Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

Help Undo Global Warming: Win $25,000,000

Forum for kitesurfers
BWD
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 3659
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:37 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 31 times

Postby BWD » Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:49 pm

OK, Warmers, here I come.
Air pollution is a big, big problem, as is water pollution.
Pollution has proven harmful effects on most or all forms of life.
We should fight pollution.
That is a positive political, ideological and social goal that can help the world. It is not science, but science proves it.

The Global Warming movement seeks to use a single dramatic concept to impress on people the need to fight pollution, thereby molding them into a controllable political base.
It's like US and UK leaning on the WMD concept in starting war in Iraq. Some of the goals were achieved, but a lot was lost and now everyone is mad at each other, and the shooting goes on. All because people were manipulated to BELIEVE one thing in order to make them accept something else, while nothing was proven.

I don't care if the risk to life and health comes from temps that are higher, particulates, lead, lithium, radiation, who knows what from dead batteries or fuel cells, drugs and contaminants in the food supply, or ideologies that promote violence.
The point is to act intelligently and decisively against threats to life.

The warming faithful get so incensed when questioned, it is obvious they have been touched at a level other than that of logic. That makes me suspicious as well as the weak evidence.
I also question global warming because I have never seen those promoting the issue show proof, alternative hypotheses or mechanisms. That has always been the sign of someone with an external agenda: a politician talking about science, a drug salesman talking about pharmacology, a science professor telling you how to vote, an actress telling you about global warming, etc..

Look what the industrials want -a token economy. Carbon exchange credits, etc. As though they were playing zero-sum game. Now we all know that being good capitalists, they don't play zero-sum games. That in itself should tell you rather more than all the political BS flying around.

I don't dispute global warming as a trend we are observing, but there is no proof, no mechanism, and we will see the consequences only when they arrive. We will KNOW only if something is proven.
In the meantime, if we pollute less, we will be better off in 50 years, no matter the temperature.

User avatar
KiteSurfingKen
Frequent Poster
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:48 pm
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Columbus, OH, Kiteboarder
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby KiteSurfingKen » Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:29 pm

Global Warming is a natural phenomenon. If humans didn't exist it would still occur, it is the natural way of the planet.
There are so many forces at play, singling out any one is useless in solving the global puzzle.
Receding ice at the poles means less solar radiation is reflected so the ground temp increases.
More melt (fresh) water decreases the salinity which affects the global ocean conveyor system.
The global ocean conveyor significantly influences global weather patterns.
Deforestation reduces the atmospheres ability to naturally reduce CO2 concentrations.
Pollution in the oceans adversely affects phytoplankton (the basis for the global food chain).
Depleted ozone at the poles allows more solar radiation to penetrate the atmosphere than in the past.
Humans spew countless chemicals into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.

So what can we do to stop Global Warming?
Short Answer: Global Thermonuclear Destruction
The earth will recover eventually and humans will no longer dilute the fabric of life.
Aside from that, we can accept the fact we are accelerating the natural process and events which may have happened over thousands of years in the past will now occur in tens of years.

If you look at human society, we are one of the few species who are not limited by "survival of the fittest". As a society we have chosen to assist the less productive members of our species to the detriment of the whole.

I think the most realistic way to reduce the harmful affects of humans is to require a license to reproduce and sterilize everyone else. How else are we ever going to get population growth under control? But who talks about population growth these days? It does not carry the same political clout as "Global Warming".

Dismount Soapbox,
Ken

User avatar
CosmoDog
Frequent Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 1:00 am
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Cali
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Postby CosmoDog » Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:08 pm

Here's my take:

I am not 100% sure that human caused global warming is occuring, but I do think we should do what we can to mitigate it. If the global warming scientists are wrong, then all we lost is time/money. If they are correct and we do nothing, then my house is underwater in 50 years (along with millions of others).

-J.R.

Mulholland
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 742
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:01 am
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Pacific Palisades
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby Mulholland » Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:27 pm

CosmoDog wrote:Here's my take:

I am not 100% sure that human caused global warming is occuring, but I do think we should do what we can to mitigate it. If the global warming scientists are wrong, then all we lost is time/money. If they are correct and we do nothing, then my house is underwater in 50 years (along with millions of others).

-J.R.
There is as much increase in polar ice as there is decrease. It varies, obviously, from year-to-year. The scare-tactic that there will be catastrophic flooding because of melting is a flat out lie...Those politicians that fund the global warming research are intentionally creating fear and panic in society, in order to create another level of control and bureauracy.

