layer' AND the way the layers are stacked. So it is describing a 3-dimensional lattice structure.

Not the large scale shape of the object, just its lattice shape.

MD

[Tourmaline]

Latest data from NOAA: October 2009 is the 3rd coldest October on record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report

I don't see much mention of recent temperature trends in the main stream.
I must be using the wrong AlGoreRhythm in my search string.:)

[mobydick]

1) You cannot tell anything from one years figures

2) Try looking at GLOBAL highlights, not national.

"This was the second warmest September on record, behind 2005, and the 33rd consecutive September with a global temperature above the 20th Century average. The last below-average September occurred in 1976.." etc

MD

[BigCat]

If you have a lot of trouble with the concept of average, you are probably below average. ::)

[artemidorus]

While a hexagon is indeed a two dimensional shape, 'hexagonal closed packed' (HCP) describes both the atomic 'two dimensional layer' AND the way the layers are stacked. So it is describing a 3-dimensional lattice structure.

Not the large scale shape of the object, just its lattice shape.

MD
I could either be pedantic and point out that the term is being used to describe relations in two dimensions only in each respect, or I could be generous and say that you are more or less repeating what I've already said.

In any case, what I'm trying to dispel, as I think you are, is this idea that an enormous rotating polyhedron sits at the centre of the earth.

[artemidorus]

For those that have missed the point so far (over how many years????), there is no debate amongst serious scientists as to the fact that the earth is warming - it clearly has been since the 1940s and only non-scientists ever question this. The debate is over whether the warming is anthropogenic (human-inflicted), or due to the effect of a natural cycle or multiple such cycles all acting together, or due to humans and natural cycles.

[therapy]

For those that have missed the point so far (over how many years????), there is no debate amongst serious scientists as to the fact that the earth is warming - it clearly has been since the 1940s and only non-scientists ever question this. The debate is over whether the warming is anthropogenic (human-inflicted), or due to the effect of a natural cycle or multiple such cycles all acting together, or due to humans and natural cycles.

Right.

And IMO it is not anthropogenic.

And it may start to cool tomorrow.

Humans think too much of themselves, on the whole.

What our real problems are is waste. There are too many and there is too much waste. We are consuming everything as fast as we can (normal for all life forms) and not able to remove ourselves far enough away from our excrement. It is going to bite us.

[BigCat]

Right.

And IMO it is not anthropogenic.

And it may start to cool tomorrow.

Humans think too much of themselves, on the whole.

What our real problems are is waste. There are too many and there is too much waste. We are consuming everything as fast as we can (normal for all life forms) and not able to remove ourselves far enough away from our excrement. It is going to bite us.


Humans are producing more greenhouse gas than nature is. There is not one cause, there is a confluence of circumstances that create the global warming situation. The ones that man causes are the ones that man can affect - we cut down forests and burn stuff, basically. These are factors affecting global warming we can affect. If we try to plug the volcanos, they'll just blow harder when they blow.

[BigCat]

Right.

And IMO it is not anthropogenic.

And it may start to cool tomorrow.

Humans think too much of themselves, on the whole.

What our real problems are is waste. There are too many and there is too much waste. We are consuming everything as fast as we can (normal for all life forms) and not able to remove ourselves far enough away from our excrement. It is going to bite us.


Humans are producing more greenhouse gas than nature is. There is not one cause, there is a confluence of circumstances that create the global warming situation. The ones that man causes are the ones thaman can affect - we cut down forests and burn stuff, basically. These are factors affecting global warming we can affect. If we try to plug the volcanoes, they'll just blow harder when they blow.

[therapy]

Humans are producing more greenhouse gas than nature is. There is not one cause, there is a confluence of circumstances that create the global warming situation. The ones that man causes are the ones thaman can affect - we cut down forests and burn stuff, basically. These are factors affecting global warming we can affect. If we try to plug the volcanoes, they'll just blow harder when they blow.

I disagree.
There are several "greenhouse" gasses. CO2 is the least worry. It doesn't do squat compared to others. Methane is - I can't remember - a much more effective greenhouse gas by several orders of magnitude. methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink

And even if it were true the only way to decrease man's "appetite" overall is to reduce their numbers. No other way. It is how populations of all animals of all kinds are controlled naturally. They consume and reproduce as fast as they can. When the food runs out or down, then so does the population numbers.

The natural way.

[2MT]

well thats what has folks a bit worried. the natural way in this case is pretty much how yeast lives. it consumes and makes waste till it poisons it self to extinction.

[BigCat]

I disagree.
There are several "greenhouse" gasses. CO2 is the least worry. It doesn't do squat compared to others. Methane is - I can't remember - a much more effective greenhouse gas by several orders of magnitude.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink

And even if it were true the only way to decrease man's "appetite" overall is to reduce their numbers. No other way. It is how populations of all animals of all kinds are controlled naturally. They consume and reproduce as fast as they can. When the food runs out or down, then so does the population numbers.

The natural way.

The special adaptation of humans which separates humans from other animals is the ability to change behavior - at least, the smarter ones can. If you insist that this is beyond your ability, I won't presume to speak for you. :rolleyes:

We are reaching a tipping point in which increased methane and CO2 will cause a very abrupt increase of methane by increasing the globe's temperature. We are very close the the temperature that causes melting of methane ice, which is found, for example, on the seabed off Norway.

[therapy]

The special adaptation of humans which separates humans from other animals is the ability to change behavior - at least, the smarter ones can. If you insist that this is beyond your ability, I won't presume to speak for you. :roll eyes:




I have never seen, heard or read anything that supports that on a global scale.

