Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 22-12-2015, 12:11   #271
Registered User
 
Capt Phil's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stateline NV
Boat: Prior boats: Transpac 49; DeFever 54
Posts: 2,749
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

What I enjoy most about this thread is everyone pissing on each other's shoes! Many of you are folks I respect immensely, both for your knowledge and experience but it seems that a lot of you have gone right off your spinner IMO.
The only ones making a buck off this are the Al Gores of this world and the money grabbers who tried to set up the buying and selling of 'carbon credits' whatever the hell those are.
I have a very small window on the environmental world of science as seen through a failed relationship with a very well educated environmental scientist. She was as wild as a March hare and was successful in coloring my thinking about scientific study, who funds it and the predictability of the study outcome. Personally, I don't trust anything they profess to be true! Phil
__________________

__________________
Capt Phil is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 12:12   #272
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
I am pointing out that the experts themselves, who know more than you or I about their field, including it's uncertanties and the difficulties of producing a workable hypothesis within this uncertainty... have come forward with what they have, and an indication of how certain or uncertain they think their conclusions are. In other words, they wouldn't have bothered us with it if they didn't think the findings were dependable enough to require bringing our attention to it.

For non-experts to think they know the field or its uncertainties better than the experts... how is that rational?
I think it's actually the politicians who are bothering us with it, and I'm not sure who "they" are when it comes to the scientists. AFAIK, the "consensus" derives from something on the order of 32,000 peer-reviewed articles authored by a large number of scientists from around the world, and the degree of that consensus depends on whether their papers focus on the problem, the solution, and all manner of issues related thereto.

That's all fine for scientists asked to theorize and examine a specific, defined set of facts, but the problem is that, from a public policy standpoint, you can't separate the "problem" from the "solution." But this seems to be what you are trying to do.
__________________

__________________
Exile is online now  
Old 22-12-2015, 12:30   #273
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
The best we have. Period.

Nothing is infallable, but no-one has yet proven that in this case they have screwed up. If your argument against AGW is that 99% or whatever of the scientists have screwed up... it's a thin argument.

Scientists screwing up is hardly the point. I don't impugn anything negative to the scientists themselves, whatever side they take. But how about after all this time just uncovering another "variable" which significantly alters their long-term temperature projections? Although they've long known about aerosols and their cooling effect, the technology associated with their computer modeling apparently only now allowed them to factor it into their projections. This time it influenced those temp estimates upward, but what about next time? According to that same article, the technology they utilize has improved significantly just in the past 10 years. How do we know what is still yet to come?

I'm much more interested in the real reasons why you don't think we should act on AGW.
Well, hopefully this isn't a request for me to re-publish all my prior posts, because if so I will no longer have any friends on the forum. But again, I think you're trying to separate the acknowlegment of the problem with possible solutions. The solution depends on the severity of the problem. If AGW exists but the impact isn't consequential, then there is no problem to begin with. Alternatively, if the problem is consequential but there's nothing we can do about it unless nuclear fusion or some other technological advancement comes along, then there's your solution.
__________________
Exile is online now  
Old 22-12-2015, 12:31   #274
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I think it's actually the politicians who are bothering us with it, and I'm not sure who "they" are when it comes to the scientists. AFAIK, the "consensus" derives from something on the order of 32,000 peer-reviewed articles authored by a large number of scientists from around the world, and the degree of that consensus depends on whether their papers focus on the problem, the solution, and all manner of issues related thereto.

That's all fine for scientists asked to theorize and examine a specific, defined set of facts, but the problem is that, from a public policy standpoint, you can't separate the "problem" from the "solution." But this seems to be what you are trying to do.
Scientific institutes and associations (and I'm talking organizations of scientists, not advocacy groups), from within and without climate science have been unanimous that the work behind the finding of AGW is scientifically rigorous and properly reviewed. Not one such body has said otherwise. Even after that Climategate crap.

This alone should put the question of "consensus" to bed. We have the best efforts of the field in our hands. If you are still unsure, why has no one got out their phone book and surveyed each and every practicing climate scientist? How many could there be? It's because then there would be absolutely no doubt as to the consensus, and the deniers wouldn't have this manufactured doubt about consensus to hide behind.

