Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 21-08-2019, 10:38   #1846
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: San Francisco
Boat: Fountaine Pajot, Helia 44 - Hull #16
Posts: 395
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenRbrts View Post
You apparently didn't read Spencer's post about it, or do you disagree on his statement?
And if you don't like Spencer then how about Nature?


"The ocean is the largest sink for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), having absorbed roughly 40 per cent of CO2 emissions since the beginning of the industrial era."


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21068
__________________

AllenRbrts is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 10:51   #1847
Registered User
 
jackdale's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,525
Images: 1
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
But so far it's the only formal published metric we have for assessing the size of consensus, and an honest understanding of its methodology shows that it's not a dishonest method for making this assessment.
There are about a half dozen published studies that are congruent with Cook et al

Oreskes
Anderegg et al
Doran and Zimmerman
Stenhouse
Powell
Verheggen et al

Replication / reproducibility is a cornerstone of science. This study attempts to replicate the papers that reject AGW

Quote:
Learning from mistakes in climate research

Authors

Rasmus E. Benestad. Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorl andJohn Cook

First Online: 20 August 2015

Abstract
Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...704-015-1597-5
__________________

__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is online now  
Old 21-08-2019, 11:16   #1848
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenRbrts View Post
And if you don't like Spencer then how about Nature?


"The ocean is the largest sink for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), having absorbed roughly 40 per cent of CO2 emissions since the beginning of the industrial era."


https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21068
personally I prefer to go with the nature program the episode of which is linked earlier in the thread ( thanks for finding it jack)
it shows that only about 1/3 of the co2 from the burning of fossil fuels likely ends up in the oceans . The majority of the " new " C12/13 is actually from submarine volcanic activity .

I don't disagree that fossil fuel based co2 is entering the ocean to some degree but the specific post I was replying to stated 50% of the human co2 was going into the oceans.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 11:21   #1849
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
There are about a half dozen published studies that are congruent with Cook et al

Oreskes
Anderegg et al
Doran and Zimmerman
Stenhouse
Powell
Verheggen et al

Replication / reproducibility is a cornerstone of science. This study attempts to replicate the papers that reject AGW




https://link.springer.com/article/10...704-015-1597-5
And I have posted the links to debunking if each of them . Look back in the thread .
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 11:43   #1850
Senior Cruiser
 
GordMay's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 38,198
Images: 241
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

The existence of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) remains somewhat of a public controversy, despite the consensus among climate scientists. The scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 80%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology.

Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this (ACC).

This is supported by multiple independent studies, despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature, or of citation networks.


For instance:

“The scientific consensus on climate change” ~ Naomi Oreskes (2004)
https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...2/1686.summary

“The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change” ~ Dennis Bray & Hans Von Storch (2007)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ge-Science.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/survey08.pdf

“Examining the scientific consensus on climate change” ~ Peter T. Doran & Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (2009)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009eo030002

"The scientific consensus of climate change revisited” ~ D Bray (2009)
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ange_Revisited

“Climate change: a profile of US climate scientists’ perspectives” ~ Stacy Rosenberg et al. (2010)
https://link.springer.com/article/10...584-009-9709-9

“The structure of scientific opinion on climate change” ~ Stephen J. Farnsworth, & S. Robert Lichter (2012)
https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/artic...24/1/93/659088

“Scientists’ views about attribution of global warming” ~ Bart Verheggen et al. (2014)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501998e

“A 2014 Meteorologists’ views about global warming: a survey of American meteorological society professional members” ~ Neil Stenhouse et al (2014)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...S-D-13-00091.1

“The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists” ~ J. Stuart Carlton et al. (2015)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../9/094025/meta

“Expert credibility in climate change” ~ William R. L. Anderegg et al (2010)
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

“The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation” ~ Uri Shweda and Peter S. Bearmanb (2010)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163460/

(Note: I’ve not included Cook et al 2013 Study https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024, nor Richard Tol’s critical comments on it. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...8001I’ve which I've previously linked to their respective papers)


Edit:

I see jackdale beat me to it.
Newhaul did NOT contribute links to debunk each of Jack's list.
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 11:57   #1851
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
The existence of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) remains somewhat of a public controversy, despite the consensus among climate scientists. The scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 80%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology.

Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this (ACC).

This is supported by multiple independent studies, despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature, or of citation networks.