Humans just think they are so smart.

Animals change behaviour too. In small, generally inconsquential ways. Humans are no different.

[therapy]

well thats what has folks a bit worried. the natural way in this case is pretty much how yeast lives. it consumes and makes waste till it poisons it self to extinction.

Seems to be the general direction no?

Since the mid 1800s, 98% of all fish in the ocean are gone. Gone!

[2MT]

very true, the fish are gone, we have huge weeping sores in the earths crust, we are burning millions of years worth of forests in a few centuries, filling the air with gases that not long ago where not in any great concentration, filling the waters with chemicals that didn't exist, sucking water from the earth so fast that the land above is sinking. in short we are fouling our nest and blaming natural variation for our troubles.

the last thing we as a race want to hear is that we are destroying our world by the sheer mass of our population. yet we sit by and do nothing to reduce the pressure. we don't go to space, we don't let disease run its course, we don't support birth control, we don't support health care for all and we stand in the way of anyone who wishes to take risks. we count the pennies it would cost to leave the planet and choke on the sewer we have made. the worse it gets the more some parts of our society say god is angry at us. however regardless of that those same doom sayers continue to behave in such a way as will insure that it continues to become uncomfortable. Every one knows we need to reduce the global population but no one wants to kill everyone. rather than do something logical like colonize other planets we sit here and stew. the earth will have equilibrium whether we want it or not. global climate change intensified by human kind seems to be the way its going to get it.


Seems to be the general direction no?

Since the mid 1800s, 98% of all fish in the ocean are gone. Gone!

[BigCat]

very true, the fish are gone, we have huge weeping sores in the earths crust, we are burning millions of years worth of forests in a few centuries, filling the air with gases that not long ago where not in any great concentration, filling the waters with chemicals that didn't exist, sucking water from the earth so fast that the land above is sinking. in short we are fouling our nest and blaming natural variation for our troubles.

the last thing we as a race want to hear is that we are destroying our world by the sheer mass of our population. yet we sit by and do nothing to reduce the pressure. we don't go to space, we don't let disease run its course, we don't support birth control, we don't support health care for all and we stand in the way of anyone who wishes to take risks. we count the pennies it would cost to leave the planet and choke on the sewer we have made. the worse it gets the more some parts of our society say god is angry at us. however regardless of that those same doom sayers continue to behave in such a way as will insure that it continues to become uncomfortable. Every one knows we need to reduce the global population but no one wants to kill everyone. rather than do something logical like colonize other planets we sit here and stew. the earth will have equilibrium whether we want it or not. global climate change intensified by human kind seems to be the way its going to get it.

We haven't gotten one person to the nearest planet. Neither current technology nor any we can confidently predict is going to move billions. Mars right now is probably more hostile than a thousand more years of human abuse can make this planet. We know of no other planet that will support human life. It's take care of this one or pay the consequences. Fortunately for us (educated computer users versed in European culture, living mostly in first world economies,) it will be the poorest people in the third world that will pay the highest price for this.

[BigCat]

Seems to be the general direction no?

Since the mid 1800s, 98% of all fish in the ocean are gone. Gone!

You live in a red state. No wonder you're discouraged. I live in a blue state. If it were up to the blue states, this problem would get solved. It is the red states that stick their heads in the sand and focus on buying next year's Winnebago or vacation home, instead of taking care of their neighbors and saving the planet.

[2MT]

We haven't gotten one person to the nearest planet. Neither current technology nor any we can confidently predict is going to move billions. Mars right now is probably more hostile than a thousand more years of human abuse can make this planet. We know of no other planet that will support human life. It's take care of this one or pay the consequences. Fortunately for us (educated computer users versed in European culture, living mostly in first world economies,) it will be the poorest people in the third world that will pay the highest price for this.

we didn't know Australia was there either but we went. its called exploration there are no certainties what you will find. as far as getting humans onto another planet we would first have to actually try it. living on another planet would be much the same as living on a boat in the ocean if you cant take it with you then you make do with what you can. we can live in vacuums we know how to make water and O2 from rocks, we can grow plants and we know how to build habitats that can do these things. we have simply not done so and have not tried. lack of will does not equate to lack of ability.

[BigCat]

Planet earth to 2MT!

we didn't know Australia was there either but we went. (Australia has our biosphere - food with compatible proteins and other chemicals, the same air, water, no toxins in the atmosphere.)

its called exploration there are no certainties what you will find. as far as getting humans onto another planet we would first have to actually try it. (The technology for sailing across the oceans had existed for many centuries. Not the case with moving people to other planets.)

living on another planet would be much the same as living on a boat (if the ocean didn't have any air, food, or water!) in the ocean if you cant take it with you then you make do with what you can. we can live in vacuums (Our blood boils and we explode in a vaccum) we know how to make water and O2 from rocks, (there are precious few rocks between here and other solar systems.) we can grow plants and we know how to build habitats that can do these things. we have simply not done so and have not tried. lack of will does not equate to lack of ability. (It does equate to the lack of ability to move a significant number of people to affect our population issues.) (I've been reading science fiction since 1959. Thousands and thousands of books.)

[2MT]

sorry i have not been reading science fiction; just science. perhaps you might take a look at the space station currently orbiting the globe seems we can live quite well in space. it's 15 years to mars but it far less to the moon which does have rocks and light and dust and several other things that can be used to make a habitat we can live in and allow for growing food. oddly the only thing standing in the way seems to be the will to make it happen.

