Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Apparently you've never paid attention during the periodic s**tstorm that ensues whenever CAFE standards are discussed. Because if you really want to follow the money, follow it to the people who think they'll lose it by acknowledging AGW -- try the automakers, for one.

Considering I don't live in the USA, you're most correct, however I do note you've skirted around the questions I asked.

Btw automakers are in it for the money and the money ultimately comes from the pockets of Joe Public whom want the products they sell. I'm making an assumption (omg) that whilst 97% of climate scientists want to declare Armageddon on AGW, they don't feel quite as much in consensus when it comes to their car buying habits. So go figure.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Considering I don't live in the USA, you're most correct, however I do note you've skirted around the questions I asked.

Btw automakers are in it for the money and the money ultimately comes from the pockets of Joe Public whom want the products they sell. I'm making an assumption (omg) that whilst 97% of climate scientists want to declare Armageddon on AGW, they don't feel quite as much in consensus when it comes to their car buying habits. So go figure.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Didn't skirt. I answered it most directly, I think. And again, what the climate scientists do or don't drive really has no bearing on the validity on the consensus about climate change. In the same sense, having a pathological hatred of Al Gore (which many climate deniers in the states suffer from) also has no bearing on the argument.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Didn't skirt. I answered it most directly, I think.

I am interested in links to peer reviewed "fixes" and predicted affects of those fixes, both economic and climate. I don't seem to be able to find any. Not to mention papers on apportioned natural and anthropogenic influence on climate. I mean "man is most likely responsible for climate change" sounds circumstantial at best and hardly worth all the hoop-la. If multiple papers are written on co2 and soybeans and tropical insects affected and the like, surely these must exist in the multitude?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I am interested in links to peer reviewed "fixes" and predicted affects of those fixes, both economic and climate. I don't seem to be able to find any. Not to mention papers on apportioned natural and anthropogenic influence on climate. I mean "man is most likely responsible for climate change" sounds circumstantial at best and hardly worth all the hoop-la. If multiple papers are written on co2 and soybeans and tropical insects affected and the like, surely these must exist in the multitude?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Well, there is more CO2 going into the atmosphere than at any time in the climate history that we can study (and this includes deep ice cores in Antarctica) and we have seen a very good correlation with temperature rises. So, the link seems more than circumstantial.

As for strategies at mitigation, that too seems self-evident. I am inclined to say that this is not rocket science, but that would be a bad joke and insulting to boot.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Didn't skirt. I answered it most directly, I think. And again, what the climate scientists do or don't drive really has no bearing on the validity on the consensus about climate change. In the same sense, having a pathological hatred of Al Gore (which many climate deniers in the states suffer from) also has no bearing on the argument.

Does it concern you that the purchase ratio of SUV and performance vehicles has increased over the past 25 years compared to say the 1970's when 4 cylinder Cadillacs were made to satisfy public demand? Why was peak oil more a concern then "fireball earth"?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nope. This is the science position, full stop.

Repeated for your benefit:

We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:

• Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
  
  
• Launch an international study to explore scientifically-informed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
  
  
• Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
  
  
• Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights. Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
  
  
• Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

That's it.

The rest of that stuff you cited... are some things that others have kicked around as possible solutions, and some ("agenda", data faking, etc etc) are just products of a fevered imagination.

The above, and just the above, is all that climate science is asking you to agree to consider.

Question for you and any deniers/skeptics/etc - if you were convinced that the above, and only the above, was the only ask - to study the problem a little harder and think about possible solutions - would you be onboard?

It all hinges on Point 1, doesn't it. Where is the evidence in support of that. Note. Models are not evidence.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Does it concern you that the purchase ratio of SUV and performance vehicles has increased over the past 25 years compared to say the 1970's when 4 cylinder Cadillacs were made to satisfy public demand? Why was peak oil more a concern then "fireball earth"?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Sorry, I don't see any connection between this and whether or not climate change is valid. None whatsoever. I thought I already made that clear.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by StuM

It all hinges on Point 1, doesn't it. Where is the evidence in support of that. Note. Models are not evidence.

Be my guest. Type in any parameters you like:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Interesting. You're onboard with the 'study' part, but not with the current set of conclusions from the people you're ostensibly ok with doing the 'studying' part.

That's OK. Sounds like we should just get on with the 'studying' part and drop all the mythology, yes? Too much to ask?

