Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Thanks brother, just as I suspected.... But now, the two of us will be attacked for installing solar for all the wrong reasons.

You can still signal your virtue if you'd like Keno. I'll never tell.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Canada had almost 10 years of a conservative federal government, and many provinces have or had conservative or centrist governments. So how has the left managed to sieze control of education.t.

Most likely the same way it did in the US, very slowly via the teachers and colleges they attended. Teachers unions in the US also play a roll.

Example: my wife belongs to a Nurses Union which is required as a term of her employment. Each year she pays over $1000 in union dues. Over a thirty year period, she's made around a $20,000 contribution to basically left wing causes. A couple of years ago the union used the money to support that idiot Elizabeth Warren for Senator. Four years ago... The nurses Union was feeding those filthy anarchists who were infesting our public parks.

The same thing happens in the education biz. Not all teachers believe or subscribe to the union views, but they have almost no control of how their dues are spent by the corrupted leaders who were promised political goodies by the politicians in return for their financial support.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... Know any climate science grad students who need a summer job? Maybe CF could hire'em to moderate this.

That would not help as, and that may come as a surprise to you, there is no such thing as a pure "climate scientist". At my university climate research is part of the BSc. Environmental Science program. Climate research is always a subset of something else. I might be wrong here, but I think it will be hard to find a BSc in pure climate science offered anywhere.

Don't forget it is a relatively young field, a very complex one, which is highly politicised and funding might be not so freely available. So a bunch of Geologist, Meteorologists, Astrophysicist, Environmental Scientsists, etc. are contributing to a very complex field.

We have the observational evidence that the atmosphere is getting warmer. We have evidence that CO2 levels are raising. We know that humans have produced a lot of CO2 in the last 150 years or so. We also know that there is a statistically significant correlation between temperature and CO2 level.

If I would work in this field I would look closer when I see in the data that the correlation of CO2 and temperature are deviating from the usual significant correlation, even only for a short time and try to figure out why. But that is just me. The fact that we do not have model that provides even "close enough" predictions, shows that this field needs more resources for further research. As it is very politicised, this in not gonna to happen.

I see it that way: My car is driving really funny, I can't barley keep a straight line. Now the expert is telling me to buy 4 expensive new tires and new alloy rims. Changing the suspension may be a good idea too. That solves it, but later it turns out, that a drive to the garage and putting more air in the tires would have done the trick.

But still the expert advise was not so bad after all. The point is, if I did not have changed the tires early enough I might have caused even more damage to the car or even worse would have lost control, ending up hitting a tree.

The last two paragraphs really sum up the debate here. There is one group who says "the expert advice is premature and too expensive, let's wait until we know more before we do anything" and the second group is saying, "let's follow the expert advice now, just to be save". Both points of view have their merits. The funny thing is they say it not directly but rather by quoting the car manufacturers manual and the tire companies spec sheets, not to mention the suspension designers technical data, all complete out of context in the voice of their political standing, and all of it just to prove their value and believe systems right.

While it is fun to watch and to participate, the truth is, everyone knows that this thread leads nowhere.

Enough procrastination for one day. I'm

[weavis]

Scientific testing to prove global warming does not exist...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBXKoZQwvDE

[Kenomac]

Weavis,

LOL

[undercutter]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So you want the curriculum to include a point of view that that is not accepted by one single science academy on the planet? Let's include creation is a biology class as well while we are at it.

No! There is no place for either Religion in the primary curriculum.

Teachers themselves would tend to have to be "progressive" and inclusive to be successful in their profession. This may or may not result in leftward leaning tendencies. Teachers can have a great influence on social development and as such curriculums shouldn't include concepts beyond the student's ability to understand. It can be very difficult to keep personal opinions out of professional lives and this would also includes teachers.

[sailorboy1]

Lets get back to the goose crap.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Hey,

I posted a simple cartoon of the Al Gore dressed as the Messiah.