From the moon it would be less than 15 years to mars because we could actually boost far faster and carry a larger load or materials making the trip safer shorter and perhaps even allowing for a return trip. the great age of exploration took crews 10 to 15 years just to return and men did multiple trips.

all this is possible and it may be the only way to keep humans from behaving like rats in too small a cage. as the water rises people will have to move the denser the population the more stress the more humans become there own predators. good for shrinks not so good for societies.

[mobydick]

The debate is over whether the warming is anthropogenic (human-inflicted), or due to the effect of a natural cycle or multiple such cycles all acting together, or due to humans and natural cycles.

Debate implies some sort of balance on both sides. There isn't. There is a massive weight of opinion on anthropogenic climate change.

MD

[Talbot]

Debate implies some sort of balance on both sides. There isn't. There is a massive weight of opinion on anthropogenic climate change. MD

Just because a massive weight of opinion is on one side does not make it right. After all there was a period where the massive weight of opinion was on the side of a flat earth, then there was a period where the massive weight of opinion was on the sun travelling around the earth.

Rubbishing altenative theories just because they do not stack up against massive opinion is hardly a scientific way of establishing truth.

[mobydick]

Just because a massive weight of opinion is on one side does not make it right. After all there was a period where the massive weight of opinion was on the side of a flat earth, then there was a period where the massive weight of opinion was on the sun travelling around the earth.

Rubbishing altenative theories just because they do not stack up against massive opinion is hardly a scientific way of establishing truth.

I query things because they don't stack up against the evidence.

Both the cases you mention are fine examples of people holding onto beliefs long after the evidence pointed in other directions. A spherical earth was proposed in ancient Greece, and accepted by most educated people soon after. An earth-centric universe was religious doctrine, which dismissed the evidence.

Thank goodness for the Enlightenment.

MD

[artemidorus]

Debate implies some sort of balance on both sides. There isn't. There is a massive weight of opinion on anthropogenic climate change.

The matter is not cut and dried; a debate still, I think. Science is generally a debate, something that becomes clear when you have to deal with reviewers' comments on submitted mss. The winning side of the argument is very much the anthropogenic side, but there are still problems with the clincher, in that, as I understand it, the current best prediction models, when applied to the recent past, don't predict what has actually happened all that well.

Still, it now takes a staggeringly arrogant level of ignorance for a non-scientist to deny anthropogenic climate change, so, consequently, politicians, ratbag journalists and conspiracy theorists are good at it.

[therapy]

The matter is not cut and dried; a debate still, I think. Science is generally a debate, something that becomes clear when you have to deal with reviewers' comments on submitted mss. The winning side of the argument is very much the anthropogenic side, but there are still problems with the clincher, in that, as I understand it, the current best prediction models, when applied to the recent past, don't predict what has actually happened all that well.

Still, it now takes a staggeringly arrogant level of ignorance for a non-scientist to deny anthropogenic climate change, so, consequently, politicians, ratbag journalists and conspiracy theorists are good at it.

LOL.
I would put the word accept in there.
LOL.

One of the big problems with the masses believing in the human influence factor was the constant showing of what the models predicted. The models used by Gore et al were the "worst case scenario", inaccurate, deceptive and had deliberate changes and deleted data sets. Admitted now by those few that produced them, but did you hear that blasted on the news? No you didn't.


"In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and [computer] programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/michael-duffy/truly-inconvenient-truths-about-climate-change-being-ignored/2008/11/07/1225561134617.html?page=2

Sorry, I can't find the reference to the guy that did most of the modeling using NASA data (some of it edited) and don't remember names. Dang. Because it was an apology for deliberately skewing data. Not on the "news" though.

[2MT]

the problem is the masses "mouth pieces" are morons and cant figure out that the models are off by ten years cause not all of the data existed when the models where made.

sorry to burst the bubble but those where not worst case they where and are moderate case. worst case makes them look like sunshiny bright good times for all.

[mobydick]

Although criticised by some in a few areas, I believe the Al Gore film is generally considered pretty accurate, bearing in mind it was a popular format designed mainly to publicise the problem. Which it did.


Don’t forget another opinion at the time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_VmMIbWKoo

It seems even the skeptics have come some way since then?

MD

[therapy]

Although criticised by some in a few areas, I believe the Al Gore film is generally considered pretty accurate, bearing in mind it was a popular format designed mainly to publicise the problem. Which it did.




I don't.

[BigCat]

I don't. I never saw Al's movie or read his book. I get most of my science news at sciencedaily.com .

[BigCat]

A spherical earth was proposed in ancient Greece, and accepted by most educated people soon after. MD More than proposed - proven experimentally, and its dimensions were calculated very closely! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes By the way, every mariner should know the earth is round, because of the behavior of objects disappearing behind the horizon, such as boats that are 'hull down.' This phenomenon alone should make it possible to make a rough calculation of the earth's dimensions, by measuring the distance to something at the horizon and measuring its height.

[therapy]

No, I hav e not heard ot that with the school kids.



Here it is.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools.

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

•The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
•The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
•The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
•The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
•The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
•The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
•The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
•The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
•The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
•The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
•The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Wait, there is more.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth

it was revealed by ABC News that one of the famous shots of supposed Antarctic ice shelves in the film was actually a computer-generated image from the 2004 science fiction blockbuster "The Day After Tomorrow." [audio available here]

Adding delicious insult to injury, this was presented by one of ABC's foremost global warming alarmists Sam Champion during Friday's "20/20":


SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) Al Gore's 2006 documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth," makes the same point with actual video of ice shelves calving. Which shots have more impact?

