Climate Change

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Who, among we cruisers, is willing to claim that he/she “knows what he’s talking about*”, regarding the climate sciences ? Not I.

* Claims scientific expertise.

Nobody except a publishing climate scientist may claim scientific expertise.

The best any of us can do, is to become knowlegeable about what the experts are publishing.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are the very small “straw that broke the camel’s back”, of the natural carbon cycle.

Therein lies the flaw in the entire global warming theory. The radical environmentalists push the idea that the Earth is inherently unstable, and that the environment is a delicate balance that, if disrupted, will lead to disaster. Furthermore, the only way to save everything is to halt progress and impose government control on every aspect of your life.

In reality, the Earth is inherently stable. It has a great ability to deal with, and adjust to the worst possible geological events. A massive volcano? It kills everything for miles. A few years later, new life replaces that which was lost. Aside from nuclear weapons, humans would have a difficult time interfering with nature if we tried. Pave a runway with concrete? A few decades after abandonment, nature takes over, turns it to rubble, and plants and trees are growing right where it was.

Hyping environmental problems is not a new phenomena. But calling CO2 a "pollutant?" CO2 is a very natural chemical that is required in photosynthesis. A "pollutant?" I think not.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

Nobody except a publishing climate scientist may claim scientific expertise.

The best any of us can do, is to become knowlegeable about what the experts are publishing.

So far I haven't seen any such claims, except as implied from you. However, an expert with an agenda is much more dangerous than an ordinary person with common sense.

[jzk]

Here is a question for the Global Warming advocates.

What if there was a way to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere to what you would consider "normal" that would not hurt the environment in any other way. For example, what if dumping iron into the Ocean stimulated plankton growth in such away as to reduce the amount of CO2 but not disturb the environment in any way.

Would you go for it and allow the continued use of fossil fuels so long as the CO2 was offset?

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

These types of trends aren't measured over 5 year time scales.

Instead of simply 'stating' that, maybe you could back it up with a scientific journal reference? I'd be interested to read a reviewed, published article that claimed new undersea arctic volcanoes put out enough heat to melt ice caps, as it seems you claim. Can you please find me that reference?

Sure...here's the article.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-fut062508.php
not published or peer reviewed but certainly the Woods Hole Group is reliable. The findings are reported in Nature Magazine.
Note I did not say volcanoes melted the ice caps. What I did say is that current changes and volcanic activity which was previously thought impossible might be responsible for the higher melt...after all I've been just told above that real climate change can't be based on a few years...so I suppose a dip in the ice at one pole in a short span...accompanied by record ice at the other pole in a short span can't be considered climate change either. My point is...if you can't MEASURE any change in temperature then you can't BLAME the melt on global warming and OTHER NATURAL THINGS we don't well understand may be at work.

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by Amgine

Can anyone point to a noted and respected climatologist who does not accept human-influenced climate change? If ya can't, then who the heck are you believing? Falwell? Helms?

Why are people looking to disagree with the people who they admit are the most knowledgeable about the subject? Do you really think a layman's prosey understanding of the research and methodology is likely to refute the scholarly arguments of the 1960s to 1980s?

How about 197 climate scientists instead of just one.
http://www.climatescienceinternation...id=66&Itemid=1
BTW..the Manhattan declaration they and many other scientists and policy makers signed reads:
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

“Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis....MORE...
http://www.climatescienceinternation...id=37&Itemid=1

[Amgine]

After a half hour or so of paging through "D Evans" articles related to climate I think I've been able to tease out this person's work from that of the respected cimatologists...

If I'm correct, he's been involved in a couple of articles about environmental management - not climatology. Never as first author. Not to diminish his work, it's just not what we were talking about.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Sure...here's the article.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-fut062508.php
not published or peer reviewed but certainly the Woods Hole Group is reliable. The findings are reported in Nature Magazine.
Note I did not say volcanoes melted the ice caps. What I did say is that current changes and volcanic activity which was previously thought impossible might be responsible for the higher melt...<snip>

I'm sorry, but that is not at all what I asked for. All that is, is a blurb talking about volcanoes. It says nothing, absolutely nothing, about undersea volcanoes being able (or even "might" be able) to melt ice caps.

Who/what did you hear give that speculation? Did it include talk of specific heat, the volume of water, and units of energy? I'm asking because it sounds pretty fantastic.

I wonder how many "climate scientists" in that list are actual publishing researchers in the field. I doubt many. I've seen that tactic before (via Heartland Institute).

