Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 21-01-2016, 10:19   #2041
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,966
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simonsays View Post
reflection vs absorption. the less ice covered water the more sunlight is absorbed (=more heat). thats why extent is the interesting measure, not volume.
This was referred to in earlier posts as the "albedo" effect. https://www.esr.org/outreach/glossary/albedo.html. IIRC, this gave rise to the "death spiral" theory, namely that warming will result in reductions in sea ice, which will result in more heat absorption, which will produce more warming, which will prevent the formation of more sea ice, etc., etc.

The only trouble is the observed evidence of more Arctic sea ice forming in the last couple of years, which some scientists like Judith Curry predicted. In Antarctica, some scientists defend the continued warming by pointing out that the new ice is formed by increased snowfall, which is itself the result of warming. Seems all quite theoretical at this point. But assuming the observations & predictions of additional Arctic sea ice are correct, how would you explain?
__________________

__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 10:28   #2042
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,966
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
The temperatures are artificially inflated due to many sensor stations being now located in heat islands . IMO
The counter-argument seems to be that this is accounted for in the "adjustments." But the more recent data adjustments seem to all be upwards, or maybe the claim is that the temps in the heat islands (urban areas, for e.g.) are properly adjusted downwards, but are outweighed by other necessary upward adjustments. Not something that seems easy to get a handle on, at least for me.
__________________

__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 10:42   #2043
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,966
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simonsays View Post
i planted a tree when i was a kid.
my CO2 balance should be even.
unless someone pulled that tree out while i was away the last 30 years...
hmm....
Freeman Dyson calculated that planting one trillion fast-growing trees would bring the supposedly excess CO2 back into balance (whatever that is). Sounds easy, no?
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 10:43   #2044
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 4,057
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
The counter-argument seems to be that this is accounted for in the "adjustments." But the more recent data adjustments seem to all be upwards, or maybe the claim is that the temps in the heat islands (urban areas, for e.g.) are properly adjusted downwards, but are outweighed by other necessary upward adjustments. Not something that seems easy to get a handle on, at least for me.
Hence my issue with the readings. The temps in city's and at airport control towers. Are inflated by local effects. All other readings seem to be adjusted upwards to match them.
Here is one thing they seem to not want to point to the mean temperatures of 2015 and 1939 seem to be rather similar to each other.
__________________
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 10:51   #2045
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 4,057
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Now on to other cc fronts mother just threw another wrench into the works 5 new volcanic eruptions that we know of this week. Global Volcanism Program | Smithsonian / USGS Weekly Volcanic Activity Report
__________________
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 10:54   #2046
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,519
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Now on to other cc fronts mother just threw another wrench into the works 5 new volcanic eruptions that we know of this week. Global Volcanism Program | Smithsonian / USGS Weekly Volcanic Activity Report
That's really going to mess up Jack's data. His scientific cut and paste projections are based on no major volcanic activity over the next 100 years.
__________________
Kenomac is online now  
Old 21-01-2016, 11:01   #2047
Marine service provider
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 4,057
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
That's really going to mess up Jack's data. His scientific cut and paste projections are based on no major volcanic activity over the next 100 years.
Gotta love monkey wrenches
__________________
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 12:02   #2048
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,519
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

SolarCity slashing 550 jobs in Navada alone because even with the huge government subsidies, the numbers just don't add up.

Hmmmm...... Who could have seen this one coming?

If solar doesn't make economic sense in a sunny state like Nevada, how can it work and make sense anywhere else?