AL GORE (FORMER UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT)

And if you were flying over it in a helicopter, you'd see it's 700 feet tall. They are so majestic.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) Wait a minute, that shot looks just like the one in the opening credits of "The Day After Tomorrow."

KAREN GOULEKAS (VISUAL EFFECTS SUPERVISOR)

Yeah, that's, that's our shot. That's a fully computer generated shot. There's nothing real in there.

SAM CHAMPION (ABC NEWS)

(Voiceover) Audiences expect Hollywood to twist fact into fiction. But Gore's documentary does the opposite, using a fake shot to make a real point, that ice shelves are disappearing, and vanishing ice means global warming.

Apparently, ABC tried to get a comment from Gore concerning the matter, but none was forthcoming:

But this is old news.........oh wait........you haven't seen it...........uh huh, not surprised.

[therapy]

More than proposed - proven experimentally, and its dimensions were calculated very closely! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes By the way, every mariner should know the earth is round, because of the behavior of objects disappearing behind the horizon, such as boats that are 'hull down.' This phenomenon alone should make it possible to make a rough calculation of the earth's dimensions, by measuring the distance to something at the horizon and measuring its height.

A friend of mine talks about this stuff a little.
Religion was hugely responsible for the flat earth dogma.
Science is the new religion.

People quote something as fact by saying "scientists claim" bla bla bla and thus it is a fact to not be disputed.

There is the first mistake as science is as variable as the various religions, especially the money religion.

[BigCat]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

Therapy, I spent a couple of minutes looking at your source. It looks a whole lot like Fox 'News.' I suggest you try getting your science news from sources such as sciencedaily.com rather than right-wing ideological sites. If you care about a rational and objective basis for forming opinions, that is. :rolleyes:

[BigCat]

A friend of mine talks about this stuff a little.
Religion was hugely responsible for the flat earth dogma.
Science is the new religion.

People quote something as fact by saying "scientists claim" bla bla bla and thus it is a fact to not be disputed.

There is the first mistake as science is as variable as the various religions, especially the money religion.

If you'd rather get your views from Fox News, the Bible and Aristotle, suit yourself. I prefer systematic observation combined with rigorous logic and mathematical quantification. :rolleyes:

[therapy]

Therapy, I spent a couple of minutes looking at your source. It looks a whole lot like Fox 'News.' I suggest you try getting your science news from sources such as sciencedaily.com rather than right-wing ideological sites. If you care about a rational and objective basis for forming opinions, that is. :rolleyes:

So you are saying that that little article has no fact in it huh?
It was not about science so I don't expect to find it at sciencedaily.
It was about lies used to brainwash people.
You?

[therapy]

If you'd rather get your views from Fox News, the Bible and Aristotle, suit yourself. I prefer systematic observation combined with rigorous logic and mathematical quantification. :rolleyes:

You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

I don't have the math to explain that, sorry. :confused:

[BigCat]

You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

I don't have the math to explain that, sorry. :confused: If you reply on ideological sources for your facts, you are unlikely to be exposed to any actual facts or rational analysis. Science is about not preferring one outcome to another, but rather, just seeking the truth. Granted, not all people who are described as scientists can be described as having this viewpoint, but to me this means that they are in the wrong job. When people display an obvious strong preference for a given outcome, it's extremely likely that they are going to select the bits that confirm their bias, discard any that don't, and in general be prone to errors in logic in service of their bias.

[KGP]

I never saw Al's movie or read his book.
Given that you are liberal, and also quite intelligent, I wish you would have - and shared your opinion.

[2MT]

So you are saying that that little article has no fact in it huh?
It was not about science so I don't expect to find it at sciencedaily.
It was about lies used to brainwash people.
You?
oh they are fact kind of if you squint right and surround them in enough yelling.

what they are is facts out of context. most of those are factoid's meaningless with out context. yes the east antarctic pack ice is growing. however it is not anchored on land and it drifts off and melts. while chunks of the antarctic ice that was formally aground are now slipping into the sea and ice shelves that at one time (50 years ago) where considered so stable you could build a station on them have broken off. I believe it was the size of jersey.

this might be a bit of explination of why the ice is collecting in the east " The Circumpolar Current is driven by the strong westerly winds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind) which are found in the latitudes of the Southern Ocean.". so i dont do what foux news does heres the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_circumpolar_current

just so you can correlate you can look it up yourself and read all about it.

omission is also a lie and it is what the folks who want you to be nice and controllable do. hmm hows the water level in the keys by the way? http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8724580

follow that link and look around.

[BigCat]

Given that you are liberal, and also quite intelligent, I wish you would have - and shared your opinion. Thanks for the compliment. Al's book / movie is pop science - I prefer to read what the actual scientists write. I believe in global warming because the signs are widespread -everything from the earlier and earlier blooming of flowers to yachts transiting the Northwest passage to ice shelves breaking off in the Antarctic to glaciers worldwide shrinking.

Since the effects of deforestation and greenhouse gasses are obviously contributing to global warming, and since the negative effects of it are clear, I'm for fighting these two factors. The search for a 'cause' is based on a failure to comprehend how complex systems work. When your boat is sinking, you don't spend time debating on why, you do what you can to both find and plug the biggest leaks and bail like crazy.

Why does a catamaran sail to weather, is it because it has tall, well formed sails, or because it has daggerboards? Obviously, there is no one cause for this performance. Many factors must cooperate to get a yacht to sail to windward, not the least of which is the efforts of the helmsman and crew. Why would one expect the environment to be simpler than a yacht sailing to windward?

[KGP]

I prefer to read what the actual scientists write.
By chance have you read "Climate Confusion (http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594032106)" by Dr. Roy Spencer (http://www.drroyspencer.com)?

