Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I think I will go with the science.

The mean sea level trend is 2.22 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 1.04 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1955 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of 0.73 feet in 100 years.

You guys are actually worried about the sea level rising up 0.73 feet over a 100 year period??? About 8 inches? And you don't think that future humans can out run or plan around this change?

You might not want to travel to places like Guernsey.... You'll be scared to death when you see their 30ft tides.

Only an 8 inch rise in sea levels is an excellent reason why you shouldn't be worrying and why climate change won't matter.

Honestly.... I don't believe the Dutch would even worry about an 8 inch rise over a period of 100 years.

[SV THIRD DAY]

3.....2.....1.....

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you ever bother to read the three posts by Zeke Hausfather on Judith Curry's blog?

Sure did. Zeke is a environmental economist who also writes a bit for climate science. Does that make him a climate scientist. No more then me.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

...

There are plenty of ways we could make real changes that would mitigate the effects of climate change on us. And the childish claim about learning to make stone tools is just that, childish. But to be slightly less juvenile, 'doing things' does mean we who have lived so far off the fat of the planetary hog will have to learn to live with less.

...

Not childish at all. A simple calculation will show that if we were to reduce per capita carbon emissions to 1890 values, we'd still be spewing CO2 into the atmosphere at approximate 1950's levels. The thing is that in the 1890's only a handful of societies were seriously burning fossil fuels; much of the world's population at that time were not fossil fuel dependent.

By my best guess that's around 0.5 ppm annually (which will still continue to rise as population grows) which means atmospheric C02 content would NEVER decrease and would continue to increase at 50 ppm+ per century. Assuming future technology (as was the original point of this thread) isn't going to save our asses, we're eventually and ultimately screwed any old how.

To add the cherry on top, if one were to take the worst of the alarmist predictions this means that not only is all hope gone, but that there was never any hope in the first place.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Translation: You are confident that 'scientific' skepticism on AGW is a plausible enough figleaf for your political opposition to any proactive measures. And hey! Future guy will fix!

I wish my world outlook made it as easy to block out problems.

Kinda lame putting words in other's mouths, L-E, but I understand it's just another way for you to act on your many pre-conceived notions and prejudices.

Lots of interesting definitions of "skepticism" on Wiki, but I think these may fit best my particular position on MMGW:

i) Questioning opinions/beliefs stated as facts;

ii) Having doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere;

iii) A method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing.

Which leads to a defn. of "scientific skepticism:"

Scientific skepticism is about testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them.

I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure this disallows ignoring an entire methodology for taking the Earth's temperature to find out if MMGW really exists.

It sounds like your world outlook is fraught with problems, L-E. I only wish it was easier for you not to try and impose your naive & pessimistic views of the world on others.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I think I will go with the science.

The mean sea level trend is 2.22 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 1.04 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1955 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of 0.73 feet in 100 years.

Sea Level Trends - State Selection

I wondered about that 1955 start point, so looked at a few other California locations on the same site. San Francisco seems about the longest:

Sea Level Trends - State Selection

"The mean sea level trend is 1.92 millimeters/year with a 95% confidenceinterval of +/- 0.19 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1897 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.63 feet in 100 years."

I don't see any change in the rate of sea level rise. So where is the AGW signal that supposedly has caused an acceleration since the 50's when increased emission were supposed to start having an effect?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Scientific skepticism is about testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them.

I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure this disallows ignoring an entire methodology for taking the Earth's temperature to find out if MMGW really exists.

I suspect that there's more to scientific skepticism and analysis than a bunch of sailing forum members googling up ready-made rebuttals to oversimplified and dumbed-down charts, as if this will yield deeper insights than the subject-matter experts have achieved... but I'm no scientist either.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I suspect that there's more to scientific skepticism and analysis than a bunch of sailing forum members googling up ready-made rebuttals to oversimplified and dumbed-down charts, as if this will yield deeper insights than the subject-matter experts have achieved... but I'm no scientist either.

You must have more insight into the backgrounds of CF members than I do. Or are you again just making assumptions about people you don't know? And sorry to hear that you don't think the information being presented in this thread is sophisticated enough for you. But are Jack's rebuttals also "ready-made," and his many charts & graphs "oversimplified" and "dumbed-down?" Or does your disapproval only apply to those who present information which happens to be off-script for you?

Although I provided some defn's, I think you're confusing skepticism in lay terminology to how it applies in science. Someone with my background may not be able to look at a bunch of scientific evidence and tell you why sat data is more reliable than surface data in measuring the Earth's temperature, but if I study Jack's (and other's) informative links I may be able to logically determine what the nature of the scientific controversy or consensus is about. But I'm not the one so dissatisfied with my world and so eager to transform it. You have earned that distinction and so have the burden of justifying the existence of MMGW and the remedies you think are needed to offset its purported impacts. Best you start studying.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I suspect that there's more to scientific skepticism and analysis than a bunch of sailing forum members googling up ready-made rebuttals to oversimplified and dumbed-down charts, as if this will yield deeper insights than the subject-matter experts have achieved... but I'm no scientist either.

Yup...

[Exile]

Looks like a guy who's been breathing too much CO2.

[newhaul]

There is no extra water in the ocean the apparent rise is caused by earthquakes. The 2004 Christmas quake in the Indian ocean caused a .1 mm perminate rise and a couple of islands in Costa Rica disappeared after the earthquake in japan.

[nicholson31]

Guess I will weigh in,
Climate change is as natural as the sunrise, it has happened and will continue to change our coast line. Most responses here talk about sea rise but the real impact to be observed is the lack of sea ice during the winter months. I see it every year here on the north east coast and the impact to animals and the people that rely on the ice forming each year is real and happening today. The North west passage now has opened up a bit more each year and is becoming a check on cruisers bucket list, well some!!
Will 20 years matter, for most south of the ice line no, but for the 10s of thousands of Indigenous people of the north, a way of life will sadly disappear and already has in many ways.
I don't buy into we are causing it, its natural, but we have contributed to the process.

[Sandibar]

Originally Posted by nicholson31

Guess I will weigh in,
Climate change is as natural as the sunrise, it has happened and will continue to change our coast line. Most responses here talk about sea rise but the real impact to be observed is the lack of sea ice during the winter months. I see it every year here on the north east coast and the impact to animals and the people that rely on the ice forming each year is real and happening today. The North west passage now has opened up a bit more each year and is becoming a check on cruisers bucket list, well some!!
Will 20 years matter, for most south of the ice line no, but for the 10s of thousands of Indigenous people of the north, a way of life will sadly disappear and already has in many ways.
I don't buy into we are causing it, its natural, but we have contributed to the process.

Exellent post. I predict you will be verbally attacked by both sides now

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Sandibar

Exellent post. I predict you will be verbally attacked by both sides now

No, not from the denier side.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Sandibar

Exellent post. I predict you will be verbally attacked by both sides now

No attacks needed for Truth....