Are the Seas getting more Violent?

[Gadagirl]

RealClimate: IPCC attribution statements redux: A response to Judith Curry

[Therapy]

I'm liking some of the comments.
They cover a lot of he man-made CO2 BS that I can't be bothered to find (yet again) for this group.

Pollution.

That is a different subject.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

RealClimate: IPCC attribution statements redux: A response to Judith Curry

It seems to me that this response is ignoring what she is saying about the faulty models.

You know that is what all this is about right? Some making models with what they think is the relative values of different factors and showing the results to a group of selected panel members to read/interpret and deliver on tablets to the masses.

A lot like Moses.

Science is the new religion.

Everyone here is using science for their arguments. It is just that some just can't seem to realize their science is actually incorrect.

And please, please don't bother trying to say science as it is practiced is apolitical or unbiased.

[hpeer]

What strikes me is that, in my experience, when you go further north, and talk to people who grew up in the region, in touch with weather, there is no doubt that there is climate change.

But let's ask another question....

How many people here feel Earth has too many people?

For those that don't, how many people do yu think we should have?

10B? 20B? 100B?

At what point will we have too many people?

[Tayana42]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

I don’t give a D**n about what your favorite polute-tition tells you. Or, If you don’t believe in “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”. But fact is fact, there are carbons spewing from our factories causing smog and haze, asthma, cancer etc. The excess carbon is being saturated into the sea causing havoc with that eco system. Run off from herbicides and insecticides are killing natural habitat also. So if you can’t get behind any kind of government policy, or just a grass roots policy, you’ve just basically bought into, or more realistically “have been bought” by your by your preferred ideology.
I don’t get it. Here of all places, a cruising forum. Where most of us are old enough to have witnessed the decline of valuable coral reefs and fish stocks. You can hate all you want, deny all you want, but the pollution has to stop.

Right on girl!!! I agree.


S/V B'Shert

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by hpeer

What strikes me is that, in my experience, when you go further north, and talk to people who grew up in the region, in touch with weather, there is no doubt that there is climate change.

But let's ask another question....

How many people here feel Earth has too many people?

For those that don't, how many people do yu think we should have?

10B? 20B? 100B?

At what point will we have too many people?

Right where the graph tops out at the highest point.

Thanks for George by the way. I think he has it about right.

[Formosa46AK]

"where since Gore makes the occasional buck speaking about the climate"

Per CBS Money Watch, January 8,2013 WWW.cbsnews.com/the-making-of-a businessman-how-al-gore-got-rich
"He collects as much as $175,000 per speech." (Maybe he thinks of it as a buck)
"By 2008, Gore was already able to invest $35 million in hedge funds and private partnersheps. After the sale of Current, Forbes"conservatively estimates" that Gore is worth at least $300 million, or more than Mitt Romney."

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Science is the new religion.

Yes, science is a self-correcting process that understands that all truths are contingent on current information, data and theory.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are social systems of unchanging TRUTHS derived from the writing of Mesopotamian scribes based on events and beliefs that, by definition, are untestable, and unquestionable.

Completely the same thing

Originally Posted by Therapy

Everyone here is using science for their arguments. It is just that some just can't seem to realize their science is actually incorrect.

And there's the rub. Scientific truths are always contingent on current data and understandings (called scientific theories). Science is a process that is always challenging contingent truths. New data becomes available, new insights, new theories, and the scientific world will change. That doesn't mean it happens easy, or without political struggle. Science is conducted by humans, with all our foibles and ego-driven flaws.

But that's the beautiful thing about the process called science. It works despite our flaws. It is a process that drives us inexorably to improved understandings of the phenomena we examine. It's not a linear development, and there are backslides, and even outright fraud (in this way, scientists can be similar to holy people ). But the process of observation, theory, experiment/evidence, compare, and then repeat is a PROCESS which drives towards improved understanding.

[hpeer]

There are a few interesting points that come up in these threads.

One is the skepticism against climate scientists and how their motives are so cruelly attacked. The degree of vitriol exhibited by some is just remarkable. I have seen this elsewhere, by folks I otherwise find agreeable. They are invariably older, well educated, and well compensated men. Men who have a great investment in the status quo. Harvard research on the demographic of climate change attitudes reported similar findings.

