Climate Change - what to expect for cruising life

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by franksingleton

After that rambling, largely irrelevant, discourse, can you please identify one reviewed scientific paper that shows that the man made increase in CO2 will NOT lead to a warming climate.

not a paper but the actual data from the UAH shows we are cooling and have been since 2015 . When we were .85℃ above baseline and last month where we were just .25℃ above baseline . Then there is the fact that the ocean is cooling as well. ( I have previously provided the links and graphs)
the rest of the bs in the last few pages can be directly be traced back to the ipcc propaganda . People do your research..

Verify everything . If you can find a political connection its about control not science.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Another might be "Don't like the medicine, so deny the disease" as represented by this quote:
“Do you realize I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this? I thought it (climate change) must be true until I found out what it would cost.”
~Senator James Inhofe on The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 15 March 2012 on hearing about climate change as chair of the Senate Environment Committee.

Inhofe's quote only reinforces the complaint from skeptics that the CC advocates seem unwilling or unable to address the obvious human costs of eliminating fossil fuels before realistic alternatives are available. Like Sen. Inhofe points out, it's all too easy to "believe" when one is ignorant of the ramifications. This refusal to address all the realities of the issue accounts for much of the opposition, not how many non-scientists "believe," are "skeptical," or "deny" whether CC is a reality or not. It's all about weighing the best scientific consensus surrounding potential impacts along with the potential for adaptation, against the human/financial costs of implementing remedies.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... you mean this Barry Goldwater?


(bolding mine)


Interesting to hear from a conservative who actually understood the importance of conserving.

From Teddy Roosevelt who created the first US National Parks, to Nixon who created the EPA and signed into law the first Clean Air & Water Acts, to the millions of hunters, fishermen & outdoorsmen who enjoy the outdoors, conservatives have always understood the importance of conserving. Methinks you need to get out of your urban environment a bit more.

[I36guy]

"After that rambling, largely irrelevant, discourse, can you please identify one reviewed scientific paper that shows that the man made increase in CO2 will NOT lead to a warming climate"

https://www.newscientist.com/article...lobal-warming/

According to Wiki, the earth has been around 4.54 Billion years. We have interminable evidence of "climate change" throughout that entire period.

Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years - or about 1/22,700th of Earth's history.

We've been recording temperature data since about 1880 - roughly 140 years, or about 1/32.5 Millionth of our Earth's history.

Any scientist would be dubious of such a sampling size, much less determining that man's industry is the CAUSE of climate change.

That would be like polling ten Americans to determine who will win a presidential election - by a landslide.

Remember the "New Ice Age"? Then it was "Global Warming". The Ice Caps were going to be gone in 2014. But wait, they've actually expanded.

The empirical data have simply not supported the theoretical models predicting worldwide doom. One must therefore declare those models disproven. But that doesn't seem to stop the alarmists.

So, is the Earth warming as a result of man-made emmissions? Or, is it cooling? We can't say - so let's call it "Climate Change". After all, no one can deny that climate is cyclic, and constantly changes. But, nevertheless, it's our fault and we must do whatever the "experts" (namely politicians wanting ultimate control) tell us or we are all doomed. What is it? 12 years now?

But, but but, "climate change" could end human life as we know it. I would say that is plausible. We certainly would not be the first species wiped out by environmental and/or atmospheric conditions. But, I wonder how that happened before humans showed up to change the climate.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by franksingleton

After that rambling, largely irrelevant, discourse, can you please identify one reviewed scientific paper that shows that the man made increase in CO2 will WILL NOT (as opposed to may, might, could, or possibly) lead to a warming climate that will have serious negative impacts that humans will be unable to adapt to.

Sorry, didn't mean to distort your post, only to make it more relevant.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not succumbing to an electronics-generated virtual world? Interested & curious about history, politics, and facts beyond the first page of a Google search? Understanding the difference between actual friends as opposed to ones on Facebook? Having been taught how to think as opposed to what to think? Learning the importance of questioning commonly held assumptions & authority?

Important stuff, but I wouldn't exactly classify these as among what CatNewBee referred to as "Every generation has severe problems to solve". More like good habits.



Also, I'm not finding many of those qualities in abundance in some of the anti-CC arguments here. Any advice for them?

More concretely, how about the last few decades of the greatest elimination of world poverty in recorded history? All thanks to industrialization fueled by technological breakthroughs in the extraction, transportation & distribution of fossil fuels.

I've acknowledged that. But our challenge there was mainly to make productive use of the peace and prosperity for which the previous generations literally sacrificed and died for. You want lavish praise for simply getting up in the morning and going to work?

Not understanding & in fact trivializing what recent generations have accomplished only demonstrates a sheltered and narrow-minded existence. Ignorance & arrogance is a lethal combination for being open to new ideas and learning tolerance of other people who think and act differently than you do.

I haven't done that, but going more than 12 hours without an Exile beatdown would feel... strange. So thanks anyway.