Problem and solution (aka observation and action) are entirely separable. I can tell if someone's leg is broken without knowing how to set it...
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 12:40   #275
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wilbur By The Sea, FL
Boat: Catalina 30
Posts: 660
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm
__________________
Gary
http://svknotaclew.wordpress.com/
The Garbone is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 12:45   #276
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,964
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Scientific institutes and associations (and I'm talking organizations of scientists, not advocacy groups), from within and without climate science have been unanimous that the work behind the finding of AGW is scientifically rigorous and properly reviewed. Not one such body has said otherwise. Even after that Climategate crap.

This alone should put the question of "consensus" to bed. We have the best efforts of the field in our hands. If you are still unsure, why has no one got out their phone book and surveyed each and every practicing climate scientist? How many could there be? It's because then there would be absolutely no doubt as to the consensus, and the deniers wouldn't have this manufactured doubt about consensus to hide behind.

Problem and solution (aka observation and action) are entirely separable. I can tell if someone's leg is broken without knowing how to set it...
Maybe if the broken part is pushing up against or through the skin, but you would need an expert and an x-ray machine if it was a mere fracture. If you tried to set a mere fracture, or if you merely put a cast around a serious break without setting it, you'd worsen the problem.
__________________
Exile is online now  
Old 22-12-2015, 12:50   #277
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 8
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

japans sunami dumped more rubbish into the ocean in 1 hit than they would in probably 20 years.they are so concerned abt it they are out there clearing it up are they.??probably not.
__________________
big red is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 12:53   #278
Registered User
 
transmitterdan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Boat: Valiant 42
Posts: 4,028
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Public policy is dirt simple. If you want to promote something subsidize it. If you want to discourage something tax it. It is no more complicated than that.

Why do big oil companies favor a carbon tax? Because they recognize that reducing carbon emissions is a good thing. But if they invest $ toward that goal then they will be at a competitive disadvantage to other oil companies that don't make any investment. So they prefer a tax that would level the playing field. Companies can then either invest to reduce their carbon footprint or pay more in taxes if they do nothing.

A carbon tax proposal was put forward 5-6 years ago by big oil and environmental groups and of course it was shot down. Why you ask? Well, they realized that the most important group required to get the tax implemented was...wait for it...voters. So they proposed to return 90% of the revenue collected to...wait for it...tax payers. In effect they were bribing the tax payers (aka voters) to support the idea.

If you want to know why some are skeptical of the motives of AGW proponents ask them why this idea was so bad. Legislators didn't like it because they would not get huge new tax revenues to doll out to their campaign contributors, scientists didn't like it because it would not give them billions of $ for new computers, satellites and research grants. Wind and solar proponents didn't like it because their technology would have to compete with only slightly higher priced oil and they know that oil has to be $1,000/bbl to make their technology cost competitive without government subsidy.

So the blame for the current state of affairs cannot be laid wholly at the feet of the "deniers". If all of those aforementioned groups had gotten on board with selling the revenue neutral carbon-tax we might have a solution. I believe most tax payers (aka voters) would have been ok with it once they realized they were going to get 90% of the money.

So a pretty simple proposal that made a lot of sense didn't get anywhere because it only benefited the environment and tax payers.
__________________
transmitterdan is online now  
Old 22-12-2015, 12:55   #279
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wilbur By The Sea, FL
Boat: Catalina 30
Posts: 660
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

A circular argument, however it is a convenient argument for totalitarians to garner more power.

But we are enlightened now you say. I think we are monkeys with cell phones and history will repeat itself. The ones currently writing the laws will continue living a Jet set lifestyle and the working surfs, well they can ride a train to their job and pay carbon offsets.
__________________
Gary
http://svknotaclew.wordpress.com/
The Garbone is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 13:06   #280
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Garbone View Post
A circular argument, however it is a convenient argument for totalitarians to garner more power.