Another is the belief that humanity does not have the power to change the atmosphere or the weather. It reminded some of the Yankee Whaler family who was rich and heavily invested in the whaling industry, and who lost their wealth because they could not understand there would be a time when the whales were gone, commercially extinct. So they continued to build new ships far past the time when they should have. Ossified thinking. Inability to adapt conceptual thinking to a changing world. It's a common affliction.

I have similar arguments when discussing population or resource depletion. Folks seem to be utterly incapable of understanding the concept that we can not support infinite growth. The very phrase is oxymoronic. It is an impossibility. Yet we have built our Western culture around the concept: more growth, more GDP, more jobs, more people, more wealth, more food. Yet it is abound entry clear, to any awake and aware thinking person, that there are limits. A short view of almost anywhere on
Earth will lead to abundant evidence that we are at or beyond those limits now. Yet we, our government, wail about how the Chinese government is abusing the rights of their poor folks by imposing a one-child policy. I mention this as a further example of how we humans, I our collective action, can take damn foolish positions that will not withstand prima facia scrutiny. We will also be proud of them and defend them with vigor and honor, no matter how idiotic.

Back to the question in the OP. are the seas getting rougher? The evidence I see presented by researchers such as Jennifer Francis, and accepted by Jimmy Cornel, is that the seas are changing based upon the changing dynamics of Earths circulation system. The Jet Stream is becoming more unstable which is leading to changing wind patterns in the upper North Atlantic. So, YES, it is getting rougher, but only incrementally and slowly as compared to human life spans.

The evidence, which makes sense to me, is that humans are changing the Eath's climate, that the changes take place over a very long time, but that the mechanics of it are akin to moving a great mass with tremendous inertia, kinda like driving a huge super tanker. A little input now can cause tremendous forces in the future. And, no, the models are not good. Things may not be as bad as predicted, or they may be much worse.

Finally, and unfortunate, I do agree with the deniers that there is sod all that can be done about it. Not because it is physically impossible, it's not. But because it is HUMANLY impossible. Humanity just does not have the collective ability to deal with these kinds of issues and it will not. The attitudes so prevalent in this thread are what will perpetuate the problem. While I'll not live to actually see the worst of the consequences I feel certain that they will be bad, very bad.

Looking back on this rather bitter post I see it's not really going to change anyone's mind. I've presented no new or compelling information, not that anyone would listen if I did. It's just me clearing my chest a bit. I guess I've heard too many of the deniers make silly unsubstantiated statements I just needed to respond in my own way. And like so many others I'm not really interested in debating the topic, I've done my research and hashed this through enough before. If I can shed some light here and there I will try to be helpful.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Right where the graph tops out at the highest point.

Thanks for George by the way. I think he has it about right.

Re: graph....so Therapy, I don't get it. What is your considered opinion? Or are you simply saying you don't know? I'm sure you were not just trying to be funny or sarcastic. You'll have to explain it a bit better.

Re: George. You know that was a humor skit. George tended to try to make things simple, so the audience could follow. It reminds me one of a time many years ago when there was a rumor Jon Stewart was going to run for office. He was asked about that in an interview and he replied along the lines of ..
"You know I'm a comedian, right? I mean, if you have to turn to a comedian to figure out your problems, well then Youve got REAL problems!" I bet George would tell you to listen to the consensus of scientific opinion.

Back to the skit, you notice he talks about humanity and Earth. He does not specify what he means by or includes in Earth. Onc can conclude that he was simply talking about the rock, and if that is all you care about he is right. If you assume he is talking about the other creatures that inhabit the planet then he is saying it's OK to kill them all. George was a pretty deep thinker and took stuff seriously. He got a lot of heat late in his caree for his tackling controversial and difficult subjects but did it anyway because he cared. I'm betting he didn't really think it was "fine" to create a mass extinction. Just, ya know, kinda doesn't go along with the whole caring thing.

[DeepFrz]

The evidence, which makes sense to me, is that humans are changing the Eath's climate, that the changes take place over a very long time, but that the mechanics of it are akin to moving a great mass with tremendous inertia, kinda like driving a huge super tanker. A little input now can cause tremendous forces in the future. And, no, the models are not good. Things may not be as bad as predicted, or they may be much worse.

Pretty much all of the predictions that the climate models laid out for us have happened but at a much more rapid pace than the models said. They were just too conservative. Watch the 2 videos linked above.