For instance:

“The scientific consensus on climate change” ~ Naomi Oreskes (2004)
https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...2/1686.summary

“The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change” ~ Dennis Bray & Hans Von Storch (2007)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ge-Science.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/survey08.pdf

“Examining the scientific consensus on climate change” ~ Peter T. Doran & Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (2009)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009eo030002

"The scientific consensus of climate change revisited” ~ D Bray (2009)
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ange_Revisited

“Climate change: a profile of US climate scientists’ perspectives” ~ Stacy Rosenberg et al. (2010)
https://link.springer.com/article/10...584-009-9709-9

“The structure of scientific opinion on climate change” ~ Stephen J. Farnsworth, & S. Robert Lichter (2012)
https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/artic...24/1/93/659088

“Scientists’ views about attribution of global warming” ~ Bart Verheggen et al. (2014)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501998e

“A 2014 Meteorologists’ views about global warming: a survey of American meteorological society professional members” ~ Neil Stenhouse et al (2014)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...S-D-13-00091.1

“The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists” ~ J. Stuart Carlton et al. (2015)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../9/094025/meta

“Expert credibility in climate change” ~ William R. L. Anderegg et al (2010)
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

“The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation” ~ Uri Shweda and Peter S. Bearmanb (2010)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163460/

(Note: I’ve not included Cook et al 2013 Study https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024, nor Richard Tol’s critical comments on it. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...1/4/048001I’ve previously linked to their respective papers)
it all still comes down to study bias .

Like if I had a published study on the use of powerbait to catch Brooke trout and climate changes effect on the viability of said bait . All I have to do is say that in some way I believe that man has caused 1% of the warming that has affected the results of my study. I am considered pro agw . So thereby part of the 97% consensus . And yet I said 99% of the warming was naturally caused by implication .

I get funding and published
I say that 99% of the warming affecting my study is natural.
I don't get funding and not get published .
But both reports say the same thing just in different ways.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 12:00   #1852
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
The existence of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) remains somewhat of a public controversy, despite the consensus among climate scientists. The scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 80%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology.

Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this (ACC).

This is supported by multiple independent studies, despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature, or of citation networks.


For instance:

“The scientific consensus on climate change” ~ Naomi Oreskes (2004)
https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...2/1686.summary

“The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change” ~ Dennis Bray & Hans Von Storch (2007)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ge-Science.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/docs/survey08.pdf

“Examining the scientific consensus on climate change” ~ Peter T. Doran & Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (2009)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2009eo030002

"The scientific consensus of climate change revisited” ~ D Bray (2009)
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ange_Revisited

“Climate change: a profile of US climate scientists’ perspectives” ~ Stacy Rosenberg et al. (2010)
https://link.springer.com/article/10...584-009-9709-9

“The structure of scientific opinion on climate change” ~ Stephen J. Farnsworth, & S. Robert Lichter (2012)
https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/artic...24/1/93/659088

“Scientists’ views about attribution of global warming” ~ Bart Verheggen et al. (2014)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501998e

“A 2014 Meteorologists’ views about global warming: a survey of American meteorological society professional members” ~ Neil Stenhouse et al (2014)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...S-D-13-00091.1

“The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists” ~ J. Stuart Carlton et al. (2015)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1.../9/094025/meta

“Expert credibility in climate change” ~ William R. L. Anderegg et al (2010)
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107

“The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation” ~ Uri Shweda and Peter S. Bearmanb (2010)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163460/

(Note: I’ve not included Cook et al 2013 Study https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/8/2/024024, nor Richard Tol’s critical comments on it. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...1/4/048001I’ve which I've previously linked to their respective papers)


Edit:

I see jackdale beat me to it.
Newhaul did NOT contribute links to debunk each of Jack's list.
really ?? I do believe this covered it quite well .

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2959016
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 13:01   #1853
Senior Cruiser
 
GordMay's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 38,198
Images: 241
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Climate change merchants of doubt are unlikely to give up peddling spurious uncertainty messages any day soon, because it seems to often work.
Newhaul, and others, will also continue to question the temperature record, despite the fact that multiple studies have confirmed that the anomalies observed in 2014 and 2015 are the highest since measurements began.
The doubters also seem unable to accept that the “Hockey Stick” graphs, which show that post-industrial global warming is unprecedented over the past two millennia, have been independently replicated several times.
Although multiple studies demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists conclude that this exceptional recent warming is caused by humans, obstinate deniers will continue to insist, against all evidence, that the consensus on climate change doesn’t exist.

The scientific consensus on climate change is not founded on a single study. Instead, many research projects using independent methods arrive at similar results. It is these multiple lines of evidence that give the scientific community such strong confidence that humans are responsible for the recent unprecedented warming of the surface of the Earth. To put it simply, the evidence has led to the consensus.

And it is on this solid bedrock of evidence that policy makers have to construct the strategies that will reduce the irreversible change,s that we are making to the livability of the only home we have.

