Can't take much more of this global warming

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

No it's short for anthropogenic climate change,

Dave

Hmmmm....Not according to Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT...but hey...everyone needs their Religion.
What Catastrophe? | The Weekly Standard

I thought we already solved this in the "Save the Planet Thread". Man will do nothing about it, and in 100yrs we will get to see who was right, and who were wrong, and who was in it for the Government Reserach Grants. Even if the USA ended all CO2 emissions TODAY, it doesn't matter...so worry away if you want. Me, I have a boat with a chore list to worry about.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Hmmmm....Not according to Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT...but hey...everyone needs their Religion.
What Catastrophe? | The Weekly Standard

He does seem to be wrong quite often..

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...nge-scepticism

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Hmmmm....Not according to Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT...but hey...everyone needs their Religion.
What Catastrophe? | The Weekly Standard

I thought we already solved this in the "Save the Planet Thread". Man will do nothing about it, and in 100yrs we will get to see who was right, and who were wrong.

Lindzen thinks that climate science is as settled as tobacco science. He questioned a correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourm...transcript.pdf

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by conachair

He does seem to be wrong quite often..

The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

Going to the UK Gardian for Climante news is almost as bad as going to the Weekly Standard...like I said...everyone needs their Religion. But it is fun to watch knowing even if we stopped all CO2 emissions nothing would change...so why try...easy...see point about Religion.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Going to the UK Gardian for Climante news is almost as bad as going to the Weekly Standard...like I said...everyone needs their Religion. But it is fun to watch knowing even if we stopped all CO2 emissions nothing would change...so why try...easy...see point about Religion.

More detail on a wrong lindzen..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-from-lindzen/

How do you know nothing would change?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by conachair

How do you know nothing would change?

From the MMGW Religion's own climate models....take away the USA's CO2 and zapo-nada...folks. No changes we all die or do we? It isn't about CO2...it is about control. Gotta love the increased amount of CO2 in the last 20yrs and yet...a pause ...back to my Boat chore list. I've leave this one to those who gave up their cars and home heating....but wait, you haven't done that yet....then frankly you do care enough about the planet obviously and need to buy a carbon credit endulgence from the Church.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

From the MMGW Religion's own climate models....take away the USA's CO2 and zapo-nada...folks. No changes we all die or do we? It isn't about CO2...it is about control. Gotta love the increased amount of CO2 in the last 20yrs and yet...a pause ...back to my Boat chore list. I've leave this one to those who gave up their cars and home heating....but wait, you haven't done that yet....then frankly you do care enough about the planet obviously and need to buy a carbon credit endulgence from the Church.

Righto.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Gotta love the increased amount of CO2 in the last 20yrs and yet...a pause ..

Odd definition of pause

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Odd definition of pause

...that discredited data again for the love of pete...why not just say "becasue I say so"...or better yet "because I want some more grant money". But to ruin the reputation of Science for a political agenda, for this scientist is hard to watch.

[Celestialsailor]

It was a cool 73F today and threatening 60 through the night. Fortunately going back into the 80s tomorrow...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

...that discredited data again for the love of pete...why not just say "becasue I say so"...or better yet "because I want some more grant money". But to ruin the reputation of Science for a political agenda, for this scientist is hard to watch.

OK from Roy Spencer and John Christy - two avowed AGW deniers.



This is as close to a pause as you will get.



Even Spencer and Christy dispute RSS as it uses old satellites with decaying orbits.

And Christy had this at the end of the year

2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

why not just say "becasue I say so"...or better yet "because I want some more grant money". But to ruin the reputation of Science for a political agenda, for this scientist is hard to watch.

Ok, you're busted.

1) You're asserting that climate scientists are actually fudging their findings... wait - make that peer-reviewed findings - for grant money. And it would have to be just about the whole field, cos if just a few were fakers, the rest would call them on it. So, you're saying the whole field of climate science is corrupt. You do know that the vast majority of scientists make... fractions of the usual corporate exec salary, right? Grant or no grant.