[BigCat]

By chance have you read "Climate Confusion (http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594032106)" by Dr. Roy Spencer (http://www.drroyspencer.com)?

I've read quotes of his views. I didn't find them persuasive. Contrary to a key assertion of his, you can see what temperatures have prevailed over a very long time by, for example, looking at the record of micro-fossils.

He also believes in 'intelligent design,' for which I see no objective evidence at all.

He claims that the Polar Bear isn't threatened, for example. I think the Polar Bear is doomed, at least in the wild. They need a lot of food, and they get it because seals have to come to ice holes to breathe. They can't chase down seals in the water. No ice = no ice holes = no food for Polar Bears = no Polar Bears.

I'm not the bleeding heart you might suppose. I'd happily eliminate a number of species from the environment - the Anopheles mosquito, for example, and bull sharks. By American standards I may be a liberal, but I'm probably somewhat to the right of the average Northern European.

My disdain for people who allow prejudice and bias to triumph over observation and reason is total. This is irrespective of whether the prejudices are those considered liberal or those considered conservative.

[KGP]

Yes, I have read quotes too, but just ordered the book today. Perhaps we can exchange views a bit later.

I really have little idea what amounts to the the political view of the average European, and frankly - don't really care. While I have not spent much time in WA other than downtown Seattle, you come across as hard right from what I have witnessed there!:D I do agree with you in that people who allow prejudice and bias to triumph over observation is tantamount to being rationally and educationally blind.

Polar Bears? While I'm not yet convinced they are at risk, I have never seen one, and I'm not going to let some bleeding heart liberals sing a song that convinces me that their existence is crucial to my family's well being. On the other hand, if there's hard evidence that what might be causing their demise has an effect on me and my family - that's another issue all together.

What I won't stand for is being rail-roaded into a cap and trade nightmare that all of our enemies would just love for us to sign onto to, without having a clear consensus of what might be the cause of global warming, if in fact there is any to be substansiated. To that, I'm still not convinced. But then, I didn't invent the internet, and I'm certainly not smart enough to have predicted in 06 that we have ten years left before the planet turns into a total frying pan. But I am willing to bet against as much!

[mobydick]

For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools.


Surely you jest? This has been done to death elsewhere, and I will just point you to the wiki entry for this:

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

And the 9 points. Try reading it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Ski lls#The_nine_inaccuracies

(although I would not call wikipedia an authorative source, this article has been argued over long and hard)

and just say, in a film containing 100's of claims, only finding 9 (or even 11) that are disputed is pretty good.

MD

[BigCat]

Surely you jest? This has been done to death elsewhere, and I will just point you to the wiki entry for this:

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

And the 9 points. Try reading it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Ski lls#The_nine_inaccuracies

(although I would not call wikipedia an authorative source, this article has been argued over long and hard)

and just say, in a film containing 100's of claims, only finding 9 (or even 11) that are disputed is pretty good.

MD

I think not so much false, as unprovable due to the complexities of the situation. The pros and cons are given very well in the wikipedia link about the alleged 'inaccuracies.' Amusingly, both sides claimed victory after the ruling.

[artemidorus]

The politicisation of climate science is interesting but unfortunate, and whether largely truthful or not, Al Gore's documentary must bear part of the blame, as he was previously anathema to many Americans, so they have seized upon climate concern as a "bleeding heart liberal" cause. It is also certainly true that many environmental groups that are vocal about the issue conduct themselves in a way likely to alienate much of the Western world.

From a conspiracy theory point of view, most, if not all, of the Western proponents of action, and they are the overwhelming majority of climate activists, do not in any way wish America ill, and would stand to lose a great deal economically and strategically if the USA dwindled in influence.

Consequently, it is irrational, and smacks of redneck paranoia, to blame a nebulous left-wing conspiracy for being behind the climate action movement. It is fair to say that China, and maybe India, would benefit strategically from a diminution of the USA, but they would also lose a lot in terms of their own industrialisation if their major market collapsed, and I think that China is anxiously awaiting a strong recovery of the US economy, which they have recently and actively propped up, rather than wishing its collapse. So, come on, then, those of you who are frightened that this is all some kind of occult attack on the US, exactly whom do you suspect?

[therapy]

...........................

[Tourmaline]

The World in 2010 is the 24th edition of The Economist's annual collection of predictions for the year ahead. Interesting article titled titled: Where have all the sunspots gone?

"Something odd has happened to the sun. Four centuries after sunspots were first seen—by Galileo—they have disappeared almost entirely. In 2009 weeks and sometimes months went by without a single sunspot being discerned. In 2010 they will return, or so say most solar scientists. Others wonder whether the sun may be going through an extended period of inactivity."

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14742745&d=2010

[Talbot]

Something odd has happened to the sun. Four centuries after sunspots were first seen—by Galileo—they have disappeared almost entirely. In 2009 weeks and sometimes months went by without a single sunspot being discerned. In 2010 they will return, or so say most solar scientists. Others wonder whether the sun may be going through an extended period of inactivity.

I think you must be mistaken.

Every time I look at the sun I see spots for a significant period afterwards


:rolleyes:

[BigCat]

The World in 2010 is the 24th edition of The Economist's annual collection of predictions for the year ahead. Interesting article titled titled: Where have all the sunspots gone?

