Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 20-02-2016, 20:36   #2611
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
With 2600 posts under our collective belts, isn't it about time to turn the discussion towards the many benefits of a slowly rising temperature? Instead of worrying, why not embrace the warmer temps. Just think of the money to be saved on clothing as an example.
Melting tundra releasing methane, ice roads which are vital link to Canada's north disappearing, melting ice sheets flooding coastal areas, Marine migration polewards, ...

All good!
__________________

__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 20-02-2016, 20:48   #2612
Senior Cruiser
 
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: 3,942
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

I still haven't seen the marine life going poleward part yet
__________________

__________________
newhaul is online now  
Old 20-02-2016, 20:49   #2613
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 6,711
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
With 2600 posts under our collective belts, isn't it about time to turn the discussion towards the many benefits of a slowly rising temperature? Instead of worrying, why not embrace the warmer temps. Just think of the money to be saved on clothing as an example.
Yep with a couple of degrees of temperature rise your

Quote:
When the thread began, it was 60 degrees F here in New England. Today started out a -8 degrees F, yesterday with the wind chill factored in it was -40 F.
is going to be 62° to -38°. You're sure going to need a lot less clothing
__________________
StuM is offline  
Old 20-02-2016, 22:06   #2614
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
I still haven't seen the marine life going poleward part yet
Voila

Quote:
"The leading edge or front-line of marine species distributions is moving toward the poles at an average of 72 kilometers (about 45 miles) per decade — considerably faster than terrestrial species, which are moving poleward at an average of 6 kilometers (about 4 miles) per decade," said lead author Elvira Poloczanska, a research scientist with Australia's national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Marine and Atmospheric Research in Brisbane. "And this is occurring even though sea surface temperatures are warming three times slower than land temperatures." - See more at: Marine Life Moving Poleward Faster Than Terrestrial Counterparts | The UCSB Current
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 20-02-2016, 22:26   #2615
Senior Cruiser
 
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: 3,942
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Funny I still dig/ shuck the same clams/oysters I did 40 years ago and there aren't any new species of marine life here in that time either 4 decades = only 180 miles so would take several lifetimes to make any real difference and I'm sure that soon it will be going the other way. BTW there is evidence that during the last ice age the Arctic ocean was ice free ( 10,000 years ago)
__________________
newhaul is online now  
Old 20-02-2016, 22:35   #2616
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
I'm sure that soon it will be going the other way.
You may wish to to talk to solar scientists about that.

Quote:
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535
Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 20-02-2016, 22:40   #2617
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
BTW there is evidence that during the last ice age the Arctic ocean was ice free ( 10,000 years ago)
"Seasonally open" is not "ice free".

Quote:
Arctic Ocean deep-sea record of northern Eurasian ice sheet history

Robert F. Spielhagena, b, , , Karl-Heinz Baumannc, Helmut Erlenkeuserd, Norbert R. Nowaczyke, Niels Nřrgaard-Pedersena, f, Christoph Vogtc, Dominik Weielg

doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2003.12.015

Abstract
The sediment composition of deep-sea cores from the central Arctic Ocean, the Fram Strait, and the Yermak Plateau was analyzed for several parameters to reconstruct the history of marine paleoenvironment and terrestrial glaciation in the last 200,000 years. Layers with high amounts of coarse, terrigenous ice-rafted debris (IRD) and often high contents of smectite were deposited during extensive glaciations in northern Eurasia, when ice sheets reached the northern continental margins of the Barents and Kara seas and discharged icebergs into the Arctic Ocean. Intercalated layers with relatively low IRD and smectite contents, but abundant planktic foraminifers in the coarse fraction were deposited during periods of Atlantic Water inflow to the Arctic Ocean and seasonally open waters (leads) in a sea ice cover with only few icebergs in the Arctic Ocean. High IRD contents in the sediments reflect the presence of ice sheets on the Kara and Barents seas shelves and the hinterland during the entire oxygen isotope stage 6 (ca 190–130 ka), in substage 5b (ca 90–80 ka), at the stage boundary 5/4 (around 75 ka), and in late stage 4/early stage 3 (ca 65–50 ka). These results are in excellent correlation with those from recent field work in northern Scandinavia, European Russia, Siberia, and on the shelves. Relatively low amounts of IRD in central Arctic Ocean sediments from the Late Weichselian glacial maximum (ca 24–18 ka) correlate well with the recent reconstruction of a very limited eastern ice sheet extension during this time.

