Weather Patterns / Climate Change

[jzk]

Originally Posted by hpeer

So Joli, I take it then that YOU are CONVINCED that there is no potential threat what so ever and that we should just ignore the whole GW thing?

And you are so sure of your correctness that you will deny my right to a more conservative and cautious approach?

What is your approach? Taxing me? Passing laws that restrict my economic activity? And that is because we can't be convinced that there is no threat what so ever from GW? If you think that you can control the temperature of the planet by not eating meat, then by all means, have at it. But, please don't tell me that I can't eat meat, can't drive a car, or make me pay a tax based on my "carbon footprint."

[Joli]

Originally Posted by hpeer

So Joli, I take it then that YOU are CONVINCED that there is no potential threat what so ever and that we should just ignore the whole GW thing?

And you are so sure of your correctness that you will deny my right to a more conservative and cautious approach?

Well, here is the temperature graph for the past 50,000 years with the infamous "hockey stick" authored by Micheal Mann and roundly disproven but hey, live your life any way you want.



Cheers Joli

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

You do understand the difference between a population and a sample, don't you? You've obviously confused the two:

Yes. The researchers contacted 10200 experts and used the the data from 3146. We don't know the researchers' methology, or why they used this particular sub-sample. All we know is 2831 (90% of 3146) agreed with statement 1 and less agreed with statement 2. We don't know what the other 7 questions were. There's no stated statistical accuracy. We can be reasonably certain the researchers are not statisticians, and can speculate that their stats may be as bogus as the Yamal tree ring stats.
What we can agree on is that of 10200 experts listed in the AGI's 2007 Directory, less than a third agreed with the notion there is MMGW.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by MichaelC

It takes more than one non conforming observation to disprove a theory. A theory is a statement which best describes and explains a body of data...

... The Gulf Stream has moved south a bit and has decreased intensity by 20% over the last decade. [I've been trying to find my sources for this and can't find them. When I do, I will post it here. But I won't make much money wether you believe me or not ... ]

The IPCC (the world's largest scientific panel) believe it is very likely that the Gulf Stream will slow down during the 21st Century but very unlikely it will undergo a ‘large abrupt transition’. The average reduction predicted by the various models used is 25%. This slowing will have a cooling effect but the temperature will still increase in the region overall. This suggests that the British Isles, especially western regions, will see a significantly smaller temperature increase than other areas of land mass.

A Pentagon report* from early 2004, posits the shut down of the Gulf Stream by 2020

As usual, the media sensationalises, misrepresents and exaggerates the story. Unfortunately, the basic premise remains (it's possible, & if so, disasterous!!!), to the best of our knowledge, true.

➥ Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | Environment | The Observer

➥ The Pentagon and Climate Change - Monthly Review

* The actual report:
“An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and its Implications for United States National Security”
➥ http://www.gbn.com/articles/pdfs/Abr...ary%202004.pdf

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by jzk

What is your approach? Taxing me? Passing laws that restrict my economic activity? And that is because we can't be convinced that there is no threat what so ever from GW? If you think that you can control the temperature of the planet by not eating meat, then by all means, have at it. But, please don't tell me that I can't eat meat, can't drive a car, or make me pay a tax based on my "carbon footprint."

So are you gonna melt if you cut back on meat or have to pay a little more for you fuel? That is the cost of insurance that we don't in the end make the planet uninhabitable.

Your "right" to eat meat trumps my kids right to a habitable world?

So you wanna play Russian Roulette go ahead, but leave me, and my kids, out.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by jkleins

If you really think you can "read the research" and make an opinion that is as valid as all the major scientific panels that have ever been put together to analyze this then you have a very high opinion of your capabilities. I don't have as much trust in my own omnipotence.

Jim

I don't trust your "omnipotence" either.

Read the IPCC's reports - I mean really digest how they've worded everything; they are nowhere near as certain about GW/CC as some of the folks on this forum. Then read some of the supporting literature; particularly from the moderate researchers. And read some of the skeptics' stuff too. If you really need someone with post-nominals to make up your mind for you, then check out climatechallenge.org and climateaudit.org
I certainly trust my own capabilities over the media's capacity to report it to me truthfully.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by hpeer

That is the cost of insurance that we don't in the end make the planet uninhabitable.

Don't you think that it is a little silly to think that taxing trade can lower the Earth's temperature? I mean, honestly.

Did you see the temperature graph that Joli posted? The temperatures that we are experiencing now are merely business as usual. The Earth's climate bounces around like a ping pong ball. It has for a very long time and will continue for a very long time.

[Joli]

More questions? If carbon is a leading indicator of temperature rise then how is this explained? Maybe carbon is a trailing indicator, there are some scientist that believe that.