As I said, I'm onboard with studying our climate, etc. but NOT OK with someone who sets out to study or suggest solutions to the "problem" because that scientist obviously doesn't have an open mind. Real scientists don't start working with politicians to push through changes in behavior to solve a problem when they can't even explain exactly what the problem is and haven't already connected all the dots between cause and effect. REAL scientists are skeptical and can lead you every step of the way through their experiments to prove every word they say and their results are repeatable and that allows them to make accurate predictions. IF it is eventually proven that something we are doing is causing our climate to change, then we'll need to discuss whether the changes are more negative than positive and a cost/benefit analysis of what we might do to effect positive change OR adapt to them. Right now, we're not even close to that point. We need scientists with no political agenda to study climate thoroughly until they thoroughly understand it, and THEN report their meticulously documented findings.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Well, there is more CO2 going into the atmosphere than at any time in the climate history that we can study (and this includes deep ice cores in Antarctica) and we have seen a very good correlation with temperature rises. So, the link seems more than circumstantial.

As for strategies at mitigation, that too seems self-evident. I am inclined to say that this is not rocket science, but that would be a bad joke and insulting to boot.

If you refer to an earlier link I posted a screen grab from an IPCC video and it shows co2 rocketing upwards leaving temperature behind in its wake. And that's before the lag as well shown on the same graph (that surprisingly flashed very quickly on screen in the video presentation).

Well if it's not rocket science why is there nothing, or very little. Everything except rocket science is not rocket science, btw. For us where it is not so much self evident, enlighten us from your pool of vast resources.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

As I said, I'm onboard with studying our climate, etc. but NOT OK with someone who sets out to study or suggest solutions to the "problem" because that scientist obviously doesn't have an open mind. Real scientists don't start working with politicians to push through changes in behavior to solve a problem when they can't even explain exactly what the problem is and haven't already connected all the dots between cause and effect. REAL scientists are skeptical and can lead you every step of the way through their experiments to prove every word they say and their results are repeatable and that allows them to make accurate predictions. IF it is eventually proven that something we are doing is causing our climate to change, then we'll need to discuss whether the changes are more negative than positive and a cost/benefit analysis of what we might do to effect positive change OR adapt to them. Right now, we're not even close to that point. We need scientists with no political agenda to study climate thoroughly until they thoroughly understand it, and THEN report their meticulously documented findings.

You've got the history all wrong. It was the scientists who discovered the rising levels of CO2 in the 1970s and it took, literally decades, to get the politicians to pay attention. It wasn't the other way around. Just a tiny bit of study on the subject would set you straight. Ought to try that.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If you refer to an earlier link I posted a screen grab from an IPCC video and it shows co2 rocketing upwards leaving temperature behind in its wake. And that's before the lag as well shown on the same graph (that surprisingly flashed very quickly on screen in the video presentation).

Well if it's not rocket science why is there nothing, or very little. Everything except rocket science is not rocket science, btw. For us where it is not so much self evident, enlighten us from your pool of vast resources.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

You see what you want to see. The evidence has been presented in more than just a video, you know. You can find it on NOAA, NASA besides the IPCC and in order for this to be some grand conspiracy to look cool with other scientists or to rake in the research funding, or whatever other ridiculous motivation you might entertain, they would have had to start "faking the data" way back in the 1970s. Now, think about that ... it means that we're not only talking about a global conspiracy across geography (this is climate science, after all, so it spans the globe), but it would also have to span generations, as the first scientists who set about fudging the data are now retired or dead.

Tin foil hat, anyone?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Sorry, I don't see any connection between this and whether or not climate change is valid. None whatsoever. I thought I already made that clear.

My turn to elighten you. Except for those with their snouts in the trough, no one cares. No one cares because there is no disaster presently unfolding no matter how many ice cores get sampled. Twenty five years since the doomsayers started preaching, nothing, repeat no climate disasters attributable to an anthropogenic effect on climate change has occurred. At this time they are figments of over active imaginations. Remember the suffering polar bears, by chance?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

You see what you want to see. The evidence has been presented in more than just a video, you know. You can find it on NOAA, NASA besides the IPCC and in order for this to be some grand conspiracy to look cool with other scientists or to rake in the research funding, or whatever other ridiculous motivation you might entertain, they would have had to start "faking the data" way back in the 1970s. Now, think about that ... it means that we're not only talking about a global conspiracy across geography (this is climate science, after all, so it spans the globe), but it would also have to span generations, as the first scientists who set about fudging the data are now retired or dead.

Tin foil hat, anyone?

Ditto.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

My turn to elighten you. Except for those with their snouts in the trough, no one cares. No one cares because there is no disaster presently unfolding no matter how many ice cores get sampled. Twenty five years since the doomsayers started preaching, nothing, repeat no climate disasters attributable to an anthropogenic effect on climate change has occurred. At this time they are figments of over active imaginations. Remember the suffering polar bears, by chance?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Well, if you say so. You're the expert, after all.