2) You're suggesting that grant money would be a more corrupting influence than oil/coal/gas money - industries who make nice fat profits, get preferential tax rates and other incentives. Industries whose expensed lunches alone would dwarf all climate research grants.

You want us to believe that climate scientists have a greater motivation to fudge data than the fossil-fuel industry has to preserve the status quo.

Right.

Tell me, did you at any point think that the AMA had a greater interest in fudging clinical data than big tobacco had in denying and stifling the proof that tobacco can cause cancer?

(for those keeping score at home, I'm calling this one denier dogma #2. #1 is the "Al Gore" thing)

[Nicholson58]

Just remember that where I sit (Michigan) there was 6 MILES of ice 12,000 years ago. It has been both much hotter and much colder here. The previous 100,000 years were ebb & flow ice ages. It came to an abrupt end when a comet struck Chicago and melted the whole mess, raised the ocean level 300 feet and raised the average temperature 20 F. The glaciers have been melting ever since but human nature makes us need to place blame. Up until a couple years or so ago the scientists were not even including the solar cycle in their model. Prior to that, they deleted the high elevation Andes temperature reporting stations for the data base. S America averages now look hotter. Duhhh.

I attached average world temperature charts for the last 100,000 years. Note in particular how nasty (inhospitable) and unpredictable the temperatures were through the ice ages. Note how modern man was made possible in only the last 10,000 years. Exodus from Africa was along southern borders because the north was inundated with miles of ice. Also note that the trend over the last 10,00 years is gradually cooler. Note in the Perspectives slide the swings we have endured in the last 4500 years. Not one bit of this had anything to do with how much dung our ancestors burned.

We might better be asking what Earth thinks is normal. What will happen when the effects or the last comet hit, volcano, solar cycle ceases to keep the planet habitable. If this shows us nothing else - be very careful what you wish for - you might just get it.

The last thing I am willing to do is let the government use questionable voodoo to tax us into poverty and destroy modern man.

On the matter of conservation and stewardship of our resources, oil is much more important as a feed stock for everything we make and use. I agree we need to find another way to make our vehicles roll down the road. Taxing the snot out of production is not the way. The model for this is the house in Vegas taking a cut of everything that smells like money. The sooner the gov't stops micromanaging everything and gets out of the way the better. When you say we need them to fix it, just remember Post Office, Social Security, Veterans Administration and more failures too numerous to mention. They are really good at one thing for sure - blowing stuff up.

Be educated, be aware. Don't take the bait hook line & sinker.

[lifeofreilly57]

Gotta laugh, working on top of a 100' tower in February in Massachusetts at 2 in the morning convinced me to go back to college over 30 years ago, just got back in from working on the backhoe in 8f weather so I can pull the motor out of one of the boats in the fleet. Not sure I'm all there, probably why I love being on the water. Of course our future cruising plans are in warmer climates.
Cheers

[jackdale]

We know that natural cycles worked for millions of years. Then we had this great idea of releasing sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere.

Since 1751 approximately 365 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these fossil-fuel CO2 emissions have occurred since the mid 1980s. The 2010 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 9167 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 4.9% increase over 2009 emissions. The increase marks a quick recovery from the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis which had obvious economic and energy use consequences, particularly in North America and Europe.

Globally, liquid and solid fuels accounted for 75.8% of the emissions from fossil-fuel burning and cement production in 2010. Combustion of gas fuels (e.g., natural gas) accounted for 18.6% (1702 million metric tons of carbon) of the total emissions from fossil fuels in 2010 and reflects a gradually increasing global utilization of natural gas. Emissions from cement production (450 million metric tons of carbon in 2010) have more than doubled since the late 1990s and now represent 4.9% of global CO2 releases from fossil-fuel burning and cement production. Gas flaring, which accounted for roughly 2% of global emissions during the 1970s, now accounts for less than 1% of global fossil-fuel releases.

The thermostat is broken. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/)