"Most Caribbean coral reefs may disappear in the next 20 years"

[John Drake]

Hi Gord

Very nice post on the nature of science. It also explains what is wrong with climate science.

The problem with climate science is that it is entirely theoretical. It is models, based on assumptions and limited observations. I say limited because we do not know all of the variables that go into the earth's climate.

The problem is amply demonstrated by the fact that not one model has ever accurately predicted any future climate change. Not sea level rise, temperature, arctic ice caps cover, nothing.

SO....there is a problem. Why does this exist? It simpler to understand this looking at the physics community.

In physics, you have theoretical physicists AND EXPERIMENTAL physicists.

Theoretical physicists predict the existence of sub atomic particles, based on equations that are well understood....and HAVE NO ASSUMPTIONS (ok, one...the cosmological constant...which was later demonstrated to be a valid number that accounts for a specific phenomenon). Experimental physicists then work to demonstrate the validity of those predictions.

There is no validation process for the predictions of the climate science models.

THAT is the problem. And so, when you try to make public policy and spend vast amounts of money, based on this....people are right to be outraged and call these motives into question.

Does this mean we should not try to create a better energy source? Of course not. But spending money (37 TRILION by the UN estimate) we do not have on a plan that has no specific, predictable goal is foolish.

One thing we can predict: The person or nation that develops the next energy source that the world will be based on ...will be insanely wealthy.

And no, that is not solar and wind, century old technology that if were the answer....would be the basis of world energy by now.

Thanks

[conachair]

Originally Posted by John Drake

.....
In physics, you have theoretical physicists AND EXPERIMENTAL physicists.

......

One thing we can predict: The person or nation that develops the next energy source that the world will be based on ...will be insanely wealthy.

First point, the behavior of co2 and energy transfer is very well understood with quantum mechanics and experimental data, it's the chaotic system of the earth atmosphere which is the tricky one to model as additional energy accumulates .

Second point - why should there be one? The human animal did so well recently largely because it figured out how to harvest free energy from sun energy layer down in fossil fuels millions of years ago, easy, dig it up and set fire to it. Why be so sure there will be another easy source away from the sun?

[John Drake]

The physical behavior of CO2 is one of those "limited observations." So, we have one. Then there is methane, particulate matter, etc etc etc. The problem is that the set of variables is much larger than what is input into the models.

And THEN...there are the new discoveries that they did not account for, in their models, such as deep ocean circulation and the ocean-carbon cycle.

As to your last point....history. Throughout the history of humankind, there has always been something next. No reason to conclude that there will not be now.

Fusion is a simple exemplar. There are others.

Think outside the box. Ask questions. That is science.

[John Drake]

ps - last line was not to respond, just a general thought.

You raised a good question. The answer would be that gaining energy from the sun will always be a losing proposition...second law of thermodynamics. The inverse square law means that we have to capture sun energy over a very large area to get the amount we will need.

Why not bring the sun here (fusion)? That would be the most efficient way to produce energy. And it is being worked on.

If the UN believes 37 Trillion is needed. And the US is spending BILLIONS on solar, while spending millions on fusion research... I think there is plenty of room for development.

[John Drake]

This thread has probably drifted too much. My bad, I will bring us back on topic and answer one of the biggest questions. We will begin with an observation, compare that with what we know, then ask questions.

When I was a kid, one man cleaned up the entire Hudson river in NY. The only thing he used to do this was.....a folk guitar.

His legacy is thousands of people who work towards continuing this effort not just on the Hudson, but also the Ches.

When I was older, if I would ever actually see a croc, my first thought would not have been ...how do we preserve this marvelous creature. One man changed our minds.

His legacy is a daughter who will continue his work, based on his ideals.

I venture to say that one man inspired all of us who do, to have this desire to dive under the sea. To marvel at its beauty and hope that it would be preserved as such, forever.

Captain Jacques Yves Cousteau.

Who is, where is the next Cousteau?

And no, it is neither his remaining son or grandchildren. They have no cache, lack the charisma, drive or knowledge that he had. They do what they do for the money.

Find that person, and you will have your answer.

Thanks

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Getting to the main point, I think that many people believe we are destroying the planet with pollution and excess consumption. Consequently, the AGW argument is a perfect excuse for legislating a green agenda regardless of the facts and uncertainties of AGW.

In other words, AGW may or may not be happening but many are going to go with it anyway in order to serve an agenda. Until the AGW theories and consensus opinions the conservationist had zero leverage to accomplish their green goals.

Well-put. You have zeroed into a very key part of the debate. I totally agree that, for better or worse, the AGW issue has become the single proxy for just about every pollution/conservation/sustainability/eco-conscious debate going. All the eggs in this one basket.