[newhaul]

Ok here goes one more time
Keep in mind the multiple year/ decadal lag times .
https://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html
Anyone remember the cold in the mid to late 1970's ?
Look at the solar cycles the temperature matches up quite well
The second graph is from an old 2006 NASA report
https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

From Teddy Roosevelt who created the first US National Parks, to Nixon who created the EPA and signed into law the first Clean Air & Water Acts, to the millions of hunters, fishermen & outdoorsmen who enjoy the outdoors, conservatives have always understood the importance of conserving. Methinks you need to get out of your urban environment a bit more.

(I get out lots, thanks.)

Methinks today's conservatives should come up with a commensurate set of leaders and policies, then. Instead of...

Up here, we've just successfully pushed back on a "conservative" plan to reverse some conservation.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Important stuff, but I wouldn't exactly classify these as among what CatNewBee referred to as "Every generation has severe problems to solve". More like good habits.

It's certainly fashionable these days to blame others for all manner of actual & perceived woes, even better when you can classify them negatively so maybe your friends won't like them either. More difficult (but necessary) to judge from the perspective of the people living in those times you so disapprove of.

Also, I'm not finding many of those qualities in abundance in some of the anti-CC arguments here. Any advice for them?

If you read more closely you may notice that many of their arguments go far beyond the actual science, just like they do for you. There is a lot of learning to be gained from listening to people with opposing views. The science is mainly just being used by both sides to advance or oppose other agendas.

Quote:
More concretely, how about the last few decades of the greatest elimination of world poverty in recorded history? All thanks to industrialization fueled by technological breakthroughs in the extraction, transportation & distribution of fossil fuels.

I've acknowledged that. But our challenge there was mainly to make productive use of the peace and prosperity for which the previous generations literally sacrificed and died for. You want lavish praise for simply getting up in the morning and going to work?

Not in post #563 you didn't.

I haven't done that, but going more than 12 hours without an Exile beatdown would feel... strange. So thanks anyway.

Yeah, well, it's hard to keep up with you. I've been busy throwing out all the meat in the fridge, shopping for EV's, figuring out how to get my cell phone to go another year, doubling down on my recycling, and thinking about how to approach my neighbor about his farting horses. Yeah, that oughta do it.

[mvmojo]

Global warming and ocean rise will mean deeper water in the skinny spots.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(I get out lots, thanks.)

Methinks today's conservatives should come up with a commensurate set of leaders and policies, then. Instead of...

If properly done, logging is healthy for the forest. There has been mismanagement from both over logging and under logging. Hopefully these new rules will provide more of a balance. Responsible forest management & "concern for climate change" are not mutually exclusive ideas.

There have been many reported cases where many feel that the EPA has overreached. Again, appreciating the EPA's overall positive role but imposing limits when they exceed their statutory power are not mutually exclusive.

Many Americans felt that the Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards on autos and their restrictions on the coal industry were unreasonable & excessive, and were doing more harm than good. Many others disagreed because they favored "conservation" over other competing interests "at all costs." We here in the US still live in a democracy where elections often resolve these conflicts in ways that will both disappoint and please. Get used to it, or choose to live where such issues are decided for you.

Are you catching on or do we need to go through the rest of the list?


Up here, we've just successfully pushed back on a "conservative" plan to reverse some conservation.

Congratulations. I hope you made it to all the meetings with your signs, chants & slogans. I'm sure there were many conservatives who don't jump & down as much but who also approve the preservation of the greenbelt area from development.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not in post #563 you didn't.

Originally Posted by moi;#563

.... This has been an unprecedented stretch of peace and prosperity for the west, and even for most of the less advantaged and less developed countries that we fight our proxy wars in.

so... what? I didn't say "thank youuuu oil and coal!"?


Cheap abundant energy certainly gave us velocity (eg energy and wealth). It's so important in fact that I don't understand why you're against any efforts to use it more wisely so that it lasts longer, with fewer negatives.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

If properly done, logging is healthy for the forest. There has been mismanagement from both over logging and under logging. Hopefully these new rules will provide more of a balance.

There's no such thing as "under-logging". Forests did fine without us, remember. The only time that such active measures are useful (to us, not the forest) is when forests are too close to humans to permit forests to do their natural thing, or when improper logging or other misuse has resulted in an out-of-balance forest that's mainly flammable junk.

Responsible forest management & "concern for climate change" are not mutually exclusive ideas.

It's easy to test. Is all your logging done sustainably? Are the forests staying as close to their natural balance of species as possible, for the given area? Are you increasing or decreasing the total amount of forested land?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

so... what? I didn't say "thank youuuu oil and coal!"?


Cheap abundant energy certainly gave us velocity (eg energy and wealth). It's so important in fact that I don't understand why you're against any efforts to use it more wisely so that it lasts longer, with fewer negatives.

No acknowledgment why less developed countries have had their prosperity. Thank you's are not relevant, only an understanding of the consequences of requiring such countries to cut back on fossil fuels without viable alternatives in place. I'm only seeing hostility to any sort of cost-benefit analysis, and certainly not just from you.

I don't think anyone is against using fossil fuels more wisely, whether it's to make it last longer or simply for personal economic reasons. This and so many other environmental issues are not a back & white deal.

[newhaul]

Sailing related ??????? Not anymore.