Flare-Out? Mega-solar company slashing jobs despite gov't benefits | Fox News
__________________
Kenomac is online now  
Old 21-01-2016, 12:45   #2049
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Germany
Boat: 2ft wide dreaming chair
Posts: 311
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
The only trouble is the observed evidence of more Arctic sea ice forming in the last couple of years, which some scientists like Judith Curry predicted. In Antarctica, some scientists defend the continued warming by pointing out that the new ice is formed by increased snowfall, which is itself the result of warming. Seems all quite theoretical at this point. But assuming the observations & predictions of additional Arctic sea ice are correct, how would you explain?
i have no idea.
what i did read though is that the average ice age was decreasing, i.e. there is plenty of new ice forming each winter but it's all melting in summer.
and fresh ice is not very sufficient in reflecting.
is that still the case?
also, the glaciers that are retreating globaly did not get a break, did they?
__________________
Simonsays is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 12:50   #2050
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Germany
Boat: 2ft wide dreaming chair
Posts: 311
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
SolarCity slashing 550 jobs in Navada alone because even with the huge government subsidies, the numbers just don't add up.

Hmmmm...... Who could have seen this one coming?

If solar doesn't make economic sense in a sunny state like Nevada, how can it work and make sense anywhere else?

Flare-Out? Mega-solar company slashing jobs despite gov't benefits | Fox News
there were some world leading solar producers here in Germany that had to shut down despite governement subsidies and even EU subsidies but they just could not compete with the Chinese.
that was at a time Solar was booming here in Europe.
Companies closing facilities has nothing to do with commercial success, only with shareholder value.
__________________
Simonsays is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 12:56   #2051
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Germany
Boat: 2ft wide dreaming chair
Posts: 311
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Freeman Dyson calculated that planting one trillion fast-growing trees would bring the supposedly excess CO2 back into balance (whatever that is). Sounds easy, no?
ok so i am 100 trees short?
that is what that guerrillia gardening is about, that has been going on in several european cities ,)
__________________
Simonsays is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 12:57   #2052
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,966
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
There's more accountability in government than in the private sector. For starters, the fact that you can find out the salary and other info of senior people in the public sector, the fact that they must respond to FOIA. Try finding out all the funding behind Heartland or similar 'institutes'. Try getting their emails and files.

Right now, I'd settle for a little more accountability from you, or at least a bit of research prior to posting. Heartland is a nonprofit under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. As a result, they have to file and publicly disclose their tax returns every year. There are other disclosure requirements from financials to board members to funding sources. Many nonprofits voluntarily disclose well beyond these requirements, while others hide. Remember, that's how we found out about Shukla's shenanigans. Here's a good start, and you can register for free to get a lot more of the info you listed above. Organization Report. E-mails & files are a different matter due to privacy, privilege, & other justifiable legal concerns. FOIA won't get you work product, for example. So you're suddenly now OK with FOIA, provided it's not used to get info from NASA, NOAA, and other govt agencies involved in climate research?

Also, let's analyze a bit: if the financials around Shukli are proven, you have a guy who's enriched himself and his family to the tune of a few millions, over several years. ($750k/yr - that's just a bit above median salary on Wall St, isn't it?). With no proof yet that he's fudged any of the science, or how bending scientific results enabled any of the double-dipping. Now take a fossil-fuel company, and if they can block action on AGW, they've protected BILLIONS in profit. Tell me again who's more motivated to twist the truth.

Unlike the tobacco litigation, I haven't seen much if any evidence that either side has deliberately "twisted the truth." More like when Mann & Co. first came out with his alarmist predictions, scientists outside his own, insulated peer group sought to look at the underlying data and challenge it if need be, and those efforts were thwarted. Human beings have an understandable tendency to want to preserve their reputations, and are therefore resistant to those that challenge them. Same for politicians, although for different reasons. Either way, once you stake your reputation based on the "data," you predictably become wedded to that data. No big conspiracy here, just basic human nature with a lot of additional reputational, political, & moneyed interests at stake. Notwithstanding, there are some who have switched sides as the science progressed.

Respectfully, if you find yourself hating your government, elect a different one. Change it.

That's what the process of electing the next US president is all about, and is now in full swing. Much of the polling data shows your boy Bernie leading the Dems in the first two primaries coming up.

Yes. That's the idea. But really, I don't think that either of us actually expect that the government would go along with the suit idea, or bother to sue Exxon and friends, unless there was a small stack of smoking guns. Looking out for one's own interests is not necessarily wrong or illegal.