"Something odd has happened to the sun. Four centuries after sunspots were first seen—by Galileo—they have disappeared almost entirely. In 2009 weeks and sometimes months went by without a single sunspot being discerned. In 2010 they will return, or so say most solar scientists. Others wonder whether the sun may be going through an extended period of inactivity."

http://www.economist.com/theworldin/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14742745&d=2010

We would be pretty lucky if solar cooling and global warming turned out to balance each other, but what are the odds?

[Tourmaline]

Big Cat: What are the odds?

No one knows the probability distribution, thus the endless arguments.
Not only does everyone have their own opinions, everyone also possess their own 'facts'.

[BigCat]

Big Cat: What are the odds?

No one knows the probability distribution, thus the endless arguments.
Not only does everyone have their own opinions, everyone also possess their own 'facts'.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

[artemidorus]

Big Cat: What are the odds?

No one knows the probability distribution, thus the endless arguments.
Not only does everyone have their own opinions, everyone also possess their own 'facts'.
Even if you accept a higher level of uncertainty than the majority of scientists allow, it's funny how "we think it's happening, and if it does it could be pretty nasty" seems to translate to "it isn't happening, so stick your head back in the sand" as soon as a politician, ratbag journalist or business leader kindly summarises the literature for us.

[BigCat]

Even if you accept a higher level of uncertainty than the majority of scientists allow, it's funny how "we think it's happening, and if it does it could be pretty nasty" seems to translate to "it isn't happening, so stick your head back in the sand" as soon as a politician, ratbag journalist or business leader kindly summarises the literature for us.

Politicians think it's bad for the economy, and so bad for votes and donations. Journalists like attention, which being contrarian gets. Business leaders don't want to spend money helping the environment, because it would give them smaller bonuses. None of the naysayers care how many people will die to pay for their slight momentary advantage. It's pretty depressing. :mad:

[mobydick]

Also depressing is the responses around the real reason for all this - over population.

Every time I see a headline that birth rates are falling in some countries (recently Japan, but also Italy, and a lot of W. Europe) the response by governments seems to be to try to encourage people to have more children! Parochial concerns dominate.

One of the arguments is that you need a lot of young workers to support the older ones in retirement. But

1) That problem solves itself in a few years anyway....
2) That ignores imigration, which tens to be of younger people
3) Years ago, there used to be the worry of what would everybody do when technology allowed much more efficient production of goods with less people needed - ie making cars on automated production lines. One would think that more efficient production would allow a migration to a smaller workforce to be managed.

Other arguments about preserving the race (British, Japanese, or whatever), I have no time for.

It is only recently that overpopulation/population control has even been allowed to re-emege as a discussion point.

MD

[BigCat]

Also depressing is the responses around the real reason for all this - over population. MD

Very true. Birth rates tend to fall when people become prosperous, so there is a potential for the problem to solve itself. Unfortunately, global warming is going to reduce prosperity, by depressing agricultural output. This, of course, will give rise to a Malthusian solution - population will decline due to starvation, which will also lead to the problem solving itself.

All in all, increased efficiency in the use of carbon based power and reforestation would be the easiest and most painless solution. It amazes me that there is a large lobby against increased efficiency, since efficiency saves money, but there is a common cause - shortsightedness. Shortsightedness for our planet as a whole and shortsightedness for the individual or organization's self-interest.

[Bubba]

BigCat I second that !!!!

[therapy]

Unfortunately, global warming is going to reduce prosperity, by depressing agricultural output.

LOL

Global cooling would have the same effect.

[Bubba]

I would guess it is now important to live near major farming areas to be able to eat well in the future.

[pir8ped]

'I would guess it is now important to live near major farming areas to be able to eat well in the future.'

Haha! Are there no fish under your boat? If food becomes such a valuable commodity, you probably have a boat that can sail to places out of reach of the motor-boat fisherman...

[Bubba]

Lots of salmon under our boat and others varieties of fish were moored in an area that grows more wheat than Kansas more potatoes than Idaho, more wine grapes and wineries than anywhere including California and France and huge heards of beef. Just wrighting about it makes me hungry for dinner.

[BigCat]

Lots of salmon under our boat and others varieties of fish were moored in an area that grows more wheat than Kansas more potatoes than Idaho, more wine grapes and wineries than anywhere including California and France and huge heards of beef. Just wrighting about it makes me hungry for dinner.

Global warming is the main suspect in the droughts the 'Inland Empire' of eastern Washington state has been having. Worse is expected to come. Farmers have been draining the aquifers faster than they get refilled. Soon, there will be a choice to be made - salmon versus wheat and other crops. Salmon will win, because of conservation laws.

http://www.celp.org/pdf/stockwateringtestimony%281-29-09%29.pdf

[Bubba]

I know the weather is getting hotter I have been living here for 33 years and it seams we are getting more days over 110 F and a few more over 118 F but the farmers seam to be happy with the weather, the winter wheat is coming up and green now. The rivers are taped out from irrigating the fields and the dams are filling up with mud not water and they are barging salmon 200 miles up stream thru all the dams as it is. It is not a well ballanced system as it is but it is what we have. I guess greed is the bigest problem along with exporting food to feed the other countries that are taking American jobs and most of Mexico's cheep labor is working our corperate farm jobs.

My wife and I are planning on moving to the cooler side of the Cascade mts that is why we are looking at a Catamaran and a piece of land to build our dock on for the summers. The winters are nice and moderate here with little rain and snow with lots of sun for sailing and free moorage w/power untill April.

My little brother in Atlanta Ga has a full time job with FEMA working what the weather tears up and that has never been full time employment before lately. I think the south east will get more and bigger storms or is it that we hear about more storms than we have before TV and probably radio too.

