Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Have you stopped attacking climate scientists yet, as justification for your anti-AGW position?

Show me where I attacked a climate scientist I have never done that . I may have differing views but I have never attacked a scientist for his/her works.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Why didn't you just say that you had solar on your boat about 80 or so pages age when people started asking ? Are you ashamed to have it ? Also I don't believe that humans can/ have affected the climate to the degree that you and some actual scientists have claimed . ( I am not a scientist but I do study history and climate does have an affect. ). My main issue with all the sky is falling bit is historical evidence says ( pre industrial) the planet warmed ( mideval warming period) and cooled ( little ice age). I just don't believe humans have had that profound of an affect. Now the main thing as I said to jack just a couple posts ago I do believe that the planet was warming . ( new evidence says it may be entering a cooling period). I just don't believe in agw as a major issue.

Actually I did mention boat solar, in that long-ago mess, but we all have that, so it's not near the commitment and sacrifice that one must apparently make in order to express a pro-AGW position here.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Show me where I attacked a climate scientist I have never done that . I may have differing views but I have never attacked a scientist for his/her works.

No, I haven't seen that from you. So, apologies for implying that.

You were asking the solar question, together with your popcorn, in sort of a "have you stopped beating your wife?" way, so I was replying in kind, and also to others who were also persistent with the solar pissing contest AND whose arguments mention or at least imply that the climate science field is to some extent bent or incompetent.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

( new evidence says it may be entering a cooling period).

Can we see that new evidence, please?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Can we see that new evidence, please?

I have posted it already . The artic sea ice pack appears to be increasing since it hit a record low in 2012 your own graphs have shown that. However 3 full years is insufficient data to offset the long term of loss prior to that 2012 date hence the reason when I originally posted about increases in sea ice volumes I also quantified with the need for a few more years data to confirm. We should have a clearer picture by 2020 on what is now happening in the Arctic. Next is the snow cover issue it is on the rise again as well. NASA has shown a net snow cover increase of 15% over last year for the month of December
I posted the fact that Arctic sea ice volumes have increases by just under 1800 km 3 since 2012 doesn't seem like much but it is going back to the positive ( that was for the month of December. )

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Actually I did mention boat solar, in that long-ago mess, but we all have that, so it's not near the commitment and sacrifice that one must apparently make in order to express a pro-AGW position here.



No, I haven't seen that from you. So, apologies for implying that.

You were asking the solar question, together with your popcorn, in sort of a "have you stopped beating your wife?" way, so I was replying in kind, and also to others who were also persistent with the solar pissing contest AND whose arguments mention or at least imply that the climate science field is to some extent bent or incompetent.

I must have missed that post when you said you had solar on your boat my apologies. No problem on your implication ( I may disagree with a scientists position but I do respect the person) one note for many of us solar on our boat equals solar on our homes.

Sometimes even science errors lead to better understanding of the world / universe.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Can we see that new evidence, please?

I have a theory. Not evidence by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's valid nevertheless.

Firstly, consider blizzards are caused by the warming planet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...izzards-worse/

"The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that nor’easters like this one may grow stronger [with] human-caused climate change, as they are driven by the contrast between cold Arctic air masses and ever-warming ocean surface temperatures,” says Penn State climatologist Michael Mann.

“We also know that ocean surface temperatures off the U.S. east coast right now are*unusually warm, and there is no doubt that a component of that anomalous warmth is due to human-caused climate change,” Mann adds. “Those warm ocean temperatures also mean that there is more moisture in the air for this storm to feed on and to produce huge snowfalls inland.

Secondly, consider the planet warms more at the poles. Except the South Pole, but that's only because of winds and ozone:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mel...ing-Arctic.htm
http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/I...w.php?id=81214

Thirdly, hot air rises:



Now, my theory based on the above, is that global cooling is, in fact, warming the planet.

You see, the poles are actually getting colder. Cold air is dense and heavy. It settles to the surface, creating an area of low pressure in the atmosphere above. Warm air, on the other hand, expands and rises causing high pressure in the atmosphere. Now, because the poles are low pressure and the warmer equatorial areas are high pressure, the natural equalisation of pressures, an "anti-vortex" if you like, means that the warm air flows to the cold air areas before finally being mixed by the wind which unfortunately causes observed "warming" and voila! Also, because warm air rises, the Arctic is the sitting duck for biggest change. There is also a forced feedback because it's easier for the sun to heat cooler air than it is to heat warmer air by a fixed temperature increase so the now cooler tropics also become warmer because the air gets heated more efficiently.

I know the theory may sound silly to some, but if climate change can cause both less and more snowfall, less and more temperature extremes, less and more rainfall, less and more storms and basically less and more of everything as long as it's in someway bad then I think it requires some consideration.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I have a theory...
[snip]
Now, my theory based on the above, is that global cooling is, in fact, warming the planet.
[snip]

Got that gubmint grant paperwork filled out so you can pursue this theory? Seems like a prime candidate for a multi-year six figure study.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I thought a graph would be a more efficient simple-minded way to indicate that the number of scientists who support the finding of AGW. How about you list the scientific bodies and organizations who are skeptics on AGW? It's quite a short list.

Since you already claim to know what sort of list is out there for numbers of scientific organizations, then please share those stats with us. I'm tired of doing the leg work for what are, after all, your assertions. Besides, this trivial back & forth is wasteful and must be getting embarrassing for you.

