Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by lindabarzini

I judge a person's intelligence by his skepticism to AGW.

Personally I would like to say thank you for the implication that people that question agw are intelligent. It is true people that question the science are telling scientists to do more to prove or disprove any theory ( not just agw). People that just accept the science without question are IMO rather stagnating scientific study of an issue. ( if people accept it why study further) . So again thank you for implying our collective intelligence. ( for and against agw)

[fryewe]

For jack...who probably feels this way every day...

Dilbert Comic Strip on 2013-09-26 | Dilbert by Scott Adams

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

For jack...who probably feels this way every day...

Dilbert Comic Strip on 2013-09-26 | Dilbert by Scott Adams

Outstanding! What's the saying about being entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts?? Here, there seems to be an awful lot of facts both favoring & refuting each of the opposing opinions, but that in itself is a fact that is all too often ignored by opinion!

P.S. Did what I just wrote make any sense whatsoever?

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Exile

Here, there seems to be an awful lot of facts both favoring & refuting each of the opposing opinions, but that in itself is a fact that is all too often ignored by opinion!

P.S. Did what I just wrote make any sense whatsoever?

Perhaps this synopsizes the basis of my skepticism as cryptically as possible, because it leads me to ask "if there are so many facts on both sides in favor of the contradictory positions, how can the science be settled, and how is it possible that 97 percent of the big brains in the discipline fall on one side of the argument?" Doesn't make sense to me.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

For jack...who probably feels this way every day...

Dilbert Comic Strip on 2013-09-26 | Dilbert by Scott Adams

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Perhaps this synopsizes the basis of my skepticism as cryptically as possible, because it leads me to ask "if there are so many facts on both sides in favor of the contradictory positions, how can the science be settled, and how is it possible that 97 percent of the big brains in the discipline fall on one side of the argument?" Doesn't make sense to me.

It's nowhere near 97% as already discussed, but it might be safe to call it a majority, and certainly "mainstream" or "establishment," at least when it comes to harmful impacts. The only "fact" that seems overwhelming and maybe most closely approaches 97% is that the Earth is experiencing a long-term warming trend, and that humans are likely influencing it to some degree. The amount of warming and how much is man-made is what is so unsettled, and of course critical when it comes to our response. But it's not a popularity contest, nor even a caucus, so this only gets us so far. At the same time, the "fact" that it's unsettled also doesn't prove that either position is necessarily bogus.

This is why I find statements like the one you posted in #2346 from Dr. Christy so logically compelling. He cites the only two sources of temp data -- namely satellite & weather balloons -- that actually corroborate one another. Like the surface data, it's also observed rather than projected. But unlike the surface data, its variability and adjustments don't so radically alter the raw data. Again, none of this necessarily proves the different sources of data, modeling, or opposing positions wrong. Neither does it, on its own, impugn the many scientists who hold either position. All it does, in my mind at least, is leave the state of the (evolving) science "unsettled" at this point in time. For me anyway, this is "factual," and tenacious adherence to one position or the other from non-scientists (often while ignoring a body of evidence) must then fall into the realm of "opinion."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by nicholson31

EXILE:
We are hardy but not foolish!! lol
We have many visiting yachts here but they all Haul out and winterize and come back in the spring. Yes on an average trend we have warmed up but it still gets well below 0c for extended periods of time.

Here is a local statistic given yesterday, for 2016 up to this date, there has only been 10 days in the minus double didgits. 2015 there were 15 and 2014 there were 28 days. Its currently -12 c but going back up to +6 and rain tomorrow.

OK, that's what I thought. I know some year-round boatowners & marinas run "bubblers" around boats to keep the ice away, but there's ice & then there's ICE! I love how you say "only 10 days in the minus double digits. For some of us who live in less extreme climes, that's HARDY!

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Exile

Here, there seems to be an awful lot of facts both favoring & refuting each of the opposing opinions:

The black monolith stands un-refuted and is good as some of the "science".

BTW - yesterday a rodent predicted the weather and history shows it has the same chance of being right as science

[Reefmagnet]

I still don't understand why those living in the coldest spots on the planet seem to fear global warming the most. What's the deal with that?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I still don't understand why those living in the coldest spots on the planet seem to fear global warming the most. What's the deal with that?

Does this help?

Over the last six decades, Canada has become warmer, with average temperatures over land increasing by 1.5°C between 1950 and 2010 (Figure 1). This rate of warming is about double the global average reported over the same time period by Hartmann et al., (2013). Warming has been occurring even faster in many areas of northern Canada,and has been observed in all seasons, although the greatest warming has occurred in winter and spring. The annual number of extreme warm days has also risen, while the number of cold nights has declined. Table 1 provides examples of documented changes in Canada for a variety of indicators of the physical climate system.

More here:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrc...Report_Eng.pdf

Just read the synopsis.

[Simonsays]

in other news, the fusion plant in Greifswald, Germany successfully created Hydrogen Plasma today, marking a milestone on fusion research.
German fusion reactor achieves first plasma

[Reefmagnet]

So how exactly does one part of the world warm at twice the rate everywhere else? Doesn't really align with C02 greenhouse theory now, does it?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So how exactly does one part of the world warm at twice the rate everywhere else? Doesn't really align with C02 greenhouse theory now, does it?

i know that you know what average means so what is your question again?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

i know that you know what average means so what is your question again?

Ok, here it is again. If an area inside my greenhouse is twice as warm as the average temperature of the inside of my greenhouse, how come?

Faster than everyplace else… | Watts Up With That?

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok, here it is again. If an area inside my greenhouse is twice as warm as the average temperature of the inside of my greenhouse, how come?

Faster than everyplace else… | Watts Up With That?

Perhaps the world is more complex than your greenhouse. Just a thought.

(Also, the greenhouse effect is poorly named and has very little to do with actual greenhouses.)