Sometimes you seem like you're catching on, but you've demonstrated how temporary it can be. To the extent you can see the difference btwn. the tobacco lawsuits and the one Shukla & Co. were pitching against the oil cos., then you're making progress towards understanding the U.S. 1st Amendment.

Leaving the safe haven of partisanship for just a moment... if I was a climate change skeptic, I too would be troubled by the discovery of possible misbehaviour on the level of Shukli or Alonghi. And I might be put off by the zeal and/or hype coming from Gore, Hansen, and various and sundry advocates. BUT, looking past that... if there was indeed a serious problem with the science... wouldn't you expect a big groundswell of climate scientists coming out to confirm this? Especially when there is significant public sentiment that is skeptical or anti-AGW, providing a fairly safe environment to come out into?

The Shukla/Alongi affairs were brought up in response to you and others constantly insinuating, without evidence, that scientists in the opposing camp were corrupted by their research being funded by oil cos., etc. But the fact remains that the US govt. provides the vast majority of the funding generally, and most of it goes to the establishment side. Your suggestion that private oil cos. have more resources than the US govt. in this regard is laughable as my links to actual govt. data hopefully demonstrated. Similar types of financial info is available to you about Exxon/Mobil should you care to look.

I don't know where you've been during the past 10 pages or so of this thread, but there are many scientists who have and continue to challenge the establishment position. This is probably most easily understood in the comparisons btwn. the surface modeling & observed surface data put out by NASA & NOAA, as compared to the two different sets of sat data we've been discussing now ad nauseum. And then there's that little "problem" of expanding polar ice. Where have you been? Please don't say listening only to your politicians and the nightly news.


Instead of such revelations, there's only this cottage industry of anti-AGW mythmaking, focussing on a small handful of individuals who have been elevated to Roman gods of evil, whose misdeeds, real or unproven, are obsessed over. And authors, websites and media outlets have all been classified as anti- or pro-, so it's easier to dismiss anything they say or do, (Stu: As soon as I saw "argues Stephan Lewandowsky ", I knew what was coming.) with no examination of the info.

Most of the information you find is in fact polarized, with nonprofits, blogs, advocacy groups, political factions, govt. agencies, and even universities taking sides. But until you've done your own research, I suppose you wouldn't know that now, would you? That's what makes understanding the actual science so difficult. Try not to just put it in grossly oversimplified terms of "good vs. evil," and take a look at the various interests involved.

So... yes, finding some bad apples - troubling. But it's going on...10? years for the "hockey stick", and none of the accusations have stuck to Mann? No serious error proven, and the science is moving forward anyway. Some things (Mann, 'Climategate') ... you just need to move on.

Again, it's more complicated than this if you actually take some time to read both sides. But personally, I don't have the background and wherewithal to draw a conclusion as to which side is correct on the science. But I am convinced that this notion of a 97%/98%/95%/overwhelming/majority/significant/prepoderance "consensus" is BS, and there are many highly respected and credentialed scientists on both sides.

There are a few prominent and honourable scientists, in and outside of the climate field, who are skeptics. I see this. If their positions were scientifically valid, and not just opinions, where's the masses of free-thinking climate scientists rallying round their flag, glad to be free of the yoke of conformity and "consensus"? Why has no ambitious CC skeptic scientist led a significant numbers of fellow scientists to challenge the consensus, if it's actually wrong?
Part of the answer is because the alarmist MMGW view has been around long enough that it is in fact the entrenched, establishment position, and it's always hard to get people with vested interests at stake to change. Take a look at some of Mann's & Santer's early testimonies before Congress on youTube, and then try and imagine them being proven wrong or even doubted at this late point in time. As for leading scientists on the skeptic side, you claim to have read the Spencer/Christy interview. What do you think these two, Judith Curry, and many, many others have been doing with their time?? As for which side is "right" or "wrong," I'm not sure the science is understood enough for this to exist, which is why many deem the state of the science "unsettled." You're conflating skepticism of the establishment position with denial.
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 13:23   #2053
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,966
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simonsays View Post
i have no idea.
what i did read though is that the average ice age was decreasing, i.e. there is plenty of new ice forming each winter but it's all melting in summer.