Oxygen and carbon isotope records of planktic foraminifers from the analyzed sediment cores show a number of prominent excursions which can be interpreted as evidence for freshwater events in the Arctic Ocean. The synchroneity of freshwater events and IRD input suggests a common source. Strongest events were associated with deglaciations of the Barents and Kara seas after the ice sheets had blocked the outflow of large rivers for several millennia. The outflow of freshwater from large ice-dammed lakes occurred at ca 130, 80–75, and 52 ka. Freshwater events in the central Arctic Ocean during the last deglaciation (ca 18 ka) were relatively small compared to the previous events. This indicates that during most of the Late Weichselian glacial maximum a river outflow from northern Siberia to the Arctic Ocean was possible.

Atlantic Water inflow to the Arctic Ocean and seasonally open waters in the ice (leads) occurred during the interglacials of oxygen isotope stage 1 and substage 5e, during several interstadials (stage 3, substages 5a and 5c), and to a lesser degree within stadials and glacials (stages 2, 4, and 6). With the exception of the interglacials, these periods were times of strong ice growth on the continents as revealed by terrestrial data. The coincidence suggests that open waters in the Arctic Ocean and the Nordic Seas were an important moisture source (in addition to more southerly sources) which fostered the growth of ice sheets on northern Eurasia.
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 20-02-2016, 22:44   #2618
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 6,711
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Voila
"The biological changes were documented from time series, with an average length of 40 years of observation."

Hmm, that's about the period when the AMO/PDO both went from negative to positive phases.

How does that rate of change compare to this report from 1922:

"Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. "


Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	AMOPDO.png
Views:	39
Size:	12.5 KB
ID:	119344  
__________________
StuM is offline  
Old 21-02-2016, 19:04   #2619
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Penobscot Bay, Maine
Boat: Tayana 47
Posts: 992
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
With 2600 posts under our collective belts, isn't it about time to turn the discussion towards the many benefits of a slowly rising temperature? Instead of worrying, why not embrace the warmer temps. Just think of the money to be saved on clothing as an example.
With last winter having been the coldest and snowiest in quite awhile and this winter being the warmest and least snowy the contrast is striking. Our home heating oil usage is about 100 gallons less than last year at this time, the time I've spent on my tractor/snowblower has been about a quarter of last year with a similar reduction in fuel burned doing that. I also haven't been able to use my snowmobile, which doesn't make me very happy but has saved all the fuel it would have burned. Life just seems easier when it's warmer, and it definitely costs less and we generate less CO2 burning fossil fuels to keep warm and the driveway clear, etc. These positive differences are even more striking for people of very limited means on tight budgets living in rural areas where they must travel long distances in 4WD gas guzzling vehicles to get to their jobs. There are a LOT of people like that here in Maine and I imagine they're really enjoying the warming this year.

We decided to store our boat in the water this year for the first time and had tentatively budgeted about $500 for a "bubbler" to keep ice from freezing around our boat, but have saved that money because no bubbler has been necessary to keep ice clear. The milder winter has also allowed me to easily heat the boat up to a warm enough temp so working on winter projects aboard has been very comfortable, and it just seems easier on the boat overall.