But we are enlightened now you say. I think we are monkeys with cell phones and history will repeat itself. The ones currently writing the laws will continue living a Jet set lifestyle and the working surfs, well they can ride a train to their job and pay carbon offsets.

Very wise observations Garbone.
A question to ask is:
Why would the Scientists not want their Data released?

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal
__________________
Rich Boren Goodbye Morro Bay...Hello La Paz, Mexico and the owner of:
Cruise RO Water High Output Water
Technautic CoolBlue Refrigeration
SV THIRD DAY is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 13:11   #281
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
But how about after all this time just uncovering another "variable" which significantly alters their long-term temperature projections? Although they've long known about aerosols and their cooling effect, the technology associated with their computer modeling apparently only now allowed them to factor it into their projections. This time it influenced those temp estimates upward, but what about next time? According to that same article, the technology they utilize has improved significantly just in the past 10 years. How do we know what is still yet to come?


Here again, you seem to be assuming that they haven't themselves taken all this into account. These variances of course influence the predictive models but apparently haven't yet invalidated the finding of AGW, which they've been consistent about for 8+ years.

Quote:
I think you're trying to separate the acknowlegment of the problem with possible solutions. The solution depends on the severity of the problem. If AGW exists but the impact isn't consequential, then there is no problem to begin with. Alternatively, if the problem is consequential but there's nothing we can do about it unless nuclear fusion or some other technological advancement comes along, then there's your solution.
Sounds like you're using the anticipation of solutions or lack thereof as an excuse to deny or ignore the problem. This is 180 degrees from the post that kicked off this thread - "don't worry childrens, Technology Will Solve This". So you don't have such faith?

The problem and the solutions are entirely separable.
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 13:18   #282
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 632
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
[...]Alternatively, if the problem is consequential but there's nothing we can do about it unless nuclear fusion or some other technological advancement comes along, then there's your solution.

‘We Need an Energy Miracle’ An Interview with Bill Gates | The Atlantic

Quote:
Bill Gates has committed his fortune to moving the world beyond fossil fuels and mitigating climate change.

...“The push is the R&D,” he said, before indicating the arrow on the right. “The pull is the carbon tax.” Between the arrows he sketched boxes to represent areas, such as deployment of new technology, where, he argued, private investors should foot the bill. He has pledged to commit $2 billion himself...

When I sat down to hear his case a few weeks ago, he didn’t evince much patience for the argument that American politicians couldn’t agree even on whether climate change is real, much less on how to combat it. “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem,” he said with a sort of amused asperity, “then representative democracy is a problem.”...

And one of the interesting things about this problem is, if you have a country that says, “Okay, we’re going to get on a pathway for an 80 percent reduction in CO2 by 2050,” it might make a commitment that “Hey, by 2030, we’ll be at 30 percent reduction.” But that first 30 percent is dramatically, dramatically easier than getting to 80 percent. So everything that’s hard has been saved for post-2030—and even these 2030 commitments aren’t enough. And many of them won’t be achieved...

But what we’re asking ourselves to do here is change energy—and that includes all of transport, all of electricity, all of household usage, and all of industrial usage. And those are all huge areas of usage. And somebody’ll say to you, “Well, hey, lighting, LED technology, is going to reduce energy consumption from lighting by over half.” That’s true; it’s a miracle, it’s fantastic. But unfortunately, there’s no equivalent in many of these other things, like making fertilizer or making electricity in a general sense. There’s opportunities to conserve that are really good. But the world is going to consume much more energy 30 years from now than it does today...

Wind has grown super-fast, on a very subsidized basis. Solar, off a smaller base, has been growing even faster—again on a highly subsidized basis. But it’s absolutely fair to say that even the modest R&D that’s been done, and the various deployment incentives that are there, have worked well. Now, unfortunately, solar photovoltaic is still not economical, but the biggest problem of all is this intermittency. That is, we need energy 24 hours a day. So, putting aside hydro—which unfortunately can’t grow much—the primary new zero-CO2 sources are intermittent. Now, nuclear is a non-CO2 source, but it’s had its own problems in terms of costs, big safety problems, making sure you can deal with the waste, making sure the plutonium isn’t used to make weapons. So my view is that the biggest problem for the two lead candidates is that storage looks to be so difficult. It’s kind of ironic: Germany, by installing so much rooftop solar, has it that both their coal plants and their rooftop solar are available in the summer, and the price of power during the day actually goes negative—they pay people to take it. Then at night the only source is the coal, and because the energy companies have to recover their capital costs, they either raise the price because they’re not getting any return for the day, or they slowly go bankrupt...

