Visit our Popular Forums

**capngeo** · 09-08-2013, 06:40

Quote:

Do I know Science? Not really! - but I know people, and can smell BS from a million miles away...........

^^^^^^^The best line of the thread^^^^^^

jtsailjt · 09-08-2013, 07:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneuman

This is simple, on one side there is heresay, conspiracy theory and politically driven babble. On the other side is a near-consensus among folks who've actually looked at the data.

Whether you care to be concerned about the "problem" (or to believe it is a problem at all) is entirely up to you. But the fact that the climate is changing is NOT in dispute.

LOL, I guess we know on which side of the political aisle you sit! And you even attempt to discredit and defame those with whom you disagree, all without posting a single word to support your own opinion, but I find that's not unusual amongst those caught up in a religious fervor when called upon to defend something they strongly "believe in" but can't prove logically or scientifically.

Of course the fact that the climate is changing, and has been changing since the beginning of time, is not in dispute! Nobody on here has claimed that. But what is causing it is still being studied, and whether it's good or bad depends a lot on where you live and what your personal opinion of what a "good" climate is.

Robwerks · 09-08-2013, 07:17

Bottom line for me is that you don't need a bunch of alarmist ******** about climate change to know that pollution sucks and is bad for the environment. The big problem I have with it is the big money boys setting up this carbon credit ******** that is supposed to curb the situation. It's total ********, the big polluters will keep on polluting because they can buy all the "carbon credits" they need, meanwhile the little guys whos "carbon footprint" is negligible will get hammered with all kinds of ******** they can't afford in order to "save the earth" while the big money boys go right on spewing their poison into the environment. The "follow the money" argument is completely legitimate if you REALLY want things to change. As with all things, the little guys must make do with less so the privileged leeches can consume massive amounts more than everyone else. I could go on and on but as with most things political, the bleeding heart yappers just don't wanna hear it and the religious whackos think god will sort it out. Good luck...

Rob

David_Old_Jersey · 09-08-2013, 07:19

Of course the answer to Climate Change is likely to be Socialism (folks acting together for the common good).

.....not sure how popular that will be everywhere.

(I am of course pretty sure how popular that will be

, at least in some places - no names

).

JK n Smitty · 09-08-2013, 07:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdreid

The level of dumb in this thread is shocking. Maybe it's a good thing these threads get locked.

Interesting. You created your account on August 8th and only have a few posts. Might be a troll, but I'll put up a quick response anyways.

As a little background to set the stage. I have degrees in geology and chemistry and work as a hydrogeologist studying and cleaning up oil and chemicals spills.

Quote:

Climate change is happening. Mankind has had a large effect on that. There are no reputable climatologists not directly funded by big energy who disagree. There are lots of ignorant righties who disagree because thats what they were told to think.

There are dogmatic believers on all sides of this issue. It is not just right wingers. There are also funding issues on both sides of this issue. Grants for research are approved by people with ideologies. Often not even scientists. To examine the available studies you have to put the funding sources beside and look at the empirical studies done and determine what the flaws in the study are (there are always flaws, it is the nature of empirical science) and what conclusions are supported by the study.

A large problem that has worked it's way into this issue is "confirmation bias". Also, forgetting that the intent of the scientific method is to prove the positive, not the negative. This sounds like a minor difference but it is significant.

And don't get me started on the difference between correlation and causation and the problems humans have with the two.

Quote:

The effects: Every continent will lose valuable land mass. Manhatten may need a dike within 100 years lest 25% of it disappear. Small island chains will disappear. That is already happening. Some agricultural regions will become unuseable. There will be some areas that become agriculturally viable. Scientists theorised that we would see more and more weather (rain, storms, winds etc) globally. Currently however most believe we will see more extreme weather rather than more. The recent hurricanes etc are Anecdotal data. No climatologist will claim they are due to climate change... the science doesnt work that way. The science is based on long term statistical data... which requires data collected over a long term.

In Denmark (the country mostly likely to be impacted by sea level rise) they have been tracking sea level for a long time. There has been an increasing trend recorded since the late 1800's (post-industrial revolution). Paleoclimate studies also indicate that there has been a historic rise in sea level since the peak of the last ice age. This historic sea level rise has had periods of drastic increase and more stable periods of less significant rise. Discerning if this documented trend from the 1800's is different from historical trends is the hard part. Some believe that a stabilization can be observed about 3,000 years ago, but other don't feel this "stability" was significant and that fluctuations can still be observed in the geologic record. The bottom line is there just isn't enough data to support a conclusion either way.