Originally Posted by jzk

Don't you think that it is a little silly to think that taxing trade can lower the Earth's temperature? I mean, honestly.

Did you see the temperature graph that Joli posted? The temperatures that we are experiencing now are merely business as usual. The Earth's climate bounces around like a ping pong ball. It has for a very long time and will continue for a very long time.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Joli

More questions? If carbon is a leading indicator of temperature rise then how is this explained? Maybe carbon is a trailing indicator, there are some scientist that believe that.

Joli,

What are you asking me? I think that you and I agree here.

[Joli]

Why tax a trailing indicator? If temperature change occurs before a change in carbon then carbon is not the cause. (ie man is not the cause and is helpless to effect change)

[CarlF]

This thread is another example of how much trouble most people have thinking about uncertain things.

My chance of dying in a commercial plane crash is about .000011% but I support government spending and pay high taxes on my ticket against that small chance.

It is clear to almost all that there is a higher than .000011% chance that global warming will wipe out substantial part of our civilization and significantly impact my and my childrens' lives in a negative way. There is also a bigger than .000011% chance that mankind could do something to stop this. I'm for doing something.

But...let me throw out something to start a sailing related argument.....

To the OP's question. Many climate predictions suggest that climate change will result in increased wind speeds in many parts of the globe. This would suggest a need for more seaworthy boats that can deal with higher wind speeds and bigger seas. It seems pretty likely to me that climate change will favor monohulls over cats ... oh, and we'll need better anchors too


Carl

[jzk]

Originally Posted by Joli

Why tax a trailing indicator? If temperature change occurs before a change in carbon then carbon is not the cause. (ie man is not the cause and is helpless to effect change)

I agree with you. I wouldn't tax any of it. It is silly to think that man made CO2 causes climate change. Look at how much CO2 there is compared to water vapor, the real greenhouse gas.

If we were to discover that man made CO2 can raise the temperature of the earth, we would do well to harness that power and use it to prevent an ice age. But for now, it is silliness. It is akin to sacrificing a goat to make it rain.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by jzk

Don't you think that it is a little silly to think that taxing trade can lower the Earth's temperature? I mean, honestly.

Did you see the temperature graph that Joli posted? The temperatures that we are experiencing now are merely business as usual. The Earth's climate bounces around like a ping pong ball. It has for a very long time and will continue for a very long time.

No I don't think that it is silly at all. CarlF seems to get the point alright.

What I think is silly is ignoring the scientific consensus. It is especially silly the consequences could be catastrophic.

Once of the things I touch on in my work is "Hazard Analysis." In general you define a certain degree of likelihood against the severity of the occurrence. There are recognized standards for this practice, normal systems engineering. It goes into most all government sponsored programs.

By those criteria, the same criteria we apply to the design of a transit system, we would be required to take mitigating steps in the case of global warming. Not because we know with certainty that it will lead to problems but because we can not prove it will not.

Frankly it is just common sense.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by CarlF

This thread is another example of how much trouble most people have thinking about uncertain things...

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion from the IPCC’s report, which states (in part):
“... An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system ...
... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities ...”

A very few individual scientists have dissented, in whole, or in part. In point of fact though, climate change sceptics are a dying breed in the scientific community. There is a reason for this. The IPCC report is solidly based on scientific practise and is reviewed by leading scientists within all fields included in the report.

The IPCC report is important to the debate on global warming because it is a document created by scientists serving as representatives of every participating country’s scientific community. The Report may be wrong (almost certainly in part or detail, or even for the most part), but it remains the most definitive scientific standpoint on global warming.

Of course it’s possible that all of these renowned scientists & organizations have been suborned into a global conspiracy (perhaps the New World Order) to dupe us all; but, absent evidence, not very likely.




The IPCC report is important to the debate on global warming because it is a document created by scientists serving as representatives of every participating country’s scientific community. The report is therefore the most definitive standpoint on global warming.

[hummingway]

If it has already been said I apoligize in advance. Each of the cycles of heating in the past that appear to be similiuar to this one have included an increase in CO2 levels. When the earth heats up more CO2 is released as the cycles of decomposition increase in speed and volume. The difference in this cycle from others is that the CO2 rates are increasing ahead of the temperatures. James Hansen's (NASA climatologist) record for prognostication is pretty good and when he first suggested that their might be a problem he also said that the smoking gun would be when the temperature of the oceans rose since they are largest heat sink on the planet. The temperatures of the oceans have risen. Despite his governments efforts to muzzle him Hansen continues to speak out. He's the one who first presented the CO2 findings. He continues to stress the importance of keeping the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere low. His credentials are good - director of the Goddard Space Sciences Institute.