The last mini ice age was in the late 1700 and thru the mid 1800 and it may happen again with starvation for those countries and islands who can't grow enough food for there population. Wars start over food !!!

[therapy]

And the Alps are melting too, but not as much as they were melted when Hannibal crossed in 218BC.

Hmmm.

We have had several (non) hurricane seasons now. How is that?

The insurance companies have their pockets well lined by now, ready to pay out without complaining for rate increases when we have another "real" hurricane season, no doubt.

[IreAneY]

I feel that I will have to close this thread now or very soon, as it has been raining here with high winds for almost 2 weeks and all your input (you members) just seem to be encouraging it, so be very careful what you say, I will be watching. ;)

[BigCat]

Wars start over food !!! I read this article last week on BBC. Here it is on another site:
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/11/warming-drives-civil-war-africa

[BigCat]

And the Alps are melting too, but not as much as they were melted when Hannibal crossed in 218BC.

Hmmm.

We have had several (non) hurricane seasons now. How is that?

The insurance companies have their pockets well lined by now, ready to pay out without complaining for rate increases when we have another "real" hurricane season, no doubt.

People in Cuba and Mexico thought 2009 was a terrible year for hurricanes. You can't cherry pick the data points when you are talking about averages - you have to average all the data, or it isn't a valid representation. Global warming doesn't mean one particular spot is warmer, it means all of the spots measured and then averaged are warmer. Your argument is one I see a lot in debunking global warming.

I thought everybody who passed eighth grade new how to calculate an average, but apparently this is not the case. Global warming sceptics don't seem to have learned how to average. If you have twenty different numbers, you add them all together and divide by twenty. The result is the average. This is what is is rising, not necessarily the temperature in your back yard measured on January 1st. of every year. :rolleyes:

globahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

[Bubba]

It's cold and foggy here this morning just like an average last of Nov day.

[Talbot]

It's cold and foggy here this morning just like an average last of Nov day.

2 deg C here at the moment and getting colder. Expect a few deg below 0 tonight. Snow on the far hills, dark going to work and returning from work


Must be the start of winter :eek::eek:

[Bubba]

It sounds like around here with snow on the hills a few miles away. I always go to work and return in the dark but I am currently playing concerts in the evenings.

[IreAneY]

I too am sick of this global warming ;), I'm in Devon, UK and tonight it is going below freezing, in November, where is the warming bit :rolleyes:

[Talbot]

It sounds like around here with snow on the hills a few miles away. I always go to work and return in the dark but I am currently playing concerts in the evenings.

The only music I make is the thrumming of my studded tyres on the road.

[therapy]

People in Cuba and Mexico thought 2009 was a terrible year for hurricanes. You can't cherry pick the data points when you are talking about averages - you have to average all the data, or it isn't a valid representation. Global warming doesn't mean one particular spot is warmer, it means all of the spots measured and then averaged are warmer. Your argument is one I see a lot in debunking global warming.

I thought everybody who passed eighth grade new how to calculate an average, but apparently this is not the case. Global warming sceptics don't seem to have learned how to average. If you have twenty different numbers, you add them all together and divide by twenty. The result is the average. This is what is is rising, not necessarily the temperature in your back yard measured on January 1st. of every year. :rolleyes:

globahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Last night I wrote a reply that included my belief that things are warming but it is not due to Human intervention along with some other things related to education but I waited till today to reread it and after doing so and rereading what you said to me and how you said it I will not reply to you again.

[therapy]

I feel that I will have to close this thread now or very soon, as it has been raining here with high winds for almost 2 weeks and all your input (you members) just seem to be encouraging it, so be very careful what you say, I will be watching. ;)

I did that and am done.

Thanks for the "moderate" chide. :D

[BigCat]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/208488main_global_temp_change.jpg

[Bubba]

I like the chart. It sure tells the story about the clothing styles of the 1800's being no short sleeve shirts and no short pants other than nickers. But should't skirts still be going up up up by now ??? With todays warmer weather folks these days need A/C to be able to wear sutes and ties, what a waste of electricit power just for fashon. Just think how mutch electricity we would save if Wall Street bussiness fashon went to tank tops and shorts with sandles and turn the A/C off.

[BigCat]

I like the chart. It sure tells the story about the clothing styles of the 1800's being no short sleeve shirts and no short pants other than nickers. But should't skirts still be going up up up by now ??? With todays warmer weather folks these days need A/C to be able to wear sutes and ties, what a waste of electricit power just for fashon. Just think how mutch electricity we would save if Wall Street bussiness fashon went to tank tops and shorts with sandles and turn the A/C off.

I'm in western Washington, where it doesn't get very hot. My house is so heavily insulated that people walking into it in summer think it's air conditioned. I'm with you - there are more efficient ways to design buildings and more efficient clothing to wear than are the norm. My house has 10" SIP walls and 1' thick SIP roof - it's like a giant Igloo Cooler - very thick, airtight styrofoam. All houses should be built this way.

[Bubba]

BigCat you should be ready for the next mini ice age hopefully the Salish sea will not freeze into a glacier.

[BigCat]

BigCat you should be ready for the next mini ice age hopefully the Salish sea will not freeze into a glacier.

Judging by the melting sea ice and glaciers, I'm pretty sure that I won't last that long! I want to sail back to the tropics, anyway. I just hope global warming doesn't bleach all the coral before I get there. I like to snorkel and look at exotic coral and brightly colored fishes.

[BigCat]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-conflict27-2009nov27,0,303698.story

It has already started.

