Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by hansp77, Sep 11, 2006.

?

Do you believe

  1. Global Warming is occuring as a direct result of Human Activity.

    106 vote(s)
    51.7%
  2. IF Gloabal Warming is occurring it is as a result of Non-Human or Natural Processes.

    99 vote(s)
    48.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    you are the one bringing in politics