Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by CamWrenRoo

Well, having spent the last 20 minutes or so scrolling through this discussion, I have to say, with respect for all of you, that no amount of denial will make a problem go away.

What if, as the data shows, the there is no practical way to impact temperature from carbon emissions, even if carbon emissions were causing warming? Would you still want to spend trillions having no impact at all? If so, could you explain why? No warmist here can do so, but perhaps you can.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

I'll leave that pointless exercise to you.

Proxy data always have lower resolution than instrumental data. The Earth is a big low-pass filter and whenever you apply a low-pass filter, you attenuate amplitude. Disregard of this very basic bit of signal processing theory is the foundation of most hockey sticks.

Oh man.

Whenever you apply a low-pass filter, you attenuate amplitude higher frequencies. Frequency filters do not necessarily affect amplitude (gain) except to the extent the signal's components are inside or outside of the filter's passband.

Jaggy peaks and dips are indicative of high-frequency content; a lowpass filter smooths out the jaggies. If this is what you meant by 'amplitude'... I still don't know what you're driving at.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by CamWrenRoo

Well, having spent the last 20 minutes or so scrolling through this discussion, I have to say, with respect for all of you, that no amount of denial will make a problem go away. Here's the real issue, in my opinion...
Public policy is directly related to public opinion. If you want to drive your cars, burn your diesel motor, order stuff from ebay and enjoy avocados shipped from Mexico in the dead of winter... You are contributing to the problem. You vote with your dollars spent, not your ballot at election time. All of the bills passed by our government won't do **** without action from the masses.
Hey, don't assume that I am finger wagging over here - I too am plenty guilty. I love avocados...
I'm not going to put a bunch of energy into arguing whether or not climate change is real. I know the facts, and I base my opinions upon science alone.
But, we all know that the real debate is not over the science. It's over the politics.
My former chemistry lab professor at a small community college in VA and I got into this debate, in the middle of class. He is quite politically conservative. Despite all of the data and an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community as a whole, he still stands by the argument that we wee little humans couldn't possibly cause the planet to change. Any data to back it up? Nope. Anything besides political bias? Nope...
It's all politics, let's not kid ourselves.

I pretty much agree with you it's politics and I'd suggest 'money'. But I don't go for the guilt thing. I don't 'think' the solution is with the masses, other than to 'force' those representing the masses to make changes. That's the only place the masses can really influence what is happening. Ultimately, and as it's happening now, governments will be forced kicking and screaming to acknowledge that they have to start doing something. Unfortunately it's come too late to reverse what is happening. But it's never too late to help the situation and that's what governments need to now focus on.

It's pretty much the 'right' that is stalling progress and stopped the problem from happening in the first place. And I think what was initially behind that reluctance was a religious belief. I'll have to use our Australian context to explain this. In Australia it's our political right, the conservatives who have fought change and even acknowledgement that there was a problem at all. They are still fighting it. Our conservatives are where our 'religious' right is. Our pentecostals,, fundamentalists, catholics, anglican's, evangelicals, all congregate towards the right. And our heavily influenced 'christian' right believe in an escatology that the earth will finish anyway and so it's resources are here for the taking. It's the opposite to green theology. That's why our conservatives in politics are so slow to getting on board and traditionally that's been the focus of the churches as well. I'd suggest the USA is heavily in this same camp.

Of course, I'm talking generally. I'm an ordainced baptist minister and I've always been on the left and green left. But we are few in this nation.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The fact that warmist Kool-Aid drinkers like you insist on maintaining scientific ignorance and the relentless use of ad hominems in lieu of a coherent argument has done far more damage to climate science than anything any skeptic has ever done.

Suitable for framing, that.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Suitable for framing, that.