As to "more weather", there is no such thing. Weather is weather, you can't have more of it. As you point out, scientist are not running to claim that an increase in large storm intensity or frequency is related to climate change. Some notable scientists have even resigned from the IPCC and other groups when the groups tried to make these claims. The Earth's climate is constantly changing and there is seasonal variability and long-term changes. The closer you are to trend you are trying to analyze the harder it is to discern the difference between the two.

To your statement about Manhattan needing a dike to keep it dry, well that is what happens when we building in filled swamps. We have built in many places that are just plain stupid: filled swamps; barrier beaches; fault zones; on the edge of volcanoes; etc. That is just an indictment of our intelligence and our continued stupidity to rebuild in these areas. Usually with public funds, but that's another whole discussion.

Quote:

How it does/will affect us. Potential famines. More extreme weather... doesnt bode well for sailors. lots of salvage boats. Some of those little nook island nations you love may dissapear in your lifetime

Ok, you are being a bit too dramatic with this now. The IPCC estimates that by 2100 the global sea level will rise 200 to 500 millimeters. Let's put that in perspective. For those not familiar with the metric system, that's 7 to 20 inches. Here is a link to the "climate time machine" that NOAA has for kids. Take a look at how little a two foot sea level rise would really affect the southeast US coast and Bahamas.

Quote:

This is science. Neither it nor reality are affected by how you "feel", what your politics are, or who you vote for. The universe doesnt care. And like all science the scientists dont have their ego's riding on anything. The most exciting thing you can show a scientist is proof something the scientific community accepted as fact is wrong. Because that opens up whole new avenues of thought and research.

Ha ha ha! ROTFLMAO! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

Scientists have some of the biggest egos on the planet! That why they love when you prove someone else's work wrong. But prove their work wrong and you have an enemy for life. They also typically have very fragile personalities. Making them hesitant to criticize each other in public because they are afraid of insulting their colleagues.

**sneuman** · 09-08-2013, 07:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

LOL, I guess we know on which side of the political aisle you sit! And you even attempt to discredit and defame those with whom you disagree, all without posting a single word to support your own opinion, but I find that's not unusual amongst those caught up in a religious fervor when called upon to defend something they strongly "believe in" but can't prove logically or scientifically.

Of course the fact that the climate is changing, and has been changing since the beginning of time, is not in dispute! Nobody on here has claimed that. But what is causing it is still being studied, and whether it's good or bad depends a lot on where you live and what your personal opinion of what a "good" climate is.

It's not politics; it's science. It wasn't that long ago that many of these same folks were denying that climate change was happening, PERIOD. Now, they just cast side-long innuendo such as "I remember when it was global cooling!"

Even now, dozens of grammatically challenged websites are devoted to climate change denial. So, which is it?! Either a) it's happening and we didn't do it or b) it is happening and we did do it. Take your pick, there is no third option!

(And hint: the data show the same thing regardless of how you feel about Al Gore as a person)

mbianka · 09-08-2013, 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneuman

This is simple, on one side there is heresay, conspiracy theory and politically driven babble. On the other side is a near-consensus among folks who've actually looked at the data.

Whether you care to be concerned about the "problem" (or to believe it is a problem at all) is entirely up to you. But the fact that the climate is changing is NOT in dispute.

Yeah and they want to keep looking at the data as long as the money flows and the paycheck keeps coming in. Climate change has been happening long before the environmental Jesus Al Gore tried to scare everybody with his ~~global warming~~ "climate change" Powerpoint presentation and helped create the climate change industry for Michael Mann and friends. Don't want the flow of those research dollars to stop before they retire now do we.
Yeah, climate change is/has happened. This is not breaking news. If it were not for climate change I would not be sailing on Long Island Sound. I'd have to travel over 100 miles after leaving New York to find open water. Not to mention no more cruising in the Bahamas. What kind of world would that be to sail in?