Which is kind of sad in one way, because there are a thousand other reasons besides AGW (including economic and investment opportunity reasons!!) for doing just about all of these many small and large things to clean up our mess and reduce overconsumption. I'm quite sad that all the chips seems to rest on AGW.

As you might expect, I do have a few quibbles with some details of your summary:

- it's not 'belief', it's certain knowledge that we're making a mess and over-consuming, in many ways. There's no wiggle room with this; we're fouling the nest. Boaters know this better than most.

- AGW ... is really happening, and is measurable. The remaining questions are only whether it's happening enough to matter, the extent to which it will disrupt or alter 'natural' climate cycles... and of course what can or should be done about it.

- as you state - the AGW is now the stand-in for every conservation vs status quo debate. And yes, you will find that just about every 'green' or conservation-minded person or group also accept the scientific findings around AGW. This isn't unusual; in general, whenever there is a stand-off around 'green', pollution, or conservation issues, the science is usually in support of the green/conservation position, and it's the status quo defenders who most often go to economic, business or other arguments that don't counter the science, including economic doom-and-gloom predictions, etc.

The AGW/climate-change argument is running true to this form as well. In its corner, dead-center - the vast majority of the subject matter experts. Of course the green poseurs and hobby ecologists, and those with a green agenda are on-side... but at the core of the issue - the science of it. It's not a bluff.

Who's against acknowledging AGW? Well, the single greatest component of what's determined to be causing AGW is CO2 from fossil fuel burning. So, who might be opposed to reducing the amount of fossil fuel we burn, hmmm? The anti-AGW camp also attracts any who, for whatever reason, resent or don't like the message... or simply the strident, scolding, self-righteous tone of the 'greenies' as they perceive them.

So, respectfully, I would say that the majority of misdirection, bluff and pure BS is coming from the anti-AGW side. Here is where we get:
- scientists forge results!
- the last two winters were cold!
- scientists are getting millions -no, Billions! in grant money by going along
- scientists bully their colleagues into going along or else... (what, they have to go work at a Starbucks now? better hours and pay, probably)
- climate scientists are part of a vast left-wing conspiracy trying to create a socialist eco-agrarian utopia!
- scientists get it wrong alot! why, look at ...
- acknowledging AGW necessarily means cap and trade, and spending vast money for things that may or may not work (version 2 it's just a great big eco and alternative-energy boondoggle by the vast renewables industry)
- but... China! India! We're not gonna do a thing unless they do.
- if you don't have a fully costed solution in your briefcase (and Powerpoint slides, and spreadsheets) you can't talk about the problem (right, JD?)
- anything to do with Al Gore (seriously. do you guys check under your bed at night for Al Gore?)

In summary... when it comes to who's twisting reality to fit an agenda... it's mainly on the anti-AGW side.

For the record, let me briefly state my own position:
- I have enough education and experience to know what science is, and how the scientific process works, and this leads me to accept that if the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are essentially in agreement about something.. it's a thing.
- I have no investment (emotional or otherwise) in a specific economic, technical or social solution. My only goal is to see everyone dealing rationally with reality, and proceeding forward with gathering knowledge and data, instead of being mired in a fruitless debate
- I have no problem with people who have genuine doubts about the extent of AGW, or the long-term predictions, or who argue against knee-jerk high-cost solutions. Lets discuss.
- I have a problem with those who deny the validity of an overwhelming scientific consensus, or spread misinformation, fabrications, junk science, and attack people and groups, out of ignorance or deliberate disregard for what science is and how it works.

[and hey I know some of you are simply trolling. Put a fat smiley in there so we don't take you seriously. Wouldn't you rather be sailing?]

I honestly think that many of us are actually closer in position than our debates would indicate. Unless you're Bill Gates, most cruisers are already practicing conservationists and ecologically aware.

. . .

[btw - great, great post, Gord M. Thanks]

[crazyoldboatguy]

A very good question. Previous comments started to get to the cruxt of the coral reef issue and identified some of the variables that seemed within the reach of current technology to mitigate. I was especially taken by the description of coral reefs being healthier on the windward side of the Windward Islands. Pretty telling regarding reasons for the loss of active reefs. I am not knowledgeable about these things but certainly can see how human activity could very well be a major factor, in a local sense, rather than global.

