Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[SV THIRD DAY]

I just love it how science evolves (wasn't wrong) when those who said the big bang was bogus years ago were call science deniers and worse. The same will happen with the MMGW Cultists. They will move onto the new cause de jour once this one runs its course. Who knows maybe it will be to control cow farts...opps...they can beat you to crazy can't they.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Uh-Oh . . . Judith Curry again. Professor Curry does have a talent for summing things up though:

The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on.

Read the comments especially those of Steve Mosher and Zeke Hausfather.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

My question on those engine room temps were they taken before or after the heat exchanger?

Before.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

They are taken at the sea chest. The temperature is used to fine tune the fuel metering. The accuracy is not very good, not at all good to be used for climate models. The Karl study used the Ship temperature data and adjusted the SST to be more in line with ship temperaure, which gee was always higher.

The Karl folks did not use the Arco bouy or drifter bouys which have very accurate temperature sensors. They did not use the data because it was not sea surface temperature (sst), but 10 meters below the surface. Yet ship seachests are ~15 meters below the surface. Karl adjusted the SST data to be more inline with the ships data.

Dr. Curry, has a delightful way with words.

I'm an old navy engineer I know the reality just having a bit o fun is all

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I just love it how science evolves (wasn't wrong) when those who said the big bang was bogus years ago were call science deniers and worse. The same will happen with the MMGW Cultists. They will move onto the new cause de jour once this one runs its course. Who knows maybe it will be to control cow farts...opps...they can beat you to crazy can't they.

As a former astrophysics student, and regular science journalist I can assure you the Big Bang theory has not been abandoned, and there has been no significant challenge to it since the days of steady state. It's certainly evolved and been modified as our understanding improves, just like the climate change theory, but no one of consequence is calling it bogus.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming | NOAA

Yeah right....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Read the comments especially those of Steve Mosher and Zeke Hausfather.

I'm honestly trying to do some due diligence here, but there are 912 comments to the Curry article! I did find a number of the Mosher ones but didn't find Zeke's. I think you would agree that you can find any position yea or nay in there, to support or dispel your particular point of view. Are we supposed to start counting scientists and see which position has 51% or more? I mean there are pages devoted to arguing the impact on sea temps depending on whether they used rubber, wood, or plastic buckets to sample the water, and how deep the ships' intakes really were! Using ships apparently goes back to the 1800's, and this has now been supplemented (but not supplanted) by buoys & satellites, so they are somehow trying to reconcile the two.

The upshot seems to be no consensus on how to take the earth's temperature as one of the profs put it, and that the uncertainties are more pronounced in the marine world. But that's the majority of the Earth's surface! In short, I'm dubious of such a strong scientific consensus which concludes the planet is warming when there seems to be little consensus on how to even take its temperature.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm honestly trying to do some due diligence here, but there are 912 comments to the Curry article! I did find a number of the Mosher ones but didn't find Zeke's.

Zeke's were way down, and were generally neutral, or so I thought. Seems Dr. Mosher was have a wee bit of a discussion with some of the other doctors in the comments section. After reading quite a lot of the comments, I want to applaud everyone here for their civility and generally good behavior.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Zeke's were way down, and were generally neutral, or so I thought. Seems Dr. Mosher was have a wee bit of a discussion with some of the other doctors in the comments section. After reading quite a lot of the comments, I want to applaud everyone here for their civility and generally good behavior.

It's all relative, huh? Reading a bunch of scientists go at it like that made me feel a tad bit better about how some of these bluewater vs. production boat threads generally go.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As a former astrophysics student, and regular science journalist I can assure you the Big Bang theory has not been abandoned, and there has been no significant challenge to it since the days of steady state. It's certainly evolved and been modified as our understanding improves, just like the climate change theory, but no one of consequence is calling it bogus.

I was thinking about the big bang one day at anchor. I was shooting a stream of water from my solar shower out over the water and watched the ripples/ interference patterns made in the two dimensional water surface as they moved down stream. That got me thinking of some of the larger galactic filaments.

While the big bang talks about a single point source for inflation, which I think is correct. I wondered if a single point source from a different dimension, which would have more then four dimensions (obviously), would inflate from separate rupture points, to create our four dimensional space. That in my simple mind, might account for some of the structure of the universe. Just a thought experiment, I had one day at anchor.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's all relative, huh? Reading a bunch of scientists go at it like that made me feel a tad bit better about how some of these bluewater vs. production boat threads generally go.

It really made me happy to see some of the science boards were even more messed up then the sailing threads here at CF.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

It really made me happy to see some of the science boards were even more messed up then the sailing threads here at CF.

I think its because sailors are more into applied science rather theoretical science. Now all we need do is have all the theoretical scientists hot air from their forum blow over our way and us applied scientists will get a good wind into our sails. Just saying.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As a former astrophysics student, and regular science journalist I can assure you the Big Bang theory has not been abandoned, and there has been no significant challenge to it since the days of steady state. It's certainly evolved and been modified as our understanding improves, just like the climate change theory, but no one of consequence is calling it bogus.

Exactly… what is TD on about?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I just love it how science evolves (wasn't wrong) when those who said the big bang was bogus years ago were call science deniers and worse. The same will happen with the MMGW Cultists. They will move onto the new cause de jour once this one runs its course. Who knows maybe it will be to control cow farts...opps...they can beat you to crazy can't they.

What are you on about, mate? You brought up religion recently… I know "Third Day" is the name of an Xtian rock band and a google search of the name seems to bring up a lot of religious references… and I also know that the chief antagonists of this idea are creationists. Are you a creationist?

BBT is the prevailing model of the formation of our universe, and is extremely, indeed "beautifully" consistent with many of its most prominent features.

To say that science has "evolved" beyond this is simply, flatly wrong.

[Paul Elliott]

Sayre's Law: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."