I commend you for coming up with an actual graph, but you simply got it from the same Wiki page that I cut & pasted the lengthy lists of skeptical scientists from. I was going to post it myself, but it presupposes the existence of GW, and puts scientists into only one of two categories, namely those who believe humans have played a "significant" role, or "little or none." In contrast, the lists I posted break down the skeptical community into 4 distinct categories, which more accurately reflect the nuances of what it actually means to be a skeptic and why. I suspect this lengthy, previous discussion was lost on you, but according to studies of the "consensus" published by the likes of John Cook, there are many skeptics who are nevertheless counted as part of the "97%." If you'd like I could reference the 2007 "Oregon Report" which also attempts to quantify the consensus. But when I read that it was produced by the Heartland Institute and was highly controversial, I didn't think it would help advance the discussion.

Besides, however the numbers break down, we also know that scientific conclusions are not reached by polls, but by challenging the science itself. The reason Spencer & Christy are mentioned a lot is not because of which institution they happen to belong to, but because they developed the satellite data that has established what is probably the most significant science-based discrepancy with the (adjusted) surface data & modeling which the mainstream position primarily relies on. It doesn't hurt, however, that Spencer also had a career at NASA, and that Christy used to be a member of the IPCC.

I've shown you where you say what I pointed out. If you won't own your own words and the bias they contain, or clarify or defend them... this is perhaps a more serious form of hypocrisy, as opposed to whether one has installed solar panels or not.

You're not being honest. Mischaracterizing other peoples' posts has become a familiar pattern for you, and you just tried it again on Newhaul. You don't seem to understand that all it demonstrates is that you lack rational arguments on the merits. I never claimed I didn't have my own bias, along with the belief that there is potential for bias within the scientific community due to politics and funding. This is completely distinguishable from accusing scientists on either side of unprofessional conduct. But unlike you, what I've tried to resist is allowing partisanship, ignorance, and arrogance turn into dishonest posting.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You're not being honest.

I'm being brutally honest; what I'm not doing is being is tactful. Or 'nice' as encouraged by CF rules. Probably I should be doing more of these, when there's no point to be won.

If I get caught (or catch myself) in an misunderstanding, error or a misstatement, I clarify and when warranted I apologize.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have posted it already . The artic sea ice pack appears to be increasing since it hit a record low in 2012 your own graphs have shown that. However 3 full years is insufficient data to offset the long term of loss prior to that 2012 date hence the reason when I originally posted about increases in sea ice volumes I also quantified with the need for a few more years data to confirm. We should have a clearer picture by 2020 on what is now happening in the Arctic. Next is the snow cover issue it is on the rise again as well. NASA has shown a net snow cover increase of 15% over last year for the month of December
I posted the fact that Arctic sea ice volumes have increases by just under 1800 km 3 since 2012 doesn't seem like much but it is going back to the positive ( that was for the month of December. )

Current Arctic sea ice extent levels are below 2012, and have been near or below 2012 for Dec 2015 and January 2016.

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Volume still trending down despite a small uptick

[jackdale]

Meanwhile

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

[jackdale]

And

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Climate Models as Heuristics by Zach Pirtle | ASU Triple Helix

That is consistent with what I learned in graduate school - Studies of the Future, University of Houston, Clear Lake, 1980-81.

Yer 'avin a larf, innit!

I see the problem. You obviously have low comprehension skills.
You don't even understand the difference between "as" and "are" in the title.

That link does not address the question of whether or not climate models are deterministic, stochastic or heuristic in any way, shape or form. The core of it is the oft repeated remark "Oreskes et al. argue that “the primary value of models is heuristic.”

Note the word "VALUE". Oreskes and her ilk argue that the output of models should be used heuristically in policy development, they do not claim that the models are heuristic.

A classic case of not having a clue and:
1. Googling the terms "climate model" and "heuristic".
2. Finding a link that references one of the usual suspects such as Oreskes.
3. Assuming that it supports the argument.
4. Posting with zero understanding what it says.

IOW, typical JD behaviour.

So please explain what you understand by the term heuristic.

Then explain why how climate models models meet that definition

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I have a theory. Not evidence by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's valid nevertheless.

Firstly, consider blizzards are caused by the warming planet:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...izzards-worse/



Secondly, consider the planet warms more at the poles. Except the South Pole, but that's only because of winds and ozone:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mel...ing-Arctic.htm
Arctic Amplification : Image of the Day

Thirdly, hot air rises:



Now, my theory based on the above, is that global cooling is, in fact, warming the planet.

You see, the poles are actually getting colder. Cold air is dense and heavy. It settles to the surface, creating an area of low pressure in the atmosphere above. Warm air, on the other hand, expands and rises causing high pressure in the atmosphere. Now, because the poles are low pressure and the warmer equatorial areas are high pressure, the natural equalisation of pressures, an "anti-vortex" if you like, means that the warm air flows to the cold air areas before finally being mixed by the wind which unfortunately causes observed "warming" and voila! Also, because warm air rises, the Arctic is the sitting duck for biggest change. There is also a forced feedback because it's easier for the sun to heat cooler air than it is to heat warmer air by a fixed temperature increase so the now cooler tropics also become warmer because the air gets heated more efficiently.

I know the theory may sound silly to some, but if climate change can cause both less and more snowfall, less and more temperature extremes, less and more rainfall, less and more storms and basically less and more of everything as long as it's in someway bad then I think it requires some consideration.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Or to put it another way, yet another example of negative feedback.

Which is why the earth's climate is relatively stable, and it is neither a frozen ball nor a searing inferno and life exists today.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Volume still trending down despite a small uptick

How can you say that with a straight face while posting that graph.

To use the words "still trending down" when your "uptick" is about 5 years long and shows no sign of turning back down is pure sophistry (to put it nicely).