Mike OReilly · 09-08-2013, 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Why is it that so many people who claim to be interested in the "science" of climate change seem to want to begin with the assumption that change will be bad, or something that needs to be "mitigated" or "adapted to?" For every location where folks would prefer the weather to be a little cooler, there's another location where it would be nice if the weather were a little warmer or wetter or dryer or windier or calmer. As a sailor in Maine, I'm in favor of warming climate trends, and if there's a downside to a longer, warmer sailing season, would love to have someone point it out, but am a bit skeptical that it's something I can count on to continue for the long term.

The problem with rapid climate change (no matter what the cause), is that it will -- it is -- producing massive upheaval in all global ecosystems. Ecosystems are where animals like us live. We are adapted to a certain, quite stable, set of living conditions. If this changes rapidly we may find our niche shrink, or disappear, all together.

THIS is the issue with climate change -- no matter what the cause. It's not that it would be nice to have some warmer days up here in northern Canada. Climate change means massive disruptions in relatively stable global systems. This means big change. Human civilization arose, and has existed in, a relatively calm climatic period. If current trends continue, it indicates this calm period may have ended. It is during these rapid periods of climate change that we see massive die-off of species, most esspecially apex species; dinosaurs being the most obvious example during the cretaceous extinction. Humans are now the apex species on this planet. It would be the epitome of arrogance to believe we won't be severely affected by rapid climate change.

BTW, believe what you will. There is near universal acceptance in the scientific community that the Earth's climate is changing rapidly, and there is a very strong consensus that human civilization is a principle cause. You can ignore the second part of the previous sentence if it fits your world view, but none of us can avoid the first part.

Capt Phil · 09-08-2013, 07:39

Climate Change? No ****, Sherlock! How did you figure that? That's why it is called Climate 'Change'... sure enough it does if you wait long enough. In some parts of the world it is called seasons. After nearly 60 decades a sea, I have certainly seen some changes in climate, so what? I fail to understand what the drama is all about... sorry... tell me something I care about. If it has anything to do with that butterfly that farted in Patagonia maybe I could get concerned. Phil

mbianka · 09-08-2013, 07:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by sneuman

So, which is it?! Either a) it's happening and we didn't do it or b) it is happening and we did do it. Take your pick, there is no third option!

George and I choose A!
George Carlin on Global Warming - YouTube

goboatingnow · 09-08-2013, 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by capngeo

Here's my take:
[*]The Earth is 3 billion-odd years old[*]It has been colder[*]it has been hotter[*]It got hotter and colder long before "man" came on the scene[*]It will get hotter/colder, long after man has gone extinct

GET OVER IT!

Yes all that's true, but overlaid on that is mans effect , an increasing effect since the industrial revolution, that cannot be denied

No disputes the earth has been cooler or hotter , what is being shown is tat the rate of change has increased. That's leaves two questions

(A) what is mankind effect on that rate of change

(B) what is the end result of that rate of change.

Dave

SailOar · 09-08-2013, 07:45

Because I am a new poster my second post (post #2 in this thread) was moderated and not posted for a number of hours. As the discussion had moved on by the time is was displayed I am begging your indulgence to re-post it.

This is an example of what I meant by referenced information regarding the thread's subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SailOar

State of the Climate in 2012: Highlights | NOAA

Worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to the 2012 State of the Climate report released online today by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). The peer-reviewed report, with scientists from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC serving as lead editors, was compiled by 384 scientists from 52 countries. It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on land, sea, ice, and sky...

