Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The evidence:



The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple).

The analysis:

-Anthropogenic factor result in global warming

- Natural factors tend to result in cooling.

- Anthropogenic factors outweigh natural factors.

Conclusion:

Global warming is the result of anthropogenic activities.

Happy now?

Condescending enough for you?

__________________

I showed mine; you show me yours.

May we have a little modesty here?? After all, I've never asked to see "yours."

I see you've reverted back to the skeptical science site. Well, they do use a lot of cool graphics. But didn't you just tell us you rarely visited that particular clubhouse? No matter, probably just a coincidence . . . . How about I now respond with some contrary "science" from the Heartland Institute? Apparently you and many others are devout believers in the "consensus" you have been fed, but many others have eviscerated it -- from the many pages of (old) forum threads to sworn testimony from scientists before Congress.

I cannot agree that copying & pasting material that only presents one side of a complex issue, but then ignores or marginalizes well known opposing views, constitutes "analysis." Nor would I draw firm "conclusions" from such one-sided and agenda-driven "evidence" without at least attempting to reconcile the two sides. Sorry, but dismissing 36 years of satellite based temp readings from highly credentialed scientists because "the troposphere is not where I live" is hardly persuasive or credible.

Instead, the only conclusion I would make -- as a layman anyway -- is the only one the actual scientific evidence seems to support, namely that the current state of the known science in the area of climatology is uncertain and therefore unsettled at this time.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by svmariane

Well, this comes to mind: the Marshall Islands.
{And yes, I know it's CNN but still...}


You're making this island disappear

Nothing to do with global warming. Google ground water depletion and subduction

Oh yeah, dropping a few atom bombs on them might not of helped, too.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did your search engine break?

Global Warming Effects Information, Global Warming Effects Facts, Climate Change Effects - National Geographic

Nope. I prefer to observe the world around me in the first instance and form my conclusions.

But i have to confess I've failed to notice fox and butterfly migrations.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by svmariane

Well, this comes to mind: the Marshall Islands.
{And yes, I know it's CNN but still...}


You're making this island disappear

And I'll counter your argument. ..

https://www.newscientist.com/article...a-levels-rise/

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Probably just trying to use Google. I've been told it's only for lazy people who aren't very bright.

For original science, I prefer Google Scholar.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Nope. I prefer to observe the world around me in the first instance and form my conclusions.

But i have to confess I've failed to notice fox and butterfly migrations.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I prefer to think globally and act locally.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Nothing to do with global warming. Google ground water depletion and subduction

Oh yeah, dropping a few atom bombs on them might not of helped, too.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

OK - first hit.

For the low-lying atoll nations of the Pacific, securing safe and sufficient
freshwater is a constant challenge. Unreliable rainfall patterns
and the absence of lakes or rivers mean that many atoll communities
rely almost exclusively on small and fragile lenses of freshwater that
‘float’ on the underlying seawater.
Both the quality and quantity of this groundwater are now
threatened by population growth, urbanization and climate change.
Groundwater is already suffering from saltwater intrusion as a
corollary of rising sea levels. Rainfall is also becoming increasingly
erratic, raising the spectre of
periodic drought.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/002...07/220723e.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And I'll counter your argument. ..

https://www.newscientist.com/article...a-levels-rise/

Sent from my SM-G900I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Why are the islands growing?

“There will be less emphasis on external migration of ‘environmental refugees’ from atoll nations that has gained such prominence in the last few years,” he says. But he notes that the atoll-building sediment comes from productive coral reefs, which face a range of threats such as warming oceans and pollution.

Did you get past the headline and read the concluding paragraph?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why are the islands growing?



Did you get past the headline and read the concluding paragraph?

Did you get past the headline & concluding paragraph, and read a couple of the paragraphs in between?

Storms and other disturbances that churn up the sea seem to be more important than sea level in influencing stability, says Kench. Storms break up coral, which then gets deposited on the atolls. He says other coral reef islands are likely to evolve in the same way, and that the Maldives seem to be showing a similar effect.

* * *

And climate change could result in bigger, more frequent storms. These could be catastrophic in the short term even if they increase the area of atolls in the long term, says Tom Spencer from the University of Cambridge. “The challenge for island nations is to figure how they will coexist with their changing islands,” says Kench.

These islands have always been changing, due to a variety of influences, including human. As a result, humans have always adapted, a fact also mentioned in the article. To conclude from this that CC is making some of these islands "disappear" is rather presumptuous & alarmist, no?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

May we have a little modesty here?? After all, I've never asked to see "yours."