Hmmm, I looked throughout your post here, and I can't find the coherent argument. Am I missing it somehow?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I pretty much agree with you it's politics and I'd suggest 'money'. But I don't go for the guilt thing. I don't 'think' the solution is with the masses, other than to 'force' those representing the masses to make changes. That's the only place the masses can really influence what is happening. Ultimately, and as it's happening now, governments will be forced kicking and screaming to acknowledge that they have to start doing something. Unfortunately it's come too late to reverse what is happening. But it's never too late to help the situation and that's what governments need to now focus on.

It's pretty much the 'right' that is stalling progress and stopped the problem from happening in the first place. And I think what was initially behind that reluctance was a religious belief. I'll have to use our Australian context to explain this. In Australia it's our political right, the conservatives who have fought change and even acknowledgement that there was a problem at all. They are still fighting it. Our conservatives are where our 'religious' right is. Our pentecostals,, fundamentalists, catholics, anglican's, evangelicals, all congregate towards the right. And our heavily influenced 'christian' right believe in an escatology that the earth will finish anyway and so it's resources are here for the taking. It's the opposite to green theology. That's why our conservatives in politics are so slow to getting on board and traditionally that's been the focus of the churches as well. I'd suggest the USA is heavily in this same camp.

Of course, I'm talking generally. I'm an ordainced baptist minister and I've always been on the left and green left. But we are few in this nation.

Yep, a Baptist minister on the left and a greenie to boot is a rare thing.

And I hate to disabuse you, but the basis for the 'right's' opposition to AGW is not eschatological but is based on the observation that the science in support of AGW theory is weak and generally promoted by the same people who think that socialism isn't really all that bad, Venezuela notwithstanding.

And in my case, by the data that shows that even if this time leftists have it right, there isn't squat that can be done this side of killing off a few billion people and returning humanity to the 18th century. While a dream of some leftists, not so much on us conservatives. So again from my perspective, how about spending those trillions on saving the lives of the poor. That would seem to be the Christian thing to do, but what do I know? I'm just an Anglican.

[newhaul]

Here's a new study just published about carbon sequestrationthat blows the current models out of the water so to speak
Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics | Science Advances

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

...And I hate to disabuse you, but the basis for the 'right's' opposition to AGW is not eschatological but is based on the observation that the science in support of AGW theory is weak and generally promoted by the same people who think that socialism isn't really all that bad, Venezuela notwithstanding...

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Ironic image, given that the warmists' meme is fueled almost entirely by their imaginations.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

I pretty much agree with you it's politics and I'd suggest 'money'. But I don't go for the guilt thing. I don't 'think' the solution is with the masses, other than to 'force' those representing the masses to make changes. That's the only place the masses can really influence what is happening. Ultimately, and as it's happening now, governments will be forced kicking and screaming to acknowledge that they have to start doing something. Unfortunately it's come too late to reverse what is happening. But it's never too late to help the situation and that's what governments need to now focus on.

It's pretty much the 'right' that is stalling progress and stopped the problem from happening in the first place. And I think what was initially behind that reluctance was a religious belief. I'll have to use our Australian context to explain this. In Australia it's our political right, the conservatives who have fought change and even acknowledgement that there was a problem at all. They are still fighting it. Our conservatives are where our 'religious' right is. Our pentecostals,, fundamentalists, catholics, anglican's, evangelicals, all congregate towards the right. And our heavily influenced 'christian' right believe in an escatology that the earth will finish anyway and so it's resources are here for the taking. It's the opposite to green theology. That's why our conservatives in politics are so slow to getting on board and traditionally that's been the focus of the churches as well. I'd suggest the USA is heavily in this same camp.

Of course, I'm talking generally. I'm an ordainced baptist minister and I've always been on the left and green left. But we are few in this nation.

Your standing by your convictions in defiance of conformity is worthy of respect, RC. You are probably correct that the religious right in the US generally gravitates towards the conservative end of the political spectrum as well, but that certainly doesn't mean that all or even most American conservatives are religious or vote on that basis. And then there are many secular conservatives who are quite liberal if not libertarian on social issues, but nevertheless vote conservative since they assign higher priority to policies related to economics & foreign policy, for example. This latter faction are often likened to the "Goldwater Republicans," or maybe more accurately moderate Repubs who once dominated the party in an earlier era.