Warm temperature trends continue near Earth’s surface: Four major independent datasets show 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record, ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record.
La Niña dissipates into neutral conditions: A weak La Niña dissipated during spring 2012 and, for the first time in several years, neither El Niño nor La Niña, which can dominate regional weather and climate conditions around the globe, prevailed for the majority of the year.
The Arctic continues to warm; sea ice extent reaches record low: The Arctic continued to warm at about twice the rate compared with lower latitudes. Minimum Arctic sea ice extent in September and Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in June each reached new record lows. Arctic sea ice minimum extent (1.32 million square miles, September 16) was the lowest of the satellite era. This is 18 percent lower than the previous record low extent of 1.61 million square miles that occurred in 2007 and 54 percent lower than the record high minimum ice extent of 2.90 million square miles that occurred in 1980. The temperature of permafrost, or permanently frozen land, reached record-high values in northernmost Alaska. A new melt extent record occurred July 11–12 on the Greenland ice sheet when 97 percent of the ice sheet showed some form of melt, four times greater than the average melt this time of year.
Antarctica sea ice extent reaches record high: The Antarctic maximum sea ice extent reached a record high of 7.51 million square miles on September 26. This is 0.5 percent higher than the previous record high extent of 7.47 million square miles that occurred in 2006 and seven percent higher than the record low maximum sea ice extent of 6.96 million square miles that occurred in 1986.
Sea surface temperatures increase: Four independent datasets indicate that the globally averaged sea surface temperature for 2012 was among the 11 warmest on record. After a 30-year period from 1970 to 1999 of rising global sea surface temperatures, the period 2000–2012 exhibited little trend. Part of this difference is linked to the prevalence of La Niña-like conditions during the 21st century, which typically lead to lower global sea surface temperatures.
Ocean heat content remains near record levels: Heat content in the upper 2,300 feet, or a little less than one-half mile, of the ocean remained near record high levels in 2012. Overall increases from 2011 to 2012 occurred between depths of 2,300 to 6,600 feet and even in the deep ocean.
Sea level reaches record high: Following sharp decreases in global sea level in the first half of 2011 that were linked to the effects of La Niña, sea levels rebounded to reach record highs in 2012. Globally, sea level has been increasing at an average rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year over the past two decades.
Ocean salinity trends continue: Continuing a trend that began in 2004, oceans were saltier than average in areas of high evaporation, including the central tropical North Pacific, and fresher than average in areas of high precipitation, including the north central Indian Ocean, suggesting that precipitation is increasing in already rainy areas and evaporation is intensifying in drier locations.
Tropical cyclones near average: Global tropical cyclone activity during 2012 was near average, with a total of 84 storms, compared with the 1981–2010 average of 89. Similar to 2010 and 2011, the North Atlantic was the only hurricane basin that experienced above-normal activity.
Greenhouse gases climb: Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, continued to rise during 2012. Following a slight decline in manmade emissions associated with the global economic downturn, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production reached a record high in 2011 of 9.5 ± 0.5 petagrams (1,000,000,000,000,000 grams) of carbon, and a new record of 9.7 ± 0.5 petagrams of carbon is estimated for 2012. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 2.1 ppm in 2012, reaching a global average of 392.6 ppm for the year. In spring 2012, for the first time, the atmospheric CO2 concentration exceeded 400 ppm at several Arctic observational sites.
Cool temperature trends continue in Earth’s lower stratosphere: The average lower stratospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth’s surface, for 2012 was record to near-record cold, depending on the dataset. Increasing greenhouse gases and decline of stratospheric ozone tend to cool the stratosphere while warming the planet near-surface layers.

...The full report can be viewed by visiting BAMS State of the Climate | - 2012.

Andrew B. · 09-08-2013, 07:58

Finally a winner. Saving a nice Cuban for ya Mark...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkJ

1st post and its a subject like this?

Troll.

**sneuman** · 09-08-2013, 07:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The problem with rapid climate change (no matter what the cause), is that it will -- it is -- producing massive upheaval in all global ecosystems. Ecosystems are where animals like us live. We are adapted to a certain, quite stable, set of living conditions. If this changes rapidly we may find our niche shrink, or disappear, all together.

THIS is the issue with climate change -- no matter what the cause. It's not that it would be nice to have some warmer days up here in northern Canada. Climate change means massive disruptions in relatively stable global systems. This means big change. Human civilization arose, and has existed in, a relatively calm climatic period. If current trends continue, it indicates this calm period may have ended. It is during these rapid periods of climate change that we see massive die-off of species, most esspecially apex species; dinosaurs being the most obvious example during the cretaceous extinction. Humans are now the apex species on this planet. It would be the epitome of arrogance to believe we won't be severely affected by rapid climate change.

BTW, believe what you will. There is near universal acceptance in the scientific community that the Earth's climate is changing rapidly, and there is a very strong consensus that human civilization is a principle cause. You can ignore the second part of the previous sentence if it fits your world view, but none of us can avoid the first part.

Absolutely! There's another thread current right now about someone doing a Northwest Passage. That's becoming routine in the summer months now because of the extensive retreat of Arctic ice. Sea rise is already resulting. If you live in places such as Vanuatu or the Maldives, you're not laughing about this.