User avatar
KiteSurfingKen
Frequent Poster
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:48 pm
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Columbus, OH, Kiteboarder
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby KiteSurfingKen » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:28 pm

Please don't ruin another thread with your propaganda Mulholand. (I asked nicely)

I suspect you are as much of an expert on science as you are religion.
Therefor I also suspect you have not read a single scientific paper on Global ice variation and the affect on Earth's climate. If you have please cite specific references that show a decrease in polar ice coverage on average over time (not small cyclic changes).

Here is some light reading to get you started:
http://www.eduspace.esa.int/Background/ ... cument=243

Here is another article with some links to actual scientific studies:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resourc ... /aice0.htm

When you can tell me the difference between a thermocline and a halocline and their affect on Global Climate change, you can rejoin the discussion.
Good Winds,
Ken
PS Based on your statements, It looks like the propaganda engine goes both ways.

User avatar
CosmoDog
Frequent Poster
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 1:00 am
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Cali
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Postby CosmoDog » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:48 pm

There is as much increase in polar ice as there is decrease. It varies, obviously, from year-to-year. The scare-tactic that there will be catastrophic flooding because of melting is a flat out lie...Those politicians that fund the global warming research are intentionally creating fear and panic in society, in order to create another level of control and bureauracy.
What if you are wrong? I have read a few papers and the majority of climate scientists believe it is happening. Some of these guys are civil servants with nothing to gain and in some cases they have actually hurt their careers (i.e. James E. Hansen) under the current admin. Again, even if there is a SLIGHT chance of this happening, I vote for doing something about it now.

oceanplay
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:55 pm
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: south fl
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby oceanplay » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:05 am

Antarctic sea ice edge expanding

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.



Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.

Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.


WE NEED TO CLEAN THE AIR TO BREATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHO KNOWS ABOUT ALL THE REST?

User avatar
Windrider
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 3753
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 6:56 am
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Kailua, Hawaii, currently riding EH and OR kites (2013 Razor rocks!)
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Postby Windrider » Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:38 am

The thing we really have to watch out for is the flip-flopping of the magnetic poles..... it's the period in-between the pole change that will really hit us hard biologically 'cause that's when there is no significant magnetic field to protect us from the solar radiation......

...but it all may not matter until we know what happens with that asteroid in 2012.....last I heard it is supposed to miss us.....

guess we should just keep praying for wind and do our best until then.... jeez it's so easy to get spooked.... but we have to just keep doing our best to improve on what we can.... let's start by reducing pollution.....

WestCoastkiter
Medium Poster
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:45 am
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Los Angeles
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby WestCoastkiter » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:19 am

30 years ago the scientists were worried about an ice age.Now we are overheating. Dont believe the hype. 95% of greenhouse gasses is water vapor. Water vapor comes from the sun heating the oceans. Why dont the politicians hype water vapor?
All they talk about is CO2.
The max that CO2 can contribute to green house effect is 5%.
Humans contribute 5% of the total atmospheric CO2.
That makes our contribution to total CO2 is 0.28% .
Do you honestly believe that 0.28% can cause as much worry
and fear as the global warming community is trying to promote.
I just see another excuse for the Libs to raise taxes. :nob:
WCk

User avatar
KiteSurfingKen
Frequent Poster
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:48 pm
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: Columbus, OH, Kiteboarder
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Postby KiteSurfingKen » Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:39 am

According to NASA Satellite data the Sea Ice Extent has been on the decline in observations recorded since 1978. See more here:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... cline.html
and I quote, "As of September 2001, the trend of Arctic sea ice decline documented in the satellite record was just over 6.5 percent per decade."

Or Review the data yourself here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
They have an archive going back to the 1979 of daily polar ice information.

Further reading for those Climate Geeks among us:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~kd/KDwebpages/NHice.html
This last article has many references which support the theory that Sea ice is on the decline.

In my opinion, the planet is in a bad way and things are going to get worse before they get better. Enjoy the wind now and buy yourself a 5M for when the sh!t really hits the fan.
Good winds,
Ken
PS we are talking in Geologic time which is generally measured in thousands of years. When I say speed it up, it could still be several lifetimes (or more) before bad things happen or it could be tomorrow, no one really knows. All the more reason to enjoy the stoke and be happy now.


Return to “Kitesurfing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], jjm, MSN [Bot], RustyBullet and 11 guests