I’m a big believer in foreign aid, but the climate problem has to be solved in the rich countries. China and the U.S. and Europe have to solve CO2 emissions, and when they do, hopefully they’ll make it cheap enough for everyone else. But the big numbers are all in the developed economies, where China’s defined into that term...

When I first got into this I thought, How well does the Department of Energy spend its R&D budget? And I was worried: Gosh, if I’m going to be saying it should double its budget, if it turns out it’s not very well spent, how am I going to feel about that? But as I’ve really dug into it, the DARPA money is very well spent, and the basic-science money is very well spent. The government has these “Centers of Excellence.” They should have twice as many of those things, and those things should get about four times as much money as they do.

Yes, the government will be somewhat inept—but the private sector is in general inept. How many companies do venture capitalists invest in that go poorly? By far most of them. And it’s just that every once in a while a Google or a Microsoft comes out, and some medium-scale successes too, and so the overall return is there, and so people keep giving them money.
__________________
SailOar is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 13:25   #283
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
The problem and the solutions are entirely separable.
What problem....
There has been no warming as the models/scripture predicted. If the warming scriptures were correct we wouldn't be having this "pause" in warming.

What Solutions...
More failed Big Government picking of winners like Solyndra based on political contributions? Can you please cite examples of the Government properly identifying Problem A and then fixing problem A.

Get off the Ride before it takes you and the reputation of Science right off the Cliff.
__________________
Rich Boren Goodbye Morro Bay...Hello La Paz, Mexico and the owner of:
Cruise RO Water High Output Water
Technautic CoolBlue Refrigeration
SV THIRD DAY is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 13:29   #284
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 632
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike OReilly View Post
On this we agree. Facts and rational discussion rarely changes anyone's mind. Research into human behaviour and evolutionary psychology shows that most of what we think, believe and do is processed at a subconscious level. In simplistic terms, we are largely emotionally driven. The rational brain comes along later and makes up pretty stories to justify our beliefs or actions. This is a truth advertisers, preachers and politicians know all too well. And they are all good at exploiting it.

This is why science is such a leap forward in human civilization. It is a process that intrinsically accepts that we are poor rational thinkers. But through the feedback loop of data, theory, prediction, experiment/observation, and back to more data, it intrinsically leads to improved understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Science is not perfect -- no human endeavour can be perfect -- but it is the best tool we have for forcing our fundamentally irrational selves to see what is really going on.
__________________
SailOar is offline  
Old 22-12-2015, 13:35   #285
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY View Post
Very wise observations Garbone.
A question to ask is:
Why would the Scientists not want their Data released?

Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal
Several anti-Liberal/anti-government/anti-AGW organizations like "Judicial Watch" have used new Freedom of Information Act laws to flood government, university and research institutions with data requests. They request all raw readings, personal mails, doodles, backs of placemats, everything. (as if Judicial watch had clue #1 about how to process all that stuff)

Predictibly this has seriously bogged down the day-to-day operations of many of these institutes as staffers have to take time from their real jobs to find and prepare material for these requests, and the expense of legal challenges to fight the most outrageous ones.

Considering that the very mandate of entities like NOAA is to collect and disseminate information, something they do very well by most accounts, many of these FOIA requests are for the most part harrassment and a frontal attack on scientists.

Mind you, I'm not in the least against FOIA laws. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. (Wouldn't mind some FOIA sunshine on all the PACs that have sprung up). Can they count on your support to increase funding to NOAA so they can staff up to handle the volume of the FOIA requests?
__________________

__________________
Lake-Effect 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 12:17.


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.