Fishing limits on conch, repopulating reefs with parrot fish, regulating agricultural runoff - that sort of thing. Regulating diving activity may well be necessary as well. It would be right up the alley of the next Cousteau. Wherever s/he may be. It would also be politically/culturally very difficult to accomplish. I have seen conservation groups working with hunting groups to address loss of habitat which affects the wildlife population. Strange bedfellows but it has worked.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by John Drake

The physical behavior of CO2 is one of those "limited observations." So, we have one. Then there is methane, particulate matter, etc etc etc. The problem is that the set of variables is much larger than what is input into the models.

And THEN...there are the new discoveries that they did not account for, in their models, such as deep ocean circulation and the ocean-carbon cycle.

So it seems we are in almost agreement. Addition of Co2 and related greenhouse gasses decrease the amount of energy leaving the earth, modeling what happens in a chaotic system like the atmosphere is difficult in broad brush strokes and possibly impossible zoomed in. But bottom line is, energy increases, something happens.

As to your last point....history. Throughout the history of humankind, there has always been something next. No reason to conclude that there will not be now.

Fusion is a simple exemplar. There are others.

Think outside the box. Ask questions. That is science.

Sorry, very lame argument. IMHO. Thinking outside of the box and asking questions.... , fossil fuels were perfect, high density energy in a combustible form easily converted into motive power, electricity, make complex molecules from it, make fertiliser, easily transportable, couldn't be more perfect. And free. Just dig it up.

Nothing on the horizon comes close. How do you farm with fusion, relying on battery technology and fusion alone is high tech, steam engines were easy.

[robert sailor]

The USA is the most powerful country in the world, politically/militarily as well as economically. Its also a very religious society with a very large percentage of the people believing that the 'second coming' will be in their lifetime. Why would this group be motivated to care for the planet over the long haul??

[John Drake]

Lake - very good post. But, if you want honest debate, you cannot misrepresent the other side. I know you are just joking around, but I never said that you cannot TALK about the issue if you do not have a fully costed solution. I said you cannot SPEND MY MONEY. Just that.

Cona - glad you agree with me. As for fusion, you are kidding, right? Once you have nearly resource free, unlimited power, you can do anything. Including use that energy to synthesize any molecule you want.

BTW, once you have a great electricity source, battery technology will advance greatly.

Once you have unlimited energy, you have more money with which to fuel more ideas. Amazing.

[crazyoldboatguy]

=== The USA is the most powerful country in the world, politically/militarily as well as economically. Its also a very religious society with a very large percentage of the people believing that the 'second coming' will be in their lifetime. Why would this group be motivated to care for the planet over the long haul?? ===

This does not enliven the debate. Plus, too many words for a bumper sticker. Try again.

[Dogfish]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

17yrs without "warming" according to NASA....yet the myth continues....

Hey Rich, If you really care, do some research on the average temps of the oceans that you live on for those same years. I'm not a scientist, but it makes sense to me that they're like enormous heat sinks for the planet. You seem like one of the smartest and sanest posters here and I do respect your opinion.

Two books that ring true for me on this subject in general (and I have no relation to either the writers or the publishers):

The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Colbert--has a great section on coral reefs.

Countdown: Our Last Best Hope for a Future on Earth by Alan Weisman--because no matter what anybody says I can't stop seeing overpopulation as the biggest, most fundamental, problem.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by John Drake

BTW, once you have a great electricity source, battery technology will advance greatly.

Once you have unlimited energy, you have more money with which to fuel more ideas. Amazing.

Some crystal ball you have there, how often do you win the lottery

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by John Drake

I never said that you cannot TALK about the issue if you do not have a fully costed solution. I said you cannot SPEND MY MONEY. Just that.

Um, to be clear, you said:

Here is why so many point to the promoters of the climate change agenda as frauds:

Answer three simple questions:

1. What is the plan?
2. How much will it cost?
3. How much will it limit climate change?

If you cannot answer those three simple questions, you have nothing.

and

I asked three simple questions. If you are going to say there is a problem and we need to listen to you...then YOU need to have the construct as to the cause and effect, and any solution.

But I understand you better now. No more jokes on that. Unless they're reeeeeally really good ones.

[Capt Phil]

Originally Posted by motaman9

So...you would, did, or simply condone, risking the murder of a human being that you or someone else assumed was a "bear hunter" just for being in the mountains, armed or unarmed? I'm assuming the "bear hunters" didn't have big neon arrows over their heads.....??? Wow.....don't think I'd go around bragging about that on the internet.....also don't go snorkeling around this guy....he might accidentally murder you if he thinks you bumped into a reef....or just look the other way while someone else accidentally does....


Sailing somewhere.....

Not bragging... just stating what happened. We still have lots of bears in the Sierra's and not many hunters. If folks were a little more aware and proactive in protecting Carib coral reefs and the critters that support them, perhaps we could have the same outcome there. Phil