|
|
11-01-2016, 13:44
|
#1531
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 5,607
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike OReilly
I think you need to up your dose of greenie pills Newhaul .
I know we've been over this turf many, many, many... times on this thread. But it takes a phenomenal level of self-delusion to believe the that theory of rapid climate change is some sort of a global conspiracy of "greenies."
All the planet's geophysical research organizations, all the major journals, the vast vast majority (whatever number you want to accept) of climate scientists, almost all national governments, almost all international trans-global organizations, the insurance industry, the world's militaries and security agencies, and now a growing number of corporations (outside of the fossil fuel industry) ... all these people accepts rapid climate change is happening AND that human civilization is a significant driver of this. Exactly how significant, from dominate to minor, is still under investigation, but significance is not.
Following the money is bang on when looking for an explanation of this faux debate. The money chain runs easily and directly to those who benefit from the status quo: the fossil fuel industry, and those connected to them.
I know there's no point talking to people like Third, but to people like newhaul, Exile, senormechanico, SailorChick, I ask you; what kind of evidence would you accept as valid or credible? What would it take for you to accept the scientific consensus?
|
Funny you brought up the scientific consensus again, Mike, as I recently took another stab at trying to get a better handle on what this frequently cited 95-97% agreement amongst the scientific community really means. Like all of these CC-related issues & sub-issues, it's hard to do a Google search and not find mostly biased sources (on both sides), so probably not worth getting into another one of these forum ping-pong matches on this. But if you do your own search you'll see what I mean.
From what I've read thus far, it probably wasn't hard for so many scientists to believe they were signing up for this supposed 97% consensus, because at its core it comes down to wide agreement that (a) the Earth is undergoing a warming trend, and (b) humans are playing a role in that warming. But obviously many scientists who believe in these two core conclusions also differ on the extent of the human role, the impacts of the warming, and the potential solutions. Unfortunately, however, there are claims that many of even these scientists were also apparently included in this supposed 97%, and at least some have publicly voiced their objections over it.
So Judith Curry, for e.g., one of the more well-known "skeptics," could very well have had some of her articles included as part of the "97% consensus" solely because they confirm her opinion that MMGW exists. But obviously Curry is not one of the 97% of scientists who believe humans play a significant role that threatens the planet, etc. But activists like Cook and his skepticalscience.com colleagues at the Univ. of Queensland have been attributed with distorting the "consensus studies" to make it appear as if much larger nos. of scientists are in agreement not only that MMGW exists, but that it also presents just such a threat.
This then allows our public leaders to run with the distortion, only adding to the confusion and fabricated alarm:
Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "97% of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."
Pretty sneaky mentioning that the 97% consensus includes a sense of "urgency," and throwing in that the consequences could be "crippling" even though no such consensus on either contingency exists. But then there's
President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "97% of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous."
Oops, he got the CC is real & man-made part right as far as the consensus goes, but "dangerous?" There are certainly opinions that support that one, but where's the scientific consensus on dangerous??
I could go on & on, as could others on the other side, but these are a few examples of why I remain skeptical. At a minimum, I don't believe the scientific consensus on MMGW posing a threat to the planet or its human inhabitants is being accurately & fairly represented.
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 13:56
|
#1532
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,252
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac
The original post speculates as to why climate change will even matter in 20-100 years. Humans will find answers for any problems which develop whether the world warms, cools, or just stays the same. The discussion was intended to be one centered around this topic.
|
The answer is quit simple - stop burning fossil fuels and dumping anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere.
__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:07
|
#1533
|
cruiser
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pangaea
Posts: 10,856
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale
The answer is quit simple - stop burning fossil fuels and dumping anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere.
|
Maybe the answer is to celebrate the warming temperatures? Just kick back and enjoy the warm days if they do in fact come to pass, or put on an extra layer of clothing if the temps cool.
No sense in sitting around worrying about other people like me.... who you feel aren't worrying enough.
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:15
|
#1534
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,864
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect
Actually, it's brought to you by
...but they're just another part of the conspiracy, right?
(post #1500! I bet we won't make it to 2000. In truth, I hope we don't make it to 1600...)
|
You obviously don't know what Mr Cook's day job is.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml
So no conspiracy at all.
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:16
|
#1535
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,252
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac
Maybe the answer is to celebrate the warming temperatures? Just kick back and enjoy the warm days if they do in fact come to pass, or put on an extra layer of clothing if the temps cool.
No sense in sitting around worrying about other people like me.... who you feel aren't worrying enough.
|
Maybe the answer to watch the permafrost melt releasing methane (another GHG), watch the sea level rise displacing coastal countries and cities, see the impact of ocean acidification of our sea-based food stocks, watch ocean heat content increase and the poleward shift of sea life, watch the increased predation of food crops, Watch as food crop nutrition declines, watch changing weather patterns, watch glaciers retreat.
We have not had the conditions for 3-5 millions, let's just sit back and watch. Folks like a good train wreck.