If we just give up, throw up our hands and proclaim that nothing can be done then we as a species are probably doomed. China has started to take the lead in change. Isn't that something. The US and Canada are lagging much of the rest of the world and they are both huge polluting countries. Obama seems to have backed off from his statement that climate change is the most important problem facing the world today. I suppose because of political pressure brought on him by his party. (That is an assumption and may be a bad one)

One of the biggest problems we now face is the melting of the permafrost and the release of huge amounts of methane gas. Methane, as I understand it, is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I'm near the end of my life but where a short while ago the scientists were saying we would reach the tipping point at the end of this century they are now saying we may reach it in less than 40 yrs..

[hpeer]

@ Deep,

I do think we are prety much in agreement.

On the problem and the consequences we agree. On what we should do, we agree.

If we differ it is in our faith in humanity to act responsibility. I've worn myself out on that front and have become jaded in my outlook.

[Goosebumps]

The climate is forever and has ever changed. To say climate change, to blame it for more heavy seas, ok, to believe there was ever a static climate, not ok!
What we all know is that we all are contributing to our environmental situation which can speed up climate change, warmer, or colder. Obvious that climate that changed become warmer at certain point cooled of. Or are the climate alarmists claiming climate wont cool anymore? The human attitude seems well let others tone down their Carbon footprint. Thinking about our children, grand children, and the climate that we have influenced with its resulting heavy seas..... doesnt seem like our priority solidarity behavior.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Formosa46AK

"where since Gore makes the occasional buck speaking about the climate"

Per CBS Money Watch, January 8,2013 WWW.cbsnews.com/the-making-of-a businessman-how-al-gore-got-rich
"He collects as much as $175,000 per speech." (Maybe he thinks of it as a buck)
"By 2008, Gore was already able to invest $35 million in hedge funds and private partnersheps. After the sale of Current, Forbes"conservatively estimates" that Gore is worth at least $300 million, or more than Mitt Romney."

Forbes, with its corporate audience, is a card-carrying Gore-hater. Gore's net worth is closer to $200 mil... but he's rich, no doubt.

And...way to completely ignore the bulk of the article:

Gore was also busy building his future in the private sector. In 2001, he became vice chairman of financial services holding company Metropolitan West Financial. He co-founded Generation Investment Management, a U.K.-based investment management firm, in 2004. As of last fall, it had $3.6 billion in funds. More important, in 2003 Gore joined the board of directors at Apple (AAPL). The position came with $50,000 a year in fees and an accumulated tens of millions in Apple stock. Since 2001 Gore has also been a senior advisor to Google (GOOG), where he received significant pre-public stock options.


And then there was the co-founding of Current Media in 2002. Six years later, when the company registered to go public (never completing the planned IPO), it listed Gore's annual compensation for 2007 at $1.05 million. That was the same year that Gore became a partner at storied Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Gore's growing celebrity, especially since the 2006 release of the film "An Inconvenient Truth" (the proceeds of which he reportedly donated to charity), has made for a lucrative sideline business on the lecture circuit. He collects as much as $175,000 per speech.

Even that article calls his lecture income "a sideline". And most (sane) people know that ANY person with 8 years of honourable service as vice-president (or any celebrity period of a similar stature) will get fat fees regardless of what they speak on. People will pay good money to listen to a 'Kardashian", FFS. Nor has anyone discussed the auspices under which he speaks, and whether the speaking fee goes into his bank account vs going into the coffers of his non-profit foundations. Nice research, folks.

The mindless assertion that Al Gore is getting rich from some sort of AGW scam remains feeble and pathetic.Heck, if Gore was really in it for the money, he could make a mint by covertly selling Gore voodoo dolls to some of you.

The evil Gore myth has one positive use: I know that anyone who spouts it is not likely to bring any genuine information to the table.

[barnakiel]

Well, we would be seriously off the point if we thought only one man Gore is responsible for all this political mess surrounding the changes that are nature.

Here, in the EU, we have a vast army of (mostly ERASMUS-educated) 'scientists' that will insist on labeling the invasive species as 'pests' and 'parasites'. Well, if they ever went into the field and THOUGHT some, they would possibly have a slightly different take. The point is, whoever gives you a grant, decides on what comes out of your mouth.

We have lived far and out, and we have not seen the drama of what politicians asked their under-educated "scientists" to advertize to the crowds. At the same time, we have seen real issues, like pollution, overpopulation and destructive farming remaining completely un-addressed by local populations, their politicians and their scientists.

Get out of your shell. Go watch some, see some, think some. It will not be any global warming that will get us, it will be family values and the by-products of those values.

b.