I wish every winter here in Maine would be like this one but unfortunately El Nino won't last forever and if global warming is happening it's taking WAY too long for me!
__________________
jtsailjt is online now  
Old 21-02-2016, 20:31   #2620
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 15
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

@newhaul #2615

I don't know about the PNW but in Maine you can't miss the effects of the warming waters. The most recent sign is that lobsterman are seeing more and more black sea bass, a fish that likes warmer waters. I used to catch them 50 years ago in Long Island Sound but they were quite rare in Maine back then. Not now: Black sea bass influx threatens lobster population | Local News - WMUR Home

The lobstermen are upset because the black sea bass are eating their lobsters. However, one of the reasons there are so many lobsters (and lobstermen) is because the lobster's life cycle has been sped up by the warming waters: Maine’s lobster enigma: Record catches in warming waters | BDN Maine

The other reason is that the codfish, which also eats baby lobsters, has almost disappeared, and this is due in part to the warming waters (the rest is overfishing): Collapse of New England’s iconic cod tied to climate change | Science | AAAS

So, at least in Maine, climate change giveth and it taketh away.

By the way, I've yet to meet a lobsterman, no matter what his politics, that doesn't believe in climate change.
__________________
davidfay is offline  
Old 21-02-2016, 22:31   #2621
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 6,711
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidfay View Post
@newhaul #2615

I don't know about the PNW but in Maine you can't miss the effects of the warming waters. The most recent sign is that lobsterman are seeing more and more black sea bass, a fish that likes warmer waters. I used to catch them 50 years ago in Long Island Sound but they were quite rare in Maine back then. Not now: Black sea bass influx threatens lobster population | Local News - WMUR Home

The lobstermen are upset because the black sea bass are eating their lobsters. However, one of the reasons there are so many lobsters (and lobstermen) is because the lobster's life cycle has been sped up by the warming waters: Maine’s lobster enigma: Record catches in warming waters | BDN Maine

The other reason is that the codfish, which also eats baby lobsters, has almost disappeared, and this is due in part to the warming waters (the rest is overfishing): Collapse of New England’s iconic cod tied to climate change | Science | AAAS
Why do so many people seem to believe that whenever they started recording something, or whatever time is the earliest that current witnesses can recall, is the way it always was and always should be in the future.

The earth has always been either warming and cooling. And lifeforms have always migrated as a consequence.

What were the comparative populations of lobsters, black bass and cod in the area 200 years ago? 1000 years ago? 5000 years ago?

It's similar to picking some point in the past and insisting that that is where today's political boundaries should still be. What say we return to the European boundaries pre WW1? Or insist that all lands in the Americas should belong to the descendants of the people who owned them when Columbus arrived?
(And let's not mention who should occupy what land in the Middle East. )

Quote:
So, at least in Maine, climate change giveth and it taketh away.

By the way, I've yet to meet a lobsterman, no matter what his politics, that doesn't believe in climate change.
And I've yet to meet a CAGW doubter no matter what his occupation, that doesn't believe in climate change either.

But there appear to be a lot of CAGW believers who seem to think that the period at the end of the LIA was the perfect climate and we should try to return to it and maintain that climate unchanged for ever.

Just to restate the case:

I do not "deny" Climate (whatever, if anything, that means).
I do not "deny" Climate Change.
I do not "deny" Global Warming
I do not "deny" Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I know there is such a thing a "climate".
I know that climate changes constantly
I know that the earth has warmed since the end of the LIA
I know that anthropogenic emissions, land use changes and various other effects have an influence on climate.

(* know, not believe! My knowledge is based on evidence, not dogma)

However:

I do not see the evidence necessary to establish (or even strongly suggest) that anthropogenic CO2 is a major climate driver. In fact I see considerable evidence that it is not.