Not that, I was referring to the "what's up with Canadians" post.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

For such an active participant so full of relevant experience, insight & introspection, you certainly seem anxious for the mods to shut things down.

{and it's downhill from there}

I would prefer it if the mods shut it down or at least moderated it harder. It's a sailing forum, there's a thousand other forums where they do nothing but politics. The 'nice' is barely a facade in this thread, it's just a brawl. Thanks for doing your part to keep things noisy.

In the meantime, if the thread exists and someone utters crap, I may respond. You gotta problem with that?

Now go wipe yourself off.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

That would not help as, and that may come as a surprise to you, there is no such thing as a pure "climate scientist". At my university climate research is part of the BSc. Environmental Science program. Climate research is always a subset of something else. I might be wrong here, but I think it will be hard to find a BSc in pure climate science offered anywhere.

Don't forget it is a relatively young field, a very complex one, which is highly politicised and funding might be not so freely available. So a bunch of Geologist, Meteorologists, Astrophysicist, Environmental Scientsists, etc. are contributing to a very complex field.

Understood. I was being kind of facetious, also it's kind of shorthand around here. The mythical "climate scientist" who's either the potential saviour of mankind, or a grant-grubbing backstabbing careerist.

Two of my annual sailing acquaintances are young PhDs working at NOAA. One's a biologist and I don't recall the other's area.

If I would work in this field I would look closer when I see in the data that the correlation of CO2 and temperature are deviating from the usual significant correlation, even only for a short time and try to figure out why. But that is just me. The fact that we do not have model that provides even "close enough" predictions, shows that this field needs more resources for further research. As it is very politicised, this in not gonna to happen.

I see it that way: My car is driving really funny, I can't barley keep a straight line. Now the expert is telling me to buy 4 expensive new tires and new alloy rims. Changing the suspension may be a good idea too. That solves it, but later it turns out, that a drive to the garage and putting more air in the tires would have done the trick.

But still the expert advise was not so bad after all. The point is, if I did not have changed the tires early enough I might have caused even more damage to the car or even worse would have lost control, ending up hitting a tree.

The last two paragraphs really sum up the debate here. There is one group who says "the expert advice is premature and too expensive, let's wait until we know more before we do anything" and the second group is saying, "let's follow the expert advice now, just to be save". Both points of view have their merits. The funny thing is they say it not directly but rather by quoting the car manufacturers manual and the tire companies spec sheets, not to mention the suspension designers technical data, all complete out of context in the voice of their political standing, and all of it just to prove their value and believe systems right.

While it is fun to watch and to participate, the truth is, everyone knows that this thread leads nowhere.

Good analogy, and in particular I accept that many have reservations about the cost, in light of what they percieve as insufficient information to justify it. To use the analogy some more, the people I have a problem with are the ones who won't admit that the car is running funny or that it's only a little off, we'll 'adapt', and that the mechanics are all crooks. And they're all coy about what adaptations they'd consider, and won't make any constructive suggestions about a fix, even to check the tire pressure themselves.

Where this analogy breaks down is that there's no AGW-mitigation equivalent to "new rims and tires". There's really no irrevokable, all-in, no-going-back commitment: AGW mitigation will take a multi-pronged effort, including better data and more study which will in turn lead to changes in approach. And, if you don't like what's going on, you're one election away from stopping it.

The 'battle' is important to me because AGW is unfortunately the stand-in for anything to do with ecology and sustainability. Lose this issue to politics and I fear that all such endeavours will be set back.

Again, thanks for dropping by.

[Simonsays]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Please guys do yourself a favor and leave science out of your debate. Please start all your posts with: I believe because ...

There are three messengers here and most you follow only one. The first one are the scientists, the second one is the media and the third one are political/financial interests.[...]

1.) God help us! The great Barrier Reef is dying - 97% of the Reef coral already bleached.
2.) 97% of the Great barrier Reef show signs of bleaching.[...]