But then the Dems are a far cry from the party of JFK, Truman or even Roosevelt, having moved much further to the left. So this leaves a large gap in the middle, where ironically most of the electorate probably reside but don't feel represented by either side. So after years of divisive govt., little attention paid to consensus building, and an increasingly polarized public, things have inevitably blown up in the current election cycle, with some bizarre and troubling results. Hopefully there is a higher level of consensus in your country these days.

As for the influence of the religious right in resisting the mainstream science of CC, I think the problem is less about religious convictions and more about the country's polarization and resulting lack of trust in the intentions of the opposing side. With so many AGW proponents also steeped in an agenda which rejects basic western values, including capitalism, free markets, constitutional govt., etc., it is no wonder that many not so obsessed with ideology are wary of being misled.

I can't help but find it extraordinarily ironic & sad that a Baptist minister who is on the "green left" as you describe yourself will get no derision from the more zealous AGW proponents, yet those same proponents won't hesitate to deride another Baptist minister who is a well-respected climate scientist, but happens to be skeptical of the mainstream position on AGW. I'm neither Baptist, a minister, nor particularly religious, but I find this pathetic nonetheless. But personal vilification seems fair game these days, even if the only offense is disagreement over a highly complex scientific issue. I suspect you and Dr. Christy would have more of your basic values in common despite differences in some of your respective views. Maybe your unique position will help bridge some of these growing divides.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

My problem is I have principals that don't just flap in the wind and go Ra..Ra..go team. If both candidates are boobs, then it is in the best interest of the Republic to stand up and say it...not to just vote for my team and wave the flag. It was driven home to me when my daughter registered to vote for the first time and asked me who I was voting for. Now she knows I'm a Mark Levin style Constitutional Conservative, so how could I look her in the eye and say I'm violating my principals and voting for either El Trumpo or HiLiary? I just can't do it....

It sucks sometimes having principals...but at the end of the day that is all you really have.

I listen to his commercial free podcast nearly every day. I also read the front pages and some articles on CNN, FOX and Yahoo among others before I make up my mind on issues. But I like the way Mark tells it like it is. I was also a Reagan guy at 16yrs of age before I became a conservative liberatarian... Which was before the party was hijacked by a bunch of gay anarchists.

I'm still the same guy, but I keep getting rebranded as the political parties change. Maybe I should call myself a conservative free-spirit boatnick? Who spent 400 hours over the past three summer refinishing his own teak decks.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Ironic image, given that the warmists' meme is fueled almost entirely by their imaginations.

Still struggling with your role as the village idiot?
.

April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs | The Guardian

April 2016 was the hottest April on record globally – and the seventh month in a row to have broken global temperature records.

The latest figures smashed the previous record for April by the largest margin ever recorded.

It makes three months in a row that the monthly record has been broken by the largest margin ever, and seven months in a row that are at least 1C above the 1951-80 mean for that month. When the string of record-smashing months started in February, scientists began talking about a “climate emergency”...

It all but assures that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, and probably by the largest margin ever...

[GordMay]

NASA said over the weekend that last month was the warmest April in statistics dating back to the 19th century, the seventh month in a row to break temperature records.
➥ 7th monthly heat record in row smashed amid Bonn climate meeting - Technology & Science - CBC News

NASA’s monthly GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
➥ Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

[Kenomac]

Obviously, they neglected to include the colder than normal temps recorded in New England for the month of April into their model.

Warm = Climate change
Cold = Weather

According to the "experts.

[Reefmagnet]

I think computed average global temperatures should be adjusted to exclude the concurrent Pacific Warming Anomaly (aka El Nino) because I think there's strong evidence to suggest it is/was a regional phenomenon.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app