Even if I am wrong about anthropogenic CO2 being a major climate driver, I do not see the evidence that the harmful effects of a couple of degrees of global warming will outweigh either the general benefits of a warmer climate and the societal benefits of access to cheap, plentiful energy in the developing world in the near future.
__________________
StuM is offline  
Old 21-02-2016, 23:03   #2622
Senior Cruiser
 
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: 3,942
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidfay View Post
@newhaul #2615

I don't know about the PNW but in Maine you can't miss the effects of the warming waters. The most recent sign is that lobsterman are seeing more and more black sea bass, a fish that likes warmer waters. I used to catch them 50 years ago in Long Island Sound but they were quite rare in Maine back then. Not now: Black sea bass influx threatens lobster population | Local News - WMUR Home

The lobstermen are upset because the black sea bass are eating their lobsters. However, one of the reasons there are so many lobsters (and lobstermen) is because the lobster's life cycle has been sped up by the warming waters: Maine’s lobster enigma: Record catches in warming waters | BDN Maine

The other reason is that the codfish, which also eats baby lobsters, has almost disappeared, and this is due in part to the warming waters (the rest is overfishing): Collapse of New England’s iconic cod tied to climate change | Science | AAAS

So, at least in Maine, climate change giveth and it taketh away.

By the way, I've yet to meet a lobsterman, no matter what his politics, that doesn't believe in climate change.

I never said I don't believe the climate is changeling that's what it does and has done since the planner cooled enough to foster oceans and an atmosphere
Here on the north pacific coast I have not seen any fis or frustration issues caused by climate change. El Nino drought last summer will have a big effect on the salmon for the next several years but that's a weather event not climate event our sea water temperatures have remained fairly consistent.
__________________
newhaul is online now  
Old 22-02-2016, 00:16   #2623
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 629
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
Take a look at Loehl 2007 printed in the peer reviewed Energy & Environment ( I know how much you guys respect peer review )
There's peer review, then there's peer review. This is the latter...
Quote:
http://www.au.agwscam.com/pdf/2000%2...ng%20temps.pdf

which contains the attached graph and tell us why the planet warmed from around 200CE to 1000CE and cooled from around 1000CE to 1600CE. And of course, the causes of the shorter warming, cooling and "pause" periods during those larger scale movements.

If you can answer that, you may well have the answer to your question as well.
Craig Loehle | Wikipedia
Quote:
[...] Climate change research

In 2004, Loehle published a study which concluded that "global and northern hemisphere temperature will drop on century scale in the next 20 years."[5][6]

He appeared at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), held by the Heartland Institute,[7] and made another appearance at this conference in 2012.[8]

In 2007, Loehle published a paleoclimate reconstruction which reconstructed temperatures over the last 2,000 years, in Energy & Environment. It made a point of not using tree-ring data, unlike the better-known "hockey stick graphs" by Michael E. Mann, and concluded that, contrary to the scientific consensus on the matter, recent global temperatures are not unprecedented over the past 1,000 years.[9][10][11][12] This paper was criticized by Gavin Schmidt, who wrote on the blog RealClimate that "the Loehle reconstruction has mistakenly shifted all three of these records forward by 50 years (due to erroneously assuming a 2000 start date for the ‘BP’ time scale)."[13] Loehle later acknowledged this error, and published a correction the following year. In the correction, he and J. Huston McCulloch (Ohio State University) concluded that there was "little change in the results" after the aforementioned errors were corrected for.[14] In Mann's book, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars," he states that Schmidt was correct in saying that Loehle had dated his graph relative to 2000, whereas paleoclimatologists conventionally use 1950 as the BP, or "Before Present," base year. He also stated that Loehle's paper suffered from other flaws, such as the fact that some of the sediment records Loehle had used to construct his graph were based on only a few measurements spread out over a 2,000-year period, and that, as a result, the uncertainty range around these measurements is too large for them to be compared to present-day temperatures.[15]

A 2009 paper by Loehle reported that the global oceans had been cooling since 2003.[16][17]