I see you've reverted back to the skeptical science site. Well, they do use a lot of cool graphics. But didn't you just tell us you rarely visited that particular clubhouse? No matter, probably just a coincidence . . . . How about I now respond with some contrary "science" from the Heartland Institute? Apparently you and many others are devout believers in the "consensus" you have been fed, but many others have eviscerated it -- from the many pages of (old) forum threads to sworn testimony from scientists before Congress.

I cannot agree that copying & pasting material that only presents one side of a complex issue, but then ignores or marginalizes well known opposing views, constitutes "analysis." Nor would I draw firm "conclusions" from such one-sided and agenda-driven "evidence" without at least attempting to reconcile the two sides. Sorry, but dismissing 36 years of satellite based temp readings from highly credentialed scientists because "the troposphere is not where I live" is hardly persuasive or credible.

Instead, the only conclusion I would make -- as a layman anyway -- is the only one the actual scientific evidence seems to support, namely that the current state of the known science in the area of climatology is uncertain and therefore unsettled at this time.

Rarely does not mean never. I first saw that graphic in a news story.

Challenge the message not the messenger. There is no agenda driven evidence on the AGW side. The denier side has Fred Singer who poo-pooed second hand smoke, Willie Soon who collected $1,300,000 fro the Amercian Petroleum Institute, William Happer whose opinion is for sale, etc..

I do not dismiss satellite data. I quoted one of the highly credentialed satellite scientists who puts more faith in surface temperatures.

The science is about 95% certain.

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

Not one single science academy on the planet disputes the findings of the IPCC. Zilch, Nada, None.

But you stick to some bizarre belief they are wrong. What is the other side?


I gather it would take 100% certainty you were going overboard before you used a pfd, harness and tether.

In 35 years of sailing over 45, 000 miles I have never had anyone go overboard, bit I still insist my crew wear pdf's, harnesses and tethers when offshore, at night or in heavy weather.

You are beginning to remind of Asimov's observation.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

I put my trust my doctor for medical treatment, my dentist for the health of my teeth, my mechanic for my car maintenance, my plumber, my electrician. I also give credence to the NOAA weatherfax and the meteorologists who interpret them (I know one or two.) BTW - I also know how read gribs.


Give me some science for the opposing views.

In the immortal words of Harlan Ellison

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For original science, I prefer Google Scholar.

In my field, a paid subscription-based web service is mandatory. Google Scholar can be helpful for more prominent primary & secondary source material, but the search engine won't cut it, especially for staying up to date. I suspect it may be the same in professional scientific circles as well. Google Scholar seems like just a slighter finer tuned version of Google, and is largely redundant.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Burning wood releases the same amount of CO2 as decomposition and forest fires. It is part of the natural carbon cycle.

While it would be part of the natural carbon cycle if new trees were planted, but each year the earth looses 1,700,000 acres of forest that is not replaced. That's 350,000 kilotons of co2 per year from deforestation that is not reabsorbed by new growth.

THen factor in the co2 reliease from forest fires and it adds up. Yes the carbon will slowly be reabsorbed over 50-100 years.

But between deforestation and forest fires there is a heck of a lot of CO2 that is pumped out of the carbon cycle every year.

It does count.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Did you get past the headline & concluding paragraph, and read a couple of the paragraphs in between?

Storms and other disturbances that churn up the sea seem to be more important than sea level in influencing stability, says Kench. Storms break up coral, which then gets deposited on the atolls. He says other coral reef islands are likely to evolve in the same way, and that the Maldives seem to be showing a similar effect.

* * *

And climate change could result in bigger, more frequent storms. These could be catastrophic in the short term even if they increase the area of atolls in the long term, says Tom Spencer from the University of Cambridge. “The challenge for island nations is to figure how they will coexist with their changing islands,” says Kench.

These islands have always been changing, due to a variety of influences, including human. As a result, humans have always adapted, a fact also mentioned in the article. To conclude from this that CC is making some of these islands "disappear" is rather presumptuous & alarmist, no?

I read the whole article. How you imagine I got to the conclusion?

Do you accept the climate change could include more frequent storms?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

While it would be part of the natural carbon cycle if new trees were planted, but each year the earth looses 1,700,000 acres of forest that is not replaced. That's 350,000 kilotons of co2 per year from deforestation that is not reabsorbed by new growth.

THen factor in the co2 reliease from forest fires and it adds up. Yes the carbon will slowly be reabsorbed over 50-100 years.

But between deforestation and forest fires there is a heck of a lot of CO2 that is pumped out of the carbon cycle every year.

It does count.

I agree that deforestation is a serious issue. One of my classes protected 400 acres of rainforest. If every class in North America did the same, it would make a large difference.

You might want to study on on controlled burns.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/controlled_burn.htm

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The evidence:



.

I love that the human contribution to global warming exceeds 100% on at least 5 models. Must be some of that new math.