The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

Go Back   >
Search


Like Tree114Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-10-2017, 07:48 AM   #101
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Richmond & Kilmarnock, VA
Posts: 5,522
Default

Your water pot analogy is incorrect.

Your analogy would have to include adding boiling water to a large container of water on a stove being heated from below as well (natural forces).

The boiling water added is supposed to have a MUCH greater effect on the total warming than the heat being added by the stove. That is the same as man having the bulk of the effect of global warming.

Then you add an ice cube. It totally overwhelms both the boiling water you added and the heat from the stove.

So now, how does the boiling water we add account for MOST of the global warming that is not even observed if natural forces can create changes that exceed man made impacts.

I'm done on this discussion. We won't agree. So let's just agree to not agree.
Buoy Scout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2017, 08:16 AM   #102
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barrell View Post
Global warming seems to be real but there is no evidence it is caused by burning fossil fuels. So what do you propose we do?
Can I take the liberty of considering this question is directed at me and offer my own poor thoughts?

Well, I think some scientists believe there is evidence that it is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. I suppose we are dependent upon the scientists to inform us.

Suppose that the earths balance is as strained and fragile as I elsewhere suggested may be the case. Firstly, we would need to admit that global warming is real as you have suggested. To continue to deny it will only prolong and exacerbate the damage if we are in fact causing/contributing to the change.

Then working forward from that decision we would have to evaluate all of our activities with regard to impact on climate. Some activities would have to be moderated or terminated. Something like growing corn to produce ethanol seems to be a harmful practice if in fact it is detrimental. How about reducing the husbandry of animals, which are not efficient in the balance of input versus result. How about reduction of coal fired power plants, increased use of solar and wind, nuclear power, so many options that are being considered. Maybe we will all have to give up our 500hp cars and start driving a Prius if our lives depends on that. If your behaviour is going to ultimately affect you negatively or kill you maybe a behaviour modification is indicated.

How about the removal of influence of biased political and economic factions from the equation of climate balance, and start to make decisions more heavily weighted on environmental impact.

Maybe we don't need to stop running our boats or driving our trucks, but rather eat a bit less beef or discontinue ethanol production. Many small changes like these may be enough to slow or negate the perceived negative impact on our environment. But these changes would only come if there was a combined political will to do this. At present there is not due to all the parties outright denying that there is a man influenced change occurring right now.

These are just my humble thoughts on a large and complicated issue. Thanks to all the posters on this thread, but I am getting tired and losing interest. Plus all this thinking hurts my head. Going in the hot tub and watching the sunshine on the lake for the first time in quite a few days as the fire smoke has kept me inside and the view obscured.

Best wishes to all my friends in Florida and the Bahamas now.
LI Sound Grunt likes this.
Koocanusa Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2017, 08:33 AM   #103
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sugar Land, TX & Orange Beach, AL
Posts: 380
Default Blaming hurricanes on climate change

Pretty good article here which shows the number of landfalling hurricanes has dropped over the last 100 years, not risen.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/blami...2VpSyHNWtYMnU1

Climate change is a follow-the-money event.
CLVL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2017, 08:40 AM   #104
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 990
Default

Co2 is .037% of our atmosphere. That's the same as out of 10,000 gallons, only 3.7 are Co2. Double it and it's still less than .075%. Think about that.

Again, http://www.iloveco2.com/p/climate-101.html
I Fish 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2017, 08:43 AM   #105
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville, 'Merica!
Posts: 1,253
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koocanusa Sam View Post
Can I take the liberty of considering this question is directed at me and offer my own poor thoughts?

Well, I think some scientists believe there is evidence that it is caused in part by burning fossil fuels. I suppose we are dependent upon the scientists to inform us.

Suppose that the earths balance is as strained and fragile as I elsewhere suggested may be the case. Firstly, we would need to admit that global warming is real as you have suggested. To continue to deny it will only prolong and exacerbate the damage if we are in fact causing/contributing to the change.

Then working forward from that decision we would have to evaluate all of our activities with regard to impact on climate. Some activities would have to be moderated or terminated. Something like growing corn to produce ethanol seems to be a harmful practice if in fact it is detrimental. How about reducing the husbandry of animals, which are not efficient in the balance of input versus result. How about reduction of coal fired power plants, increased use of solar and wind, nuclear power, so many options that are being considered. Maybe we will all have to give up our 500hp cars and start driving a Prius if our lives depends on that. If your behaviour is going to ultimately affect you negatively or kill you maybe a behaviour modification is indicated.

How about the removal of influence of biased political and economic factions from the equation of climate balance, and start to make decisions more heavily weighted on environmental impact.

Maybe we don't need to stop running our boats or driving our trucks, but rather eat a bit less beef or discontinue ethanol production. Many small changes like these may be enough to slow or negate the perceived negative impact on our environment. But these changes would only come if there was a combined political will to do this. At present there is not due to all the parties outright denying that there is a man influenced change occurring right now.

These are just my humble thoughts on a large and complicated issue. Thanks to all the posters on this thread, but I am getting tired and losing interest. Plus all this thinking hurts my head. Going in the hot tub and watching the sunshine on the lake for the first time in quite a few days as the fire smoke has kept me inside and the view obscured.

Best wishes to all my friends in Florida and the Bahamas now.
So if we all just become vegetarians and stop utilizing internal combustible engines climate change will stop and our species will live happily ever after?
Hollywood9s likes this.
Marlin308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 08:41 AM   #106
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstang1988 View Post
I am not a climate change scientist but I am a scientist.