[Robertcateran]

If there is a 10% chance that there is significant anthropogenic warming, then they are still good enough odds to decide to do something about it. If there was a 10% chance of getting a bad dose of salmonellafrom food hygiene, I'd certainly modify my behaviour. The probabilities sem to be a lot higher.
There is all this crap about how cutting down on CO2 buildup will have a disasterous effect on our lives. It is possible to live with much lower use and have a healthier population , both physically and socially. Children can no longer play ball in the street, or walk home from school because of the dominance of the motor vehicle in our cities.
I live quite well using by bicycle around. Anything under 15-20km is no hassle and probably no slower as it is easier to park and I feel much better for it. I am nearly 60. I have a friend who is nearly 80 and she has no problem doing the same. How many billions are spent on obesity problems in our cities. The saving in medical care would easily pay fr the other measures needed, such as better insulation of houses and solar electricity.
Robert

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Robertcateran

If there is a 10% chance that there is significant anthropogenic warming, then they are still good enough odds to decide to do something about it. If there was a 10% chance of getting a bad dose of salmonellafrom food hygiene, I'd certainly modify my behaviour. The probabilities sem to be a lot higher.
There is all this crap about how cutting down on CO2 buildup will have a disasterous effect on our lives. It is possible to live with much lower use and have a healthier population , both physically and socially. Children can no longer play ball in the street, or walk home from school because of the dominance of the motor vehicle in our cities.
I live quite well using by bicycle around. Anything under 15-20km is no hassle and probably no slower as it is easier to park and I feel much better for it. I am nearly 60. I have a friend who is nearly 80 and she has no problem doing the same. How many billions are spent on obesity problems in our cities. The saving in medical care would easily pay fr the other measures needed, such as better insulation of houses and solar electricity.
Robert

Ok, I will bite on this one. If your little boy was causing a ruckus in school, like little boys do, and the "experts" at your school told you that he had a new disease called "ADHD," and that they recommended that they administer powerful sometimes halucinigenic drugs to him to calm him down, would you rely on the "experts," or would you use a little common sense? What if you thought there was a 10% chance that your little boy actually had this new ADHD, would you drug him up? Or would you think to yourself - what is the worst that can happen to an untreated ADHD kid? What did all the other untreated ADHD kids throughout all of history do? Come on people. Use your own brains and stop sucking up to the nonsense promoted by so called "experts."

I wouldn't drug up my kid, and I am not turning over control of my life to the government.

[Robertcateran]

A good point. What is the worst that can happen with global warming? Check out the possibilities What is the worst that can happen if we modify our behaviour? We reduce our chances of diabetes, heart disease, the need for viagra and opinionated, boring old farts like me live a bit longer. Even without the global warming probability the coral reefs are definitely going to go with the increased CO2 inducing acidification.This is not modeling but simple high school chemistry and strong experimental data on coral grown under higher CO2 levels. I deal with the scientists working on this as part of my expertise as an algal physiologist dealing with the symbiotic algae in coral. That should be enough surely to modify behaviour for any body who cares about being on the ocean. I do not see that modifying our lifestyle to be healthier and less profligate is similar to doling out drugs.
I cannot see your point abut the government taking over your life. Living in society we have constraints. My wife objects strongly if I do a loud smelly fart in company. I wear clothes to avoid upsetting people's sensibilities. I reduce my water use in drought. I cannot see the problem of reducing my CO2 output to help save coral reefs from destruction. If you feel that you have the right to continue to destroy those reefs, then I am not on your wavelength. Please do a google of coral reefs and ocean acidification and see what you come up with.

Sorry for the slight hijack of thread Gordon, but it is fairly closely associated- anthropogenic CO2 inducing global damage.
Robert

[Chief Engineer]

It is all gonna be over in 2012 anyhoo.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by roverhi

If there is global warming, why has the ocean sea level barely increased??

It's called displacement. Ice floats! So when it melts it still takes up the same space it did before it melted. Fill a bowl with ice cubes and add water to the top. When the ice melts the bowl does not over flow. If anything it lowers due to the air in the ice and shrinking of volume.

As for glaciers they carve out the land as they move creating more water front area, just like our Puget Sound here. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/p...r/geology.html
http://www.pugetsoundkeeper.org/abou...geology-folder

BTW It would be nice if they send a little global warming our way. This has been the coldest summer we've had for a long time. Only the last couple weeks has the temps been above 65º F at night. And we've only had a few hot days (in the 80's or above) Right now we have a cold front moving thru dumping rain.

[MidLandOne]

Originally Posted by Chief Engineer

It is all gonna be over in 2012 anyhoo.

Yep, I agree. Must be so as you make more sense than some of these environmental activists with zero economic sense and think the world can exist on bicycles and composting toilets.

I am no climate scientist but am scietist enough to keep an open mind. I am trained to identify mumbo jumbo when I see it and I see far more of it on the environmentalist activist side than on the other.

[JiffyLube]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Who, among we cruisers, is willing to claim that he/she “knows what he’s talking about*”, regarding the climate sciences ? Not I.

* Claims scientific expertise.

Nor do I, and I don't worry about it either. Here's the funny thing about getting the world to reduce CO2 and other emissions. While the 1st world countries are trying to do something about reducing emissions, the rest of the world is just discovering the freedoms that we have long enjoyed (that have contributed to the topic of this discussion), and now they want what we have been enjoying. Once the developing countries get into high gear, any efforts the 1st world countries try to make will be erased.