__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:19
|
#1536
|
CLOD
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: being planted in Jacksonville Fl
Boat: none
Posts: 20,364
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
I don't believe climate change is going to matter in remainder of my lifetime and I don't believe my kids are going reproduce. So I'm doing my part!
__________________
Don't ask a bunch of unknown forum people if it is OK to do something on YOUR boat. It is your boat, do what you want!
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:19
|
#1537
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,547
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac
The original post speculates as to why climate change will even matter in 20-100 years. Humans will find answers for any problems which develop whether the world warms, cools, or just stays the same. The discussion was intended to be one centered around this topic.
|
Which humans will find those answers? Why are you against encouraging these humans to find those answers? I think that's pretty germane to your thread-starter.
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:20
|
#1538
|
Marine Service Provider
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: La Paz, Mexico
Boat: 1978 Hudson Force 50 Ketch
Posts: 3,920
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale
The answer is quit simple - stop burning fossil fuels and dumping anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere.
|
But have you taken your own advice?
Or are "some pigs more equal than others"?
__________________
Rich Boren
Cruise RO & Schenker Water Makers
Technautics CoolBlue Refrigeration
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:26
|
#1539
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,547
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet
So no conspiracy at all.
|
So that means....
1) You're right and University of Queensland is part of a conspiracy to willfully distort science for some unstated purpose
2) Cook's right and University of Queensland has commissioned or at least approves of that course.
(2000 posts! Throwing myself a party)
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:30
|
#1540
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,864
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale
All temperature data sets are adjusted.
Judith Curry and Steve Mosher, both well-known skeptics, have commented on this. Curry asked Zeke Hausfather to post some commentary on her blog.
Judith Curry, a skeptic and one of Inhofe's favorites, has published three discussions of temperature adjustments.
"There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”."
Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.
Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.
Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data | Climate Etc.
Understanding Time of Observation Bias | Climate Etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To which I would add a comment from Steve Mosher, the skeptic who published the Climategate letters.
Christopher Booker win’s the irony of the year award with his piece on adjustments to the temperature record. That’s quite a feat considering it’s only February. His complaint overlooks the clear historical fact that skeptics, above all others, have made the loudest case for the need to adjust the temperature series. Over the years, it’s been skeptics, who have made a vocal case for adjustments . More disturbing is the claim that these adjustments are somehow criminal. We dealt with these type of claims before and completely debunked them.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...d-adjustments/
|
...Which reminds me of the question I asked earlier about the 1940's to 1970's anomaly in the global temperature record that no-one responded to. I can see why it's overlooked as it throws a spanner into the simplistic theory that global warming is caused primarily by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. A bit of Google-**'ing reveals that everything from aerosols to changes in measuring ocean temperature with US vs UK ships is to blame, with the likely culprit being aerosols.
Judith Curry has doubts about aerosol theory.
Quote:
JC’s conclusion: It seems implausible to attribute the mid century cooling and the resumption of warming to an increase in sulfate emissions following WWII and then a decrease ca 1970 following the Clean Air Acts. There may be some sort of complicated lag that may be evident to support the 1970-2000 warming (from the increase during the period 19501970), but the large cooling from 1940-1950 cannot be explained by aerosol forcing.
|
Mid 20th Century Global(?) Warming: Part II | Climate Etc.
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:34
|
#1541
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,864
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect
So that means....
1) You're right and University of Queensland is part of a conspiracy to willfully distort science for some unstated purpose
2) Cook's right and University of Queensland has commissioned or at least approves of that course.
(2000 posts! Throwing myself a party)
|
From a cartoonist to climate change fellow studying a PhD in climate change nonsense. He and Al Gore should join forces.
I vote #1.
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:37
|
#1542
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,252
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet
From a cartoonist to climate change fellow studying a PhD in climate change nonsense. He and Al Gore should join forces.
I vote #1.
|
He had an honours degree in physics before he was a cartoonist.
__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:39
|
#1543
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,864
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
I've asked this before, and I'll ask again. Why are those living in the coldest parts of the world so aghast at the concept of global warming??
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:40
|
#1544
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,252
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet
...Which reminds me of the question I asked earlier about the 1940's to 1970's anomaly in the global temperature record that no-one responded to. I can see why it's overlooked as it throws a spanner into the simplistic theory that global warming is caused primarily by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. A bit of Google-**'ing reveals that everything from aerosols to changes in measuring ocean temperature with US vs UK ships is to blame, with the likely culprit being aerosols.
Judith Curry has doubts about aerosol theory.
Mid 20th Century Global(?) Warming: Part II | Climate Etc.
|
It must be coincidence that the Clean Air Acts were followed accelerated warming. It must also be coincidence that all major volcanic eruptions result in cooling.
__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 14:52
|
#1545
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,864
|
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale
He had an honours degree in physics before he was a cartoonist.
|
He doesn't mention that in his LinkedIn profile.
Anyway, aren't physicists ineligible to be taken seriously in climate science due to the fact they aren't climate scientists? I've seen this mentioned a few times when discussing skeptics.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Advertise Here
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vendor Spotlight |
|
|
|
|