A 2014 study by him concluded that climate sensitivity was 1.99 °C, with a 95% confidence limit of 1.75-2.23 °C.[18][19] A subsequent comment paper led by Dr Gavin Cawley of the University of East Anglia[20] stated that the Loehle calculations were based on a "flawed methodology" that "systematically underestimates the transient climate response, due to a number of unsupportable assumptions". Once these assumptions were relaxed, the Loehle estimated range of equilibrium climate sensitivity increased from 1.75-2.23 °C to 2.33-5.34 °C, a similar range to that covered by CMIP5 computer simulations. The Cawley paper also stated that the Loehle approach was "little more than a curve-fitting exercise" that is not based on physics. When an even simpler model is used which is based on physics, the calculated climate response is also larger than that calculated by Loehle.[...]
Energy & Environment | Wikipedia
Quote:
[...] Objective

The journal's mission statement states that the publication's "objective is to inform across professional and disciplinary boundaries and debate the social, economic, political and technological implications of environmental controls, as well as interrogate the science claims made to justify environmental regulations of the energy industries, including transport."[6]
History

Energy & Environment was first published in 1989; David Everest (Department of the Environment, United Kingdom) was its founding editor. Following his death in 1998, Boehmer-Christiansen became the journal's editor. She and several members of the journal's editorial advisory board previously had been associated with "the Energy and Environment Groups" at the Science and Technology Policy Unit (University of Sussex), with John Surrey.[6] Benny Peiser has served as co-editor.[7]
Criticism

According to a 2011 article in The Guardian, Gavin Schmidt and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. said that E&E has had low standards of peer review and little impact.[8] In addition, Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?"[8][9] A 2005 article in Environmental Science & Technology stated that "scientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists."[10] Boehmer-Christiansen acknowledged that the journal's "impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it", but blamed this on "the negative attitudes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/Climatic Research Unit people."[11]
Climate change skepticism

When asked about the publication in the Spring of 2003 of a revised version of the paper at the center of the Soon and Baliunas controversy, Boehmer-Christiansen said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"[12]

Part of the journal's official mission statement reads: "E&E has consistently striven to publish many ‘voices’ and to challenge conventional wisdoms. Perhaps more so than other European energy journal, the editor has made E&E a forum for more sceptical analyses of ‘climate change’ and the advocated solutions".[6][...]
PS
StuM: Hope to get back to the Skeptic Science discussion soon.
__________________
SailOar is offline  
Old 22-02-2016, 13:21   #2624
Marine Service Provider
 
SV THIRD DAY's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: La Paz, Mexico
Boat: 1978 Hudson Force 50 Ketch
Posts: 3,653
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Looks like the Canadians are getting smarter....don't buy into the MMGW Scam
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/climate-change-yale-project-montreal-study-1.3458142

There is hope afterall....
__________________
SV THIRD DAY is offline  
Old 22-02-2016, 15:10   #2625
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 6,711
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

I really can't see how they arrive at the conclusions they do from the four questions asked.

Pertinent question:
"From what you've read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?

Is the Earth getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels or mostly because of natural patterns in the Earth's environment? "

Alleged finding:
"44% of Canadians surveyed believe Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activities.
61%
believe Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities."

How do they derive that 61%. Where is there any clear indication from any of the questions that a responder thinks that "Earth is getting warmer partly..."

We can work out the 44% answered both "yes" to Q1 and "mostly human" to Q2.

But that is all. No one can honestly deduce that 61% figure from responses to the questions as put.

And note the fine distinction in Q1 "has been" and Q2 "Is". The survey makes the assumption that anyone who thinks that the Earth warmed over the past 4 decades also believes that the Earth is still warming and that the causes are unchanging.

Sorry, but this is yet another bogus survey looking for pre-conceived results. And one which needs a lot of massaging of the message to give the sort of result they were looking for. Hence the initial reported result being edited at the behest of the survey authors to show an invalid finding (although if I were the authors, I would have complained about the initial report too since it was equally unsupportable).
__________________

__________________
StuM 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 08:18.


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.