On another favourite bugaboo of the contrarian set:

“Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians” ~ by Alexander Michael Petersen, Emmanuel M. Vincent & Anthony LeRoy Westerling (August 13, 2019)
“... Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians...”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4.

newhaul DID, indeed, contribute a link to an article criticizing a (large) number of the previously noted "consensus studies". To say that Bast & Spencer "debunked" the studies is somewhat of a stretch.
But decide, for yourselves.

“The Myth of the Climate Change ’97%” ~ by Joseph Bast, & Roy Spencer [First published in the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2014.]
https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...te-change-97-1


BTW: I couldn’t think of a better entity to host the Bast & Spencer rebuttal, than The Heartland Institute.
* The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.
The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 [1] but no longer discloses its funding sources. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that “Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects.”[2]
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking second-hand smoke to health risks, and lobbied against government public health reforms.
Now, the group is declaring itself victorious in its crusade to convince Americans that climate science is debatable — despite the broad scientific agreement that it is not — and says it is instead pursuing economic and moral arguments to advance policies that bolster domestic fossil fuel production.[3]
1 ☞ https://exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41
2 ☞ https://web.archive.org/web/20150726...xon_report.pdf
3. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...ots-to-policy/
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 13:20   #1854
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
Climate change merchants of doubt are unlikely to give up peddling spurious uncertainty messages any day soon, because it seems to often work.
Newhaul, and others, will also continue to question the temperature record, despite the fact that multiple studies have confirmed that the anomalies observed in 2014 and 2015 are the highest since measurements began.
The doubters also seem unable to accept that the “Hockey Stick” graphs, which show that post-industrial global warming is unprecedented over the past two millennia, have been independently replicated several times.
Although multiple studies demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists conclude that this exceptional recent warming is caused by humans, obstinate deniers will continue to insist, against all evidence, that the consensus on climate change doesn’t exist.

The scientific consensus on climate change is not founded on a single study. Instead, many research projects using independent methods arrive at similar results. It is these multiple lines of evidence that give the scientific community such strong confidence that humans are responsible for the recent unprecedented warming of the surface of the Earth. To put it simply, the evidence has led to the consensus.

And it is on this solid bedrock of evidence that policy makers have to construct the strategies that will reduce the irreversible change,s that we are making to the livability of the only home we have.

On another favourite bugaboo of the contrarian set:

“Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians” ~ by Alexander Michael Petersen, Emmanuel M. Vincent & Anthony LeRoy Westerling (August 13, 2019)
“... Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians...”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4.

newhaul DID, indeed, contribute a link (in the 'other' thread) to an article criticizing a (large) number of the previously noted "consensus studies". To say that Bast & Spencer "debunked" the studies is somewhat of a stretch.
But decide, for yourselves.

“The Myth of the Climate Change ’97%” ~ by Joseph Bast, & Roy Spencer [First published in the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2014.]
https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...te-change-97-1
I challenge the temperature records of late because they don't even match the IPCC's own temperature records from 10 years ago .

The hockey stick has been replicated based on the same mis read of the relevant datum.

The part about humans causing the warming is not accurate .
I already posted an example of a study ( hypothetically) that would come under that umbrella but says that only 1% is human . So the main problem is in the degree they say its due to human causes and what part is natural caused.

Which is actually fully explained via the terms of reference.

Only interested in human sources.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 15:48   #1855
Registered User
 
jackdale's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,525
Images: 1
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post

“The Myth of the Climate Change ’97%” ~ by Joseph Bast, & Roy Spencer [First published in the Wall Street Journal on May 27, 2014.]
https://www.heartland.org/news-opini...te-change-97-1

Bast and Spencer make the following claim:

Quote:
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus.


The link to the study is broken.

A 2014 study: METEOROLOGISTS’ VIEWS
ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
A Survey of American Meteorological Society
Professional Members

is summarized in the table below.



https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...S-D-13-00091.1

Only 5% of all respondents said that global warming was natural.

They also refer to the widely debunked Oregon Petition.
__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is online now  
Old 21-08-2019, 15:58   #1856
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Bast and Spencer make the following claim:





The link to the study is broken.

A 2014 study: METEOROLOGISTS’ VIEWS
ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
A Survey of American Meteorological Society
Professional Members

is summarized in the table below.



https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf...S-D-13-00091.1

Only 5% of all respondents said that global warming was natural.

They also refer to the widely debunked Oregon Petition.
this study you posted even debunks the 97% consensus .
It only shows a 60% that believe humans are responsible for 50% or more .
And specifically only 78% of actual publishing climate scientists. ( not specifically climatologists) believe man is mostly responsible
This is all by your own chart.