:(

[Bubba]

Is that some of the cows that the American group ( ? ) payed for, without thinking about feed and water and now russlers took the cows for THERE water. What a screw up that has become. Sounds like an old west range war only without six shooters ( or automatic weapons ) on the ranchers side. Stupid do-good Americans not giving free safe water and food too, just live stock and getting folks killed over food.

[BigCat]

Is that some of the cows that the American group ( ? ) payed for, without thinking about feed and water and now russlers took the cows for THERE water. What a screw up that has become. Sounds like an old west range war only without six shooters ( or automatic weapons ) on the ranchers side. Stupid do-good Americans not giving free safe water and food too, just live stock and getting folks killed over food.

In the long run, doing good in the third world creates more problems, unfortunately. If we eliminate disease and starvation, there will be a population boom, which will lead to more starvation and war. It's a dilemma.

[Bubba]

I understand the problem, it's like the old west with the land and water holders haveing the guns.

[mobydick]

In the long run, doing good in the third world creates more problems, unfortunately. If we eliminate disease and starvation, there will be a population boom, which will lead to more starvation and war. It's a dilemma.

Population of Ethiopia in the 1980's (famine, Live Aid etc = 30 million)

(1980's - 2009 = much investment in farming, water, aid)

Population of Ethiopia 2009 = 80 million...


MD

[BigCat]

More news you'll never see on Fox News

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121164011.htm (of interest to yachties)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121164209.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100121-hurricanes-global-warming/ (of interest to yachties)

[Bubba]

Bigcat You still trying to warm up Seattle's weather to be more like like the Bahamas ?

[TYRNTLZRDKING]

More news you'll never see on Fox News

Keep watching your MSNBC. :confused:

Its ALL George Bush's fault! :rolleyes:

[BigCat]

Keep watching your MSNBC. :confused:

Its ALL George Bush's fault! :rolleyes: If Shrub had 1/4 the brains of his father, he wouldn't have wrecked the country. See, I can say something nice about a Republican! :cool:

[BigCat]

Bigcat You still trying to warm up Seattle's weather to be more like like the Bahamas ? I've been checking out the Bahamas online. I think I prefer the BVI. It was sunny yesterday here. For a couple of hours.

[Bubba]

I bet the water is warmer in BVI too. We checked the river temp here on the Columbia and it is 29 deg F and still moving not solid frozen. No wonder we got so much condensation on our boat last week when out sailing.

[BigCat]

I bet the water is warmer in BVI too. We checked the river temp here on the Columbia and it is 29 deg F and still moving not solid frozen. No wonder we got so much condensation on our boat last week when out sailing.

Oh, yeah!

"Water temperatures in the Virgin Islands do not change greatly from summer to winter, however the 4 or 5 degree change is noticeable to those acclimated to consistently warm tropical weather. In the summer months the water temperature is about 83 degrees and in the winter about 79 degrees."

[Bubba]

It's not fair, all that warm water.

[BigCat]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2009-11-23-global-warming_N.htm?obref=obinsite

Global warming is accelerating at an alarming rate.:(

[KGP]

Posting of a 11/23/09 story supposed to have some special significance?

Glacier-Gate (http://www.modernghana.com/news/265609/1/the-global-warming-hoax.html)

[TYRNTLZRDKING]

BigCat,

Do a simple google search using the authors name Seth Borenstein.
"He is perhaps the worst propagandist in all the media, and that's stating something."

There are ten links on this page you can start with...
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2546/Climate-Depot-Serving-as-the-Medias-Ombudsman-Long-sad-history-of-AP-reporter-Seth-Borensteins-woeful-global-warming-reporting

[BigCat]

BigCat,

Do a simple google search using the authors name Seth Borenstein.
"He is perhaps the worst propagandist in all the media, and that's stating something."

There are ten links on this page you can start with...
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2546/Climate-Depot-Serving-as-the-Medias-Ombudsman-Long-sad-history-of-AP-reporter-Seth-Borensteins-woeful-global-warming-reporting

Sorry, not impressed by ad hominem arguments. Either it is true or false that there is 6% more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that 10 years ago. Not a complicated thing to measure.

[TanJera]

IPCC exposed for the "science" they have been evangelising for years. I cant want for the legal proceedings to get under way.

Sailing will always be great - warmer or colder - at least the cruisers can move to an acceptable climate.

Hennie

http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

[Bubba]

::)I can see it now the San Juan Islands becoming as warm as BVI and the east coast having glaciers in the winter because of the pacific waters warming and the evaporization rate increases with water temp like this year's elnino. Better by property on higher ground for future deep anchorages too. Already the red squid are migrating up the west coast and into Pudget Sound feeding on salmon.

[BigCat]

IPCC exposed for the "science" they have been evangelising for years. I cant want for the legal proceedings to get under way.

Sailing will always be great - warmer or colder - at least the cruisers can move to an acceptable climate.

Hennie

http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

Another ad hominem argument that boils down to "one or two people may well have exaggerated their point, so thousands of scientists who agree that there is a global warming problem must also be liars". This is the best the skeptics can do? Not impressed.

[TanJera]

Big Cat youre stuck on Ad Hominem - wake up and please read the whole article before you post! It is not only one or two people overstating their case - IT IS THE WHOLE OF THE IPCC - and their whole so-called "Peer review" system that is exposed for the un-scientific farce that it is!
This scientist is not disputing climate change - he is merely analysing the internal IPCC communications over the last 10 years .as exposed by an insider.
I also "believe" passionatelay in some things (like you) but (unlike you) have learnt that this same passion sometimes blinds one from the truth!

Happy argueing and good luck with your boat builing project - hope it is finished before we are all fried up!:)

Hennie