Weather Patterns / Climate Change

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Maybe it's just the mad cow disease acting up, but I think you mean 'preons'.

There is no consensus. Please stop suggesting there is.

Even if we removed every ounce of CO2 from the atmosphere, there would still be hurricanes. We'd be extinct, as would all life on Earth, but there would still be hurricanes.

You can find plenty of people who believe the universe popped into existence 6,000 years ago, too. So, no consensus there either. Still, the vast majority of cosmologists and evolutionary biologists would not agree with that notion.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Maybe it's just the mad cow disease acting up, but I think you mean 'preons'...

Actually, I'm certain he (Jim) doesn't.
A prion is an infectious protein particle similar to a virus but lacking nucleic acid, and the agent of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, like “mad cow disease” (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

The retreat of arctic ice is beyond dispute. If you need a concrete example -- small boats are routinely making the "northwest passage" now - and that has almost never happened before.

Again you make such definitive statements with no proof. The ice may be retreating, or it may be migrating. There is a thaw and refreeze cycle, and there is much debate as to whether the ice is disappearing.

As Jkleins so eloquently pointed out, none of us here is qualified to debate the science.

Eloquent or not, Jkleins is ill-informed to render that decision. I suspect he doesn't know anybody's qualifications on this board, other than his own. Scientist or not, anyone who reads the research and about the research is more than capable of forming an opinion about it and therefore able to debate its relative value.

But that says nothing about the science of whether or not climate change is happening. By confusing the science with the politics, if anything, your motivations are called into question.

In this debate, the science and politics are inextricably linked, but I have tried to debate the two issues separately. I have also (I believe) tried to keep the debate about the issue, not the debaters. Whatever my motivations, they are irrelevant to the discussion. If your sole tactic is to attempt to discredit me and the other skeptics personally, rather than to offer a compelling argument about the subject matter, then it appears your motivation is trolling. Unless that tactic changes, I will choose to ignore your posts.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

You can find plenty of people who believe the universe popped into existence 6,000 years ago, too. So, no consensus there either. Still, the vast majority of cosmologists and evolutionary biologists would not agree with that notion.

Again with the "vast majority" assertions. You still haven't answered my previous post about that.

Not nearly as impressive as the utter certainty among lay people that the vast majority of "scientists in relevant fields" support the MMGW-theory. Do you have any facts? What "relevant fields" are you including? Is paleogeology relevant? How many scientists are there in these fields, and what is the exact percentage that have stated they support MMGW-theory?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Again you make such definitive statements with no proof...

Whereas others make statements of fact which are obviously wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman
Maybe it's just the mad cow disease acting up, but I think you mean 'preons'...

Actually, I'm certain he (Jim) doesn't.
A prion is an infectious protein particle similar to a virus but lacking nucleic acid, and the agent of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, like “mad cow disease” (bovine spongiform encephalopathy), and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Again with the "vast majority" assertions. You still haven't answered my previous post about that.

ok, so you disagree with that statement? If that's what you're implying, you have just severely damaged your credibility. How many evolutionary biologists and cosmologists do you think subscribe to Young Earth Creationism?

besides, i thought you were ignoring my posts.

[jzk]

There are some "facts" about global warming that are not in dispute. The Earth has been cycling between ice ages and interglacial periods for a very long time. Temperature changes that have occurred have been significant and quick to occur. The only thing that we know for sure is that the earth's temperature has never remained constant for very long. All one has to do is look at any temperature graph of the earth's history. There will be massive spikes and temperature moves.

Look at the temperature data from this presentation:

Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data « Watts Up With That?

If you don't agree with the temperature data, provide your own. The idea is the same.

It has been much warmer than now, and it has been much colder. And, based on history, we can be assured that temperatures will be higher in the future and they will be cooler.

Throughout each of these temperature changes, some species have adapted and some became extinct. That is the way of the world.

The period between 1890 and 2001 is a very minor change compared to the rest of the Earth's timeline. Regardless of its cause, this has happened before, and the planet has survived just fine. To start blaming every possible problem on the recent temperature change is absurd. The Earth has been through it before, and will go through it again.

And, it is very difficult to pick a point on the temperature graph and determine that it is the "ideal temperature." In all reasonableness, the warmer the temperature, the better the animal and plant world will prosper.

Just 22,000 - 11,000 years ago there were glaciers in Los Angeles. How "horrible" it is that they have melted? How did man cause them to melt? Or, do they just melt on their own. I submit that the planet is better without glaciers in Los Angeles.