Wonder how the same people would answer after retirement.

What will you do when history proves the majority were wrong?:-):-)
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 16:18   #1857
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 5,434
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
this study you posted even debunks the 97% consensus .
It only shows a 60% that believe humans are responsible for 50% or more .
And specifically only 78% of actual publishing climate scientists. ( not specifically climatologists) believe man is mostly responsible
This is all by your own chart.

The chart is about METEOROLOGISTS. (American Meteorological Society
Professional Members) The group the good Dr Spencer claims is majority opposed.


You need to post less and read more. It would make the thread less noisy, and people wouldn't have to point out how often you screw up like this.


This is for your benefit as well as ours.
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 16:29   #1858
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
The chart is about METEOROLOGISTS. The group the good Dr Spencer claims is majority opposed.


You need to post less and read more. It would make the thread less noisy, and people wouldn't have to point out how often you screw up like this.


This is for your benefit as well as ours.
I was going just off the chart Jacko posted because for some reason ( which considering all he posts about on the forum is MMGW related ) he couldn't get the link to the Pdf that you were easily able to make work.
I shall read the students chat this based upon then post my conclusions not likely to change much but one never knows.
Hopefully this includes the terms of reference and specific questions they ask.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 17:26   #1859
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 789
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

An allegory of two frogs in a pan of water over a small flame.

Frog 1 says "gee, the thermometer says that the temp has gone up 2 degrees."
Frog 2 says "no, you're suffereing from parallax, in fact the temp has gone up only 0.01 degrees."
Both frogs agree that the water feels warmer than just a short while ago.

I submit that both frogs recognize that the flame below the pot is fueled by human development in the developing world, no small amount of which is actually used to feed and pleasure the two frogs as they lounge in the pot. I further submit that both frogs enjoy their thermometer debate more than they enjoy facing the truth of the certain reality that it's practically impossible to turn off the flame, and even if it was possible, that the feed and pleasure of both frogs would be permanently diminished in a manner that both frogs recognize to be non-acceptable to all the other frogs (many of which only "live in the moment" and/or "know they will be in paradise the moment after they cook").

Why else would the frogs be debating the thermometer?
---
What I'd love to see is hard science predictions the proposed policies that are supposed to mitigate the problem in the first place. Even if 101% of people agree that AGW is real what comes next is "so what precisely are we going to do about it, and what is the evidence to support that policy as being both realistic and affordable. I've never seen such a discussion, particularly one that involves detailed real-world solutions in the developing world. We've currently got ~10% of humans starving and we can't even figure that one out.
Singularity is offline  
Old 21-08-2019, 17:36   #1860
Registered User
 
jackdale's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,525
Images: 1
Re: Ocean acidifcation .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
An allegory of two frogs in a pan of water over a small flame.

Frog 1 says "gee, the thermometer says that the temp has gone up 2 degrees."
Frog 2 says "no, you're suffereing from parallax, in fact the temp has gone up only 0.01 degrees."
Both frogs agree that the water feels warmer than just a short while ago.

I submit that both frogs recognize that the flame below the pot is fueled by human development in the developing world, no small amount of which is actually used to feed and pleasure the two frogs as they lounge in the pot. I further submit that both frogs enjoy their thermometer debate more than they enjoy facing the truth of the certain reality that it's practically impossible to turn off the flame, and even if it was possible, that the feed and pleasure of both frogs would be permanently diminished in a manner that both frogs recognize to be non-acceptable to all the other frogs (many of which only "live in the moment" and/or "know they will be in paradise the moment after they cook").

Why else would the frogs be debating the thermometer?
---
What I'd love to see is hard science predictions the proposed policies that are supposed to mitigate the problem in the first place. Even if 101% of people agree that AGW is real what comes next is "so what precisely are we going to do about it, and what is the evidence to support that policy as being both realistic and affordable. I've never seen such a discussion, particularly one that involves detailed real-world solutions in the developing world. We've currently got ~10% of humans starving and we can't even figure that one out.
Have you seen? https://www.drawdown.org/
__________________

__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Star in the Ocean - A lonely and his beloved (the star) are crossing the ocean Velanera General Sailing Forum 18 21-12-2017 05:22
For Sale: Ocean 60 - Southern Ocean Shipyards for sale Ocean Viking Classifieds Archive 2 12-05-2013 04:30
Volvo Ocean racers take a rain check on the Indian ocean sarafina Cruising News & Events 7 06-02-2012 13:52
World Ocean Database and World Ocean Atlas Series GordMay The Library 2 15-01-2007 21:14
Cruising the Indian Ocean Bob Sailor Logs & Cruising Plans 1 29-03-2003 09:46

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 13:31.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.