I thought this applied more to Antarctica than the Arctic? I also read where some of the ice pack retreat in W. Antarctica is more about warm ocean currents. Curry's blog is fairly understandable about what may be happening in the Arctic, and it attracts a lot of different views. Lots of "science" to try & digest though.

and fresh ice is not very sufficient in reflecting.
is that still the case?

Haven't heard about this one, but that certainly doesn't mean anything.

also, the glaciers that are retreating globaly did not get a break, did they?
My very rudimentary understanding is that this is a continuem from the last ice age, but it's also commonly used as evidence of significant MMGW beyond natural forces. Many of the "skeptics" don't reject that the planet is warming, but don't see nearly as much human influence. So it seems to be more about the warming rate than the mere fact of warming. I guess you'd want to see if there's been a corresponding rate of acceleration in glacial retreat globally?
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 21-01-2016, 14:13   #2054
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,519
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simonsays View Post
there were some world leading solar producers here in Germany that had to shut down despite governement subsidies and even EU subsidies but they just could not compete with the Chinese.
that was at a time Solar was booming here in Europe.
Companies closing facilities has nothing to do with commercial success, only with shareholder value.
Did you even bother to read the very short article? Solar City is a solar panel installation company.

SolarCity is laying off 550 employees in Nevada do to decreased demand for solar installations. Without the enormous government subsidies, solar doesn't make economic sense... The numbers don't add up for customers to make the investment.

Nothing to do with shareholder value, everything to do with customer installation sales.

'Just so happens I called Solar City here in Massachusetts last week about expanding our solar array by 15 panels, but they said the company was no longer doing flat roof installations due to increased government engineering regulations and red tape. So it appears that government has not only cut the rebates and subsidies, but now it's also interfering in the installation process.

How is this going to pan out over the next 20 years?

What killed solar in Nevada, was government requiring people (like me here in Massachusetts) who own solar arrays to be hooked up to the local power lines for night time consumption. But since we are historically very small users of electricity, government now allows the Nevada utility company to Bill solar users at a much higher rate for monthly service which then offsets any savings by the solar panels. In effect... It's a tax. Solar producers pay a higher usage rate to use the power lines than traditional power consumers in order to equalize their electric bills. So now after government has come along and essentially pulled the rug out from under the folks who invested in solar (they will once again have a large monthly bill), the public is no longer willing to invest.
__________________
Kenomac is online now  
Old 21-01-2016, 14:26   #2055
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Germany
Boat: 2ft wide dreaming chair
Posts: 311
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
My very rudimentary understanding is that this is a continuem from the last ice age, but it's also commonly used as evidence of significant MMGW beyond natural forces. Many of the "skeptics" don't reject that the planet is warming, but don't see nearly as much human influence. So it seems to be more about the warming rate than the mere fact of warming. I guess you'd want to see if there's been a corresponding rate of acceleration in glacial retreat globally?
i don't think it works for glaciers like that.
and i also don't see much of a difference between human influenced warming and "natural" as the consequences are the same: flooding in England and drought in Spain, Hurricanes in January and at some point Greenland loosing a shitton of ice.

though it all may happen totaly different, the last catastrophic event in northern Europe was some continental shelf collapsing off the coast of Norway and that could happen again any time.

also we are supposedly late for a polar reverse?
__________________

__________________
Simonsays is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruising and the Coming Storm ~ Recession, Depression, Climate Change, Peak Oil jtbsail Off Topic Forum 162 13-10-2015 13:17
Weather Patterns / Climate Change anjou Off Topic Forum 185 19-01-2010 15:08
Climate Change GordMay Off Topic Forum 445 02-09-2008 08:48
Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change GordMay Off Topic Forum 33 11-05-2007 03:07



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 15:44.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.