As the person who posted the article about the Great Barrier Reef bleaching I have to say that adoxograph's post stung a bit. No doubt I am politically and socially biased to some degree, but I do try and follow the guidance of scientists. But since I'm not a scientist, and therefore have difficulty understanding the math and jargon of scientific articles, I have to rely on the proxy of journalists who write articles about the scientific topics I'm interested in.

It was unfortunate that the title of the Washington Post article implied that 97% of the Great Barrier Reef had bleached. The article did clarify that they meant that 97% of all GBRs show some signs of bleaching. The article also provided a great deal of information that came from the original scientific article, and they provided a link to the original source.

On the other hand, there are many pseudo-scientific media articles which I believe greatly warp what scientists discover. Sometimes it appears that is because the journalist is incompetent in understanding the original scientific material; other times it appears it is due to a willful intent to deceive.

I think it is pretty easy to sort those two types of journalist apart. So I wish that adoxograph had thought to categorize me as a science-follower rather than as a generic media-follower.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PS
For those, like me, who had no clue what "adoxograph" meant:

Adoxography is a term coined in the late 19th century, and means "fine writing on a trivial or base subject". It was a form of rhetorical exercise "in which the legitimate methods of the encomium are applied to persons or objects in themselves obviously unworthy of praise, as being trivial, ugly, useless, ridiculous, dangerous or vicious" — see Arthur S. Pease, "Things Without Honor", Classical Philology, Vol. XXI (1926) 27, at 28–9. Pease surveys this field from its origins with the defence of Helen ascribed to Gorgias, and cites De Quincey's "On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts" and Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass as modern examples. Pease suggests that the skill was taught in ancient Greece, where the matters known to have been praised included gout, blindness, deafness, old age, negligence, adultery, flies, gnats, bedbugs, smoke, and dung.

[weavis]

ahuh...

[Simonsays]

Portugal's energy consumption from January to April was serviced to 75% with renewable energy.
from 7th to 11th of May they set a new record with servicing 100% of their energy consumption with renewables.
Consumo de eletricidade em Portugal foi assegurado durante mais de 4 dias seguidos por fontes renováveis – ZERO

i think that is impressive.

[SailOar]

At the risk of posting another misleading journal title...

‘Fundamentally unstable’: Scientists confirm their fears about East Antarctica’s biggest glacier | Washington Post

Scientists ringing alarm bells about the melting of Antarctica have focused most of their attention, so far, on the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet, which is grounded deep below sea level and highly exposed to the influence of warming seas. But new research published in the journal Nature Wednesday reaffirms that there’s a possibly even bigger — if slower moving — threat in the much larger ice mass of East Antarctica.[...]

Indeed, the Totten Glacier watch has been ramping up lately: Scientists have already documented that warm ocean waters can reach the glacier’s base and that the enormous ice shelf that currently stabilizes it, extending over the top of the ocean, is melting from below. The glacier is thinning quickly, and its grounding line, where the ice shelf descends and meets the seafloor, has retreated inland three kilometers between 1996 and 2013 in some areas.

Finally, recent research has suggested that Totten can only lose a tiny 4.2 percent of its remaining ice shelf before the structure starts losing the ability to brace the larger glacier, holding it in place. It all points to a region of enormous vulnerability, and one that is already undergoing change.[...]

The gist is that while Totten may be in a relatively stable configuration now, if it retreats far enough, then it can start an unstable backslide into deep undersea basins and unload a great deal of ice, raising seas first by close to a meter and then considerably more than that.

“There’s multiple stages. But at each stage, we see a bigger contribution to sea level rise and a bigger proportion of contribution to sea level rise from this system. This system keeps going, and its role keeps increasing, as we get to bigger and bigger amounts of sea level rise,” Aitken says.[...]

“This paper presents solid evidence that there has been rapid retreat here in the past, in fact, throughout the history of the ice sheet,” Greenbaum says. “And because of that, we can say it’s likely to happen again in the future, and there will be substantial sea level implications if it happens again.”[...]