[sneuman]

Hey, as long as we're on the subject of motivation, I'll bite:

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by jzk

There are some "facts" about global warming that are not in dispute. The Earth has been cycling between ice ages and interglacial periods for a very long time. Temperature changes that have occurred have been significant and quick to occur. The only thing that we know for sure is that the earth's temperature has never remained constant for very long. All one has to do is look at any temperature graph of the earth's history. There will be massive spikes and temperature moves.

Look at the temperature data from this presentation:

Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data « Watts Up With That?

If you don't agree with the temperature data, provide your own. The idea is the same.

It has been much warmer than now, and it has been much colder. And, based on history, we can be assured that temperatures will be higher in the future and they will be cooler.

Throughout each of these temperature changes, some species have adapted and some became extinct. That is the way of the world.

The period between 1890 and 2001 is a very minor change compared to the rest of the Earth's timeline. Regardless of its cause, this has happened before, and the planet has survived just fine. To start blaming every possible problem on the recent temperature change is absurd. The Earth has been through it before, and will go through it again.

And, it is very difficult to pick a point on the temperature graph and determine that it is the "ideal temperature." In all reasonableness, the warmer the temperature, the better the animal and plant world will prosper.

Just 22,000 - 11,000 years ago there were glaciers in Los Angeles. How "horrible" it is that they have melted? How did man cause them to melt? Or, do they just melt on their own. I submit that the planet is better without glaciers in Los Angeles.

uh, the guy who writes that blog is a former television weatherman. This from Sourcewatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...=Anthony_Watts):

Credentials held

Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[5] with a status of "retired".[6]

Credentials not held

Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[7], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[8], and Watts posesses neither certification.[9],[10]

[jzk]

Originally Posted by sneuman

uh, the guy who writes that blog is a former television weatherman. This from Sourcewatch (Anthony Watts - SourceWatch):

Credentials held

Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[5] with a status of "retired".[6]

Credentials not held

Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[7], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[8], and Watts posesses neither certification.[9],[10]

I specifically asked that if you don't agree with the temperature data, to provide your own. You didn't dispute one single fact or idea presented by my post.

Do you assert that the Earth's temperatures have not been in a constant state of flux? Do you assert that it hasn't been warmer? Colder? What exactly do you assert?

[FrankZ]

Originally Posted by anjou

Not wishing to start a war of words over the politics of climate change, how do you see the changing climate affecting live afloat?

Apart from the obvious rise in hurricanes and the eventual rise in sea levels, all beit only a meter or so, and certainly not in my lifetime, what other situations/events do you forsee or have you noticed?

This was the original question in this thread. We have strayed quite far from that. Can we move this one back to the original topic. Please remember we don't do politics here and we like to discuss cruising and boating.

Thank you

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Whereas others make statements of fact which are obviously wrong.

If you're implying something Gord, it's unclear. Perhaps you missed the winky smiley by the mad cow comment - implying a light-hearted jab at Jim's use of prion, when he meant preon.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by jzk

I specifically asked that if you don't agree with the temperature data, to provide your own. You didn't dispute one single fact or idea presented by my post.

Do you assert that the Earth's temperatures have not been in a constant state of flux? Do you assert that it hasn't been warmer? Colder? What exactly do you assert?

But your evidence comes from a less-than-credible source and I have said I am not qualified to argue the specifics of the science.

In any case, no one disputes there have been rather significant fluctuations in temperature over geologic time. Neither would they dispute that for much of Earth's history, the planet has been inhospitible to human life. So, what's your point?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

ok, so you disagree with that statement? If that's what you're implying, you have just severely damaged your credibility. How many evolutionary biologists and cosmologists do you think subscribe to Young Earth Creationism?

besides, i thought you were ignoring my posts.

You can find plenty of people who believe the universe popped into existence 6,000 years ago, too. So, no consensus there either. Still, the vast majority of cosmologists and evolutionary biologists would not agree with that notion.

This statement is an allegorical reference to the supposed "vast majority" of climate scientists (or scientists in relevant fields) you claim support MMGW theory. Since the thread is about this and not about creationism, then that is what I am challenging. I'm now asking for the third time for you to either provide peer-reviewed empirical data that defines the percentage of the total body of scientists in the relevant fields that support the MMGW-theory, or admit it's a ******** statement and refrain from stating it again.

Unless that tactic changes, I will choose to ignore your posts.

Read again Scott - it's conditional; as a writer you should understand that tense

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If you're implying something Gord, it's unclear. Perhaps you missed the winky smiley by the mad cow comment - implying a light-hearted jab at Jim's use of prion, when he meant preon.

Lodesman:
You’re absolutely right, Jim appears to have been referring to an elemental particle, a preon. I totally misunderstood the context of your conversation, and my (more than implied) criticism was completely unjustified; for which I apologise.
Gord

PS: We also might all take note of FrankZ’s cautionary post #146.