Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

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

A healthy skepticism of skeptical science has its rewards.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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

I actually agree with you on Deforestation. Though as all the rainforests are not in North America, I'd rather see more trees planted everywhere. About 1700000 acres a year more would be a good start. Don't think it's going to happen.

Part of the problem is control burns are not happening like they use to. The lake fire here in california being a prime example, of a place where control burns have not happened in a lonnngggg time.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

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

No. The anthropogenic forcing is overriding the natural forcing by a significant amount.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Part of the problem is control burns are not happening like they use to. The lake fire here in california being a prime example, of a place where control burns have not happened in a lonnngggg time.

Controlled burns are fairly common here.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

I actually agree with you on Deforestation. Though as all the rainforests are not in North America, I'd rather see more trees planted everywhere. About 1700000 acres a year more would be a good start. Don't think it's going to happen.
.

You are correct I how I iterpeted the rainforest part correct. There is only one rain forest in the north half. Of the planet and its right here in Washington state

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

In another 2000 years or so our descendents will be thanking us for our foresight in insulating the sky.

I thought the sky was falling???

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You are correct I how I iterpeted the rainforest part correct. There is only one rain forest in the north half. Of the planet and its right here in Washington state

I must say it does rains a ton in Washington state. So I stand corrected.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You are correct I how I iterpeted the rainforest part correct. There is only one rain forest in the north half. Of the planet and its right here in Washington state

It also extends into Canada.



The Carmanah Valley an Ancient Rainforest on Vancouver Island - The Canadian Nature Photorapher

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why are the islands growing?



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

“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.

Required disclaimer to ensure ongoing funding.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK - first hit.



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

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.

Well that's a whole bunch of baloney right there. Saltwater intrudes into ground water when the ground water is drawn off faster then it can be replenished. Notice how climate change is tacked on after the real causes?

You may also need to explain to a simpleton like me how a warmer world results in erratic (suggesting decreased) rainfall. For example, taking geography out of the equation, more rainfall occurs in the tropics in general than anywhere else. Fundamentally because warm air can hold more moisture vapour and evaporation rates are highest. You might also want to explain why tropical "wet seasons" coincide with summer and "dry seasons" with winter.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It also extends into Canada.



The Carmanah Valley an Ancient Rainforest on Vancouver Island - The Canadian Nature Photorapher

Thanks I didn't know there was a rainforest on Vancouver island the forest I was offering to is the hoh rainforest on the Olympic peninsula of Washington state
https://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvis...ng-the-hoh.htm

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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

You can cite to whatever source you wish, provided you acknowledge and account for the bias. It's the same standard you frequently admonish others for not meeting when they cite from Heartland Institute or a host of other scientific, political, or other organizations or publications that don't happen to agree with your positions.

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..

Now this was remarkable, even for you. You decry challenges to the messenger as opposed to the message, yet two sentences later you lambast three messengers who purportedly speak for the "denier" side. Hard to believe you can't see this.

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

Right. You "accept" the sat data yet cannot reconcile it, so you mainly ignore it instead. When pressed, you cite Dr. Mears who claims the troposphere is an inaccurate way of measuring surface temps because it fails to account for ocean subduction. OK, that's a plausible theory I suppose, except that nobody seems to be able to find all this missing heat. More reasonable differences in scientific opinion, except this time it goes to whether or not the methodology for taking the earth's temperature is accurate or even close. When one set of "accepted" data supports large human influences in the earth's warming, and another set of "accepted" data does not, I'd say that every other AGW theory that relies on such data is uncertain.

The science is about 95% certain.

********. Not that MMGW may not exist mind you, just your 95%. But wait . . . I thought it was 97%? No, no, that's been debunked by Powell -- it's 99%. Like I said . . . .

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

UAH?

But you stick to some bizarre belief they are wrong.

Not "wrong," only not as certain as you so adamantly wish them to be, and admonish others for doubting.

What is the other side?

I'm not as nostalgic as you are for regurgitating points made long ago and throughout lengthy forum threads. If you're having some memory loss, then a search for posts by "StuM" would be an excellent start.

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

No, I almost always use one, especially since I often sail solo. But I am also acutely aware that they are no panacea, and may only serve to remind me to act safer.

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.

Unless you have very well thought out ways of running & securing your jack lines, the prospect of drowning while dangling over the topsides with a set of freshly broken ribs is a real one. I bet the primary reason your crew have never gone overboard is because being required to wear pfd's, harnesses & tethers serve as a constant reminder not to fall overboard!

You are beginning to remind of Asimov's observation.

Yes, I'm sure, along with apparently all the other posters you've dug Asimov out for in the last several thousand posts. It was about as convincing those times as it is now. But I'm sure it makes you feel smarter to impute ignorance to others who have contrary opinions.

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.

So do I, as do most other offshore sailors that I know, no matter their "ignorance" for not agreeing with me on CC. I'd even take it further that I accept the tobacco cos.' liability for misrepresenting the dangers of smoking, and believe the NFL is probably liable for misrepresenting the long-term danger of concussions suffered by its players. But in both those cases, the science was not only settled, but long-settled and firmly established. Your attempt to analogize cases such as this to the CC debate is sorely misplaced.

Give me some science for the opposing views.

After 3,200+ posts you're telling us you still don't know what the scientific positions are on the other side? I guess that explains a lot right there. How about you tell us where all that ocean heat went that Dr. Mears theorizes about? And why it's not just an attempt by Mears to explain why his sat data only validated Christy & Spencer?

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.”

So if we follow the logic you ascribe to Asimov & Ellison, it's obvious you believe that anyone who isn't as convinced as you are must be ignorant. OK, that makes sense given your approach to "educating" people on this and other threads. Ignorance is one thing, but a combo of ignorance and arrogance quite another.

This is the same kind of narrow thinking that is now propelling the attempt to criminalize the "deniers," and of course it's all too familiar throughout human history. But perhaps unlike you, I don't robotically put on my pfd, harness & tether merely because someone told me it would prevent me from drowning. Instead, I try and do it in such a way so as not to validate the law of unintended consequences. I urge the same approach when it comes to the CC debate. It's the difference between independent analysis vs. copy & paste.

And don't forget to focus on challenging the message, not the messenger!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

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

I figured as much, which is why I also cited the science about these islands' problems having nothing to do with sea level rise. As you may recall, sea level rise was the issue being discussed.

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

Yes, I accept that CC could include more frequent storms, and I do because there is science that supports it. But I also accept that there could also be no connection between the two, and I do because science supports that as well. Accordingly, I conclude that the science is unsettled on the question of whether CC (MMGW to be more precise) could be responsible for more frequent storms.

[StuM]

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

So instead of CNN, let's look at the data:

Monthly sea levels for MARSHALL ISLANDS

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

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

...

And climate change could result in bigger, more frequent storms. ...

And climate change could result in smaller, less frequent storms.


No one knows which it will be.