For those that deny it's happening, can you show me anything but some stupid "correlation is not causation" chart? I want an actual scientific paper to read.

The evidence:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
MStang, if you are indeed a scientist, you would realized that it is impossible to prove a negative, i.e., there is no way to prove that man is not having an influence. Therefore there are no papers to reference.

The only thing that can be pointed out is how flawed the "science" is that the AGW folks use to prove their theory.
ebbtideandy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 09:59 AM   #107
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin308 View Post
So if we all just become vegetarians and stop utilizing internal combustible engines climate change will stop and our species will live happily ever after?
I suppose we all should just go back to caveman days and not have any of the comforts we are afforded today. The real answer to all of this is that no matter what man does to try and fix it, they really can't. You could pull all of the world's cars off the road in, close down all factories in the world and the problem still won't be fixed. We breath CO2 and there are more of us than there was a century ago.
niteatnicks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 04:42 PM   #108
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Weymouth, Ma.
Posts: 1,710
Default

Not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread but what about the 3rd world countries such as China and Pakistan that has huge populations and absolutely terrible air quality. Yes the US was a terrible polluter of the atmosphere but I don't believe we are the culprit we used to be. How about boycotting products made in the countries that are the worst polluters as a way to attack the problem.
hottoddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 06:36 AM   #109
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 132
Default

Hey So .so RUINING the AMERICAN economy is justified ,by WHAT?
If man is the MAIN cause, where's my solution.
If you worked for me ,and came into my office ,and said Boss,the so and so's broke without a solution,soon you'd be gone
Where's my solution ,I mean you're a scientist right,SOLUTION!
vincentdivincenzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:27 AM   #110
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebbtideandy View Post
MStang, if you are indeed a scientist, you would realized that it is impossible to prove a negative, i.e., there is no way to prove that man is not having an influence. Therefore there are no papers to reference.

The only thing that can be pointed out is how flawed the "science" is that the AGW folks use to prove their theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_...atural_science
mstang1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:32 AM   #111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vincentdivincenzo View Post
Hey So .so RUINING the AMERICAN economy is justified ,by WHAT?
If man is the MAIN cause, where's my solution.
If you worked for me ,and came into my office ,and said Boss,the so and so's broke without a solution,soon you'd be gone
Where's my solution ,I mean you're a scientist right,SOLUTION!
Good question. I'm not a scientist in this field so I don't come up with solutions but I'm sure the people in the field have proposed solutions. Your assertion that any believer in the problem must have a solution is naive.

I agree with your philosophy though, employees that come to me with problems and not solutions to the problem get managed out of the business.

My lazy ass google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=solu...hrome&ie=UTF-8
mstang1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:32 AM   #112
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I Fish 2 View Post
Co2 is .037% of our atmosphere. That's the same as out of 10,000 gallons, only 3.7 are Co2. Double it and it's still less than .075%. Think about that.

Again, http://www.iloveco2.com/p/climate-101.html
Can you link me a peer reviewed paper support this site's claims?
mstang1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:43 AM   #113
KVH
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hottoddie View Post
Not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread but what about the 3rd world countries such as China and Pakistan that has huge populations and absolutely terrible air quality. Yes the US was a terrible polluter of the atmosphere but I don't believe we are the culprit we used to be. How about boycotting products made in the countries that are the worst polluters as a way to attack the problem.
China is one of the world's leaders in accepting global warming as fact and going towards 0% carbon based power.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.[citation needed] In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity.

Although China currently has the world's largest installed capacity of hydro, solar and wind power, its energy needs are so large that in 2013 renewables provided just a little over 20% of its power generation, with most of the remainder provided by traditional coal power facilities.[1] Nevertheless, the share of renewable sources in the energy mix had been gradually rising from 2013.
KVH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:49 AM   #114
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amongst the FL fishies
Posts: 5,857
Default

I say burn coal.
airbrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 08:57 AM   #115
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstang1988 View Post
Can you link me a peer reviewed paper support this site's claims?
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-nipcc/
I Fish 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 09:14 AM   #116
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I Fish 2 View Post
I'll give it a fair shake and read more closely but first glance it does not appear their publications are peer reviewed, rather are publications by individual contributors.
mstang1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 09:19 AM   #117
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstang1988 View Post
I'll give it a fair shake and read more closely but first glance it does not appear their publications are peer reviewed, rather are publications by individual contributors.
http://climatechangereconsidered.org...-reconsidered/
chrispnet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 09:20 AM   #118
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern Shores of Lake Wheeler
Posts: 4,569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaBoss21 View Post
During all of the debates on global warming, destruction of the ozone and other man made catastrophies, I didn't see any reference to the total destruction of the amazon rain forest. With out the plants absorbing the natural carbon dioxide, along with man made carbon dioxide, we will see every thing the tree huggers say we will. But no one is stopping the deforestation of the amazon, why?

not much extortion potential with South American countries.


.
shadco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 10:06 AM   #119
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 990
Default

Will someone click the last link I posted and let me know if it works?
I Fish 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 10:22 AM   #120
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I Fish 2 View Post
Will someone click the last link I posted and let me know if it works?
It does.
chrispnet is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:21 AM.


©2009 TheHullTruth.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.9.3.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.