Cool It « Thread Started on Sept 15, 2011, 11:30am »
Epix had a documentary last might called Cool It. That is also the title of a book I read by Bjørn Lomborg a few years ago. The movie was about Bjørn Lomborg and expounded on the book's theme.
Basically the movie (and book) contended that Global Warming is real and the IPCC has some problems but is pretty close to being correct. It then sets out to make the case that cutting CO2 using the methods we have seen so far i.e. Cap and Trade, Treaties, subsidizing green industries that aren't ready, is a very bad method to deal with the problem. It dealt with the following:
1. Adaptation 2. Energy research 3. Alternatives to monies spent on GW that have a much better payback to society.
Although I, obviously, disagree with much of his beliefs, I really like his more common sense approach to the problem. One scene he is giving a presentation to a group of college students. He is talking about sea level rise and asks what a foot of sea level rise by the end century would mean. He says we have experience with that since sea levels rose a foot last century. He goes on saying if we ask someone who is really old to talk about the problems of the last century, do you think they would mention sea level rise? The students sit in stunned silence.
VOLCANIC EMISSIONS need to be capped. Any further sea level rise will result in the deaths of millions in countries like Sri Lanka.
VOLCANIC EMISSIONS cool the planet. Sea levels have decreased 1/4 inch in the past year, even without your VOLCANIC EMISSIONS.
Do a google search on "sea level" and the first continuation is "falling". That is because a funny thing happened on the way to drowning all the islands - the biggest drop in sea level on record.
VOLCANIC EMISSIONS need to be capped. Any further sea level rise will result in the deaths of millions in countries like Sri Lanka.
VOLCANIC EMISSIONS cool the planet. Sea levels have decreased 1/4 inch in the past year, even without your VOLCANIC EMISSIONS.
Do a google search on "sea level" and the first continuation is "falling". That is because a funny thing happened on the way to drowning all the islands - the biggest drop in sea level on record.
Bill, you make me laugh with all of the crazy bull$#!+ you constantly post. Nobody is ever going to believe anything you say if you ever try to be serious. Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! But nobody came.
VOLCANIC EMISSIONS cool the planet. Sea levels have decreased 1/4 inch in the past year, even without your VOLCANIC EMISSIONS.
Do a google search on "sea level" and the first continuation is "falling". That is because a funny thing happened on the way to drowning all the islands - the biggest drop in sea level on record.
Bill, you make me laugh with all of the crazy bull$#!+ you constantly post. Nobody is ever going to believe anything you say if you ever try to be serious. Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! But nobody came.
I say sea level has dropped recently and you give me a graph that ends 6 years ago. Joe, you must admit, that was very low IQ of you.
« Last Edit: Sept 16, 2011, 12:57pm by AztecBill »
VOLCANIC EMISSIONS cool the planet. Sea levels have decreased 1/4 inch in the past year, even without your VOLCANIC EMISSIONS.
Do a google search on "sea level" and the first continuation is "falling". That is because a funny thing happened on the way to drowning all the islands - the biggest drop in sea level on record.
Bill, you make me laugh with all of the crazy bull$#!+ you constantly post. Nobody is ever going to believe anything you say if you ever try to be serious. Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! But nobody came.
Of course the folks who publish the data haven't taken this news lying down. They have recently added an "adjustment" to the data. Now the rise you see is not relative to actual rise so you can not expect the data to reflect sea to shore differences. They added an adjustment that makes the data reflect what sea level would have been if every other thing was static according to their models. What is the data used for? It should be an indication of when your feet will get wet. Now it is something else.
This use to be much easier until those pesky satellites got involved. They use to be able to find a nice tide guage in a subsiding area and call it gospel.
Epix had a documentary last might called Cool It. That is also the title of a book I read by Bjørn Lomborg a few years ago. The movie was about Bjørn Lomborg and expounded on the book's theme.
Basically the movie (and book) contended that Global Warming is real and the IPCC has some problems but is pretty close to being correct. It then sets out to make the case that cutting CO2 using the methods we have seen so far i.e. Cap and Trade, Treaties, subsidizing green industries that aren't ready, is a very bad method to deal with the problem. It dealt with the following:
1. Adaptation 2. Energy research 3. Alternatives to monies spent on GW that have a much better payback to society.
Although I, obviously, disagree with much of his beliefs, I really like his more common sense approach to the problem. One scene he is giving a presentation to a group of college students. He is talking about sea level rise and asks what a foot of sea level rise by the end century would mean. He says we have experience with that since sea levels rose a foot last century. He goes on saying if we ask someone who is really old to talk about the problems of the last century, do you think they would mention sea level rise? The students sit in stunned silence.
I agree more with this line of thinking re: what to do about it. Of course in talking about a 1 foot change in sea level, the amount of effect would depend on where you live. Obviously there are lots of places in the World where that would be a huge change and cause big impacts ........ like Maldives. I also, for example, think those bungalows in Oceanside that are very close to the high tide line would probably be abandoned.
Epix had a documentary last might called Cool It. That is also the title of a book I read by Bjørn Lomborg a few years ago. The movie was about Bjørn Lomborg and expounded on the book's theme.
Basically the movie (and book) contended that Global Warming is real and the IPCC has some problems but is pretty close to being correct. It then sets out to make the case that cutting CO2 using the methods we have seen so far i.e. Cap and Trade, Treaties, subsidizing green industries that aren't ready, is a very bad method to deal with the problem. It dealt with the following:
1. Adaptation 2. Energy research 3. Alternatives to monies spent on GW that have a much better payback to society.
Although I, obviously, disagree with much of his beliefs, I really like his more common sense approach to the problem. One scene he is giving a presentation to a group of college students. He is talking about sea level rise and asks what a foot of sea level rise by the end century would mean. He says we have experience with that since sea levels rose a foot last century. He goes on saying if we ask someone who is really old to talk about the problems of the last century, do you think they would mention sea level rise? The students sit in stunned silence.
I agree more with this line of thinking re: what to do about it. Of course in talking about a 1 foot change in sea level, the amount of effect would depend on where you live. Obviously there are lots of places in the World where that would be a huge change and cause big impacts ........ like Maldives. I also, for example, think those bungalows in Oceanside that are very close to the high tide line would probably be abandoned.
A lot of those islands are subsiding which is their main problem. They need to limit the ground water they remove. A good desalination plant would do the trick.
How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Adam Smith
I agree more with this line of thinking re: what to do about it. Of course in talking about a 1 foot change in sea level, the amount of effect would depend on where you live. Obviously there are lots of places in the World where that would be a huge change and cause big impacts ........ like Maldives. I also, for example, think those bungalows in Oceanside that are very close to the high tide line would probably be abandoned.
A lot of those islands are subsiding which is their main problem. They need to limit the ground water they remove. A good desalination plant would do the trick.
The main island in maldives already has desal. Many low-lying islands (coral atoll type) rely 100% on catchment. Man...would you ever admit an environmental impact (man-made or otherwise) unless it happened on your street? I remind you of your quote about the nuclear disaster in Japan as being "acceptable".... sure, if its not in your small universe.
"Our starting point is that money which is given to people who do not agree that there are climate change problems should be chucked out," stated Social Democrat environmental spokesperson Mette Gjerskov.
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 4,615 Location: Sandy Ego
Re: Cool It « Reply #11 on Oct 6, 2011, 9:06pm »
I usually ignore Bill's silly behavior, but just to prove him to be acting silly again, when you see that the long term trend for dozens of years is UP with a wave pattern to sea level, you know that you are going to get short periods of Down. Now, I have not checked to see if he is telling the truth. It doesn't matter. The reality is that the trend if for higher and higher and higher sea level. He may say it is very low IQ of me not to know that this one year period is not the whole shebang. Sad, that, because by acting nasty and silly he just disgraces himself.
Bill, the trend is strongly up and up and up. Minor fluctuation in that trend are of no import.
VOLCANIC EMISSIONS cool the planet. Sea levels have decreased 1/4 inch in the past year, even without your VOLCANIC EMISSIONS.
Do a google search on "sea level" and the first continuation is "falling". That is because a funny thing happened on the way to drowning all the islands - the biggest drop in sea level on record.
Bill, you make me laugh with all of the crazy bull$#!+ you constantly post. Nobody is ever going to believe anything you say if you ever try to be serious. Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! But nobody came.
Bill, you still make me laugh. Please call me when the sea level drops about 8 centimeters. At that time I will start looking to see if it is a continuing trend.
As you can see from the chart that I provided, an 8 centimeter downward fluctuation is fairly normal while the ocean level is still rising on average.
Wave action, Bill, Wave action. Up and down, but higher highs and higher lows is rather obvious. Wave action, Bill. Perhaps you can look it up on wikipedia?
VOLCANIC EMISSIONS need to be capped. Any further sea level rise will result in the deaths of millions in countries like Sri Lanka.
VOLCANIC EMISSIONS cool the planet. Sea levels have decreased 1/4 inch in the past year, even without your VOLCANIC EMISSIONS.
Do a google search on "sea level" and the first continuation is "falling". That is because a funny thing happened on the way to drowning all the islands - the biggest drop in sea level on record.
Bill again you are way wrong on this issue. Volcanic emissions are causing the heating of the planet. They have been doing it for thousands of years.
I know you do not understand the one time that volcanoes can cool the planet, so I will explain the fundamentals to you. A massive volcanic erruption that expels tons of dust into the higher atmosphere can have a cooling effect. Mount St Helens did it. Mt Pinatubo did it. JallaJockle (my spelling) in Iceland contributed a small amount of dust to the upper atmosphere a year ago.. That dust can reflect sunlight away from the earth and thus has a cooling effect.
Most volcanic emissions are not major eruptions. In fact major eruptions happen infrequently. The daily release of gas (CO2 included) adds to global warming. That capacity by the volcanoes is far more pronounced than are the eruptions.
Bill, you make me laugh with all of the crazy bull$#!+ you constantly post. Nobody is ever going to believe anything you say if you ever try to be serious. Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! But nobody came.
Bill, you still make me laugh. Please call me when the sea level drops about 8 centimeters. At that time I will start looking to see if it is a continuing trend.
As you can see from the chart that I provided, an 8 centimeter downward fluctuation is fairly normal while the ocean level is still rising on average.
Wave action, Bill, Wave action. Up and down, but higher highs and higher lows is rather obvious. Wave action, Bill. Perhaps you can look it up on wikipedia?
So to prove your point you post a graph that stops in 2003 ?
The main thing to take from your graph is that about half the sea level rise was before the big CO2 increase started in the 1940s. And about 3/4 was before the warming from the mid 1970s to the late 1990s that global warming used to start the movement that you bought hook, line, and sinker. Of course sea level would rise after the little ice age ended in the 1850s. Every IPCC estimate of sea level rise has been less than the previous IPCC sea level estimates.
Re: Cool It « Reply #15 on Oct 11, 2011, 11:03am »
All you AGW worshipers are in for a rude awaking. Our short term climate is controlled by a 60 year cycle. We are in the beginning of the 30 years of cooling associated with a negative PDO. The last 13 years of minor cooling will be followed by about 17 years of even greater cooling. I would not be surprised at all by the Arctic sea ice going back to 1980 levels, sea levels falling, glaciers advancing, and all the proxies that AGW feeds on reversing. AGW will not go away peacefully. Even when the facts on the ground go totally against them (which they have been), they will still be fighting to preserve what they get from their religion.
Australia is fighting to massively tax their citizens for what they admit will reduce warming by the end of the century by 0.0003 degrees. How can they keep a straight face?I discussed with =Bob a while back about El Ninos and La Ninas. He didn't understand that a positive PDO produces more, stronger, and longer El Ninos, while a negative PDO does the same for La Ninas. He claimed it was CO2 that caused what he was seeing i.e more, longer, and stronger El Ninos. Well we just had a fairly strong and long La Nina and the AGW was wetting their lips about the next El Nino. Well guess what, we are going to have another La Nina. It is just beginning. Back to back La Ninas. Like I said =Bob, the PDO phase controls it - not CO2.
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 4,615 Location: Sandy Ego
Re: Cool It « Reply #16 on Oct 11, 2011, 11:22am »
Bill, look at your own chart. Can't you see that a momentary decrease is insignificant if it does not continue for years and years? I gave you a chart with the long term trend. I chose it because it showed the slips back before the next leg up.
That there are fluctuations in any process in nature is a given. Stick with reality, where are we as opposed to twenty, forty or sixty or a hundred years ago?
If you were to superimpose your short term chart onto my chart you would see a fairly consistent trend from 1910 to 2010 (100 years, dude!) that shows a 23 centimeter rise in the world's ocean level.
Like I say, show me an 8 centimeter decrease and I might be persuaded to agree with you that ocean levels are decreasing. Right now all I see is fluctuation that is fairly normal.
The answer is we are up the creek without a paddle.
Bill, look at your own chart. Can't you see that a momentary decrease is insignificant if it does not continue for years and years. I gave you a chart with the long term trend. I chose it because it showed the slips back before the next leg up.. That there are fluctuations in any process in nature is a given. Stick with reality, where are we as opposed to twenty, forty or sixty years ago?
The answer is we are up the creek without a paddle.
If you ask someone who lived through the 20th century what the big problems of the century were. They could list a lot. Do you know what they wouldn't list. Sea Level Rise. But sea level rose as much in the 20th century as it is expected to rise in the 21st. Not a big problem. There are big problems out there. Stopping our economic progress to alleviate phantom AGW will not place us in a position to tackle the real problems we will face in the 21st. Sea level rise hasn't been a big problem for 7K years.
Joined: Jul 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 4,615 Location: Sandy Ego
Re: Cool It « Reply #18 on Oct 11, 2011, 8:09pm »
Bengla Desh, Sri Lanka, and hundreds of populated islands will be greatly damaged if the sea level rises one half meter. Now, that problem arises because of the tremendous increase in population. People are living on land at risk. Just a few feet rise in the ocean will be horrendous to coastal populations. I am glad I live on a mesa here in San Diego. Sea level rise does not bother me, but it does worry a lot of people in La Jolla and Del Mar.
Bill, look at your own chart. Can't you see that a momentary decrease is insignificant if it does not continue for years and years? I gave you a chart with the long term trend. I chose it because it showed the slips back before the next leg up.
That there are fluctuations in any process in nature is a given. Stick with reality, where are we as opposed to twenty, forty or sixty or a hundred years ago?
If you were to superimpose your short term chart onto my chart you would see a fairly consistent trend from 1910 to 2010 (100 years, dude!) that shows a 23 centimeter rise in the world's ocean level.
Like I say, show me an 8 centimeter decrease and I might be persuaded to agree with you that ocean levels are decreasing. Right now all I see is fluctuation that is fairly normal.
The answer is we are up the creek without a paddle.
We now have a negative trend over the past 5 years. The lead cause of sea level lowering is the cooling of oceans. Oceans hold 90% of the Earth's heat budget. So why are we cooling? Because we are going into a negative phase of the PDO. We are in the same phase the caused the "coming ice age" fears. You can continue the old ways or open your eyes.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b98/Neubarth/JamesRescueDiver.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png "[image]")
![[image]](http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/chart_113.png "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/earth/grace/earth20110823-640.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.moonbattery.com/assets_c/2010/02/domed-turbine6WebCR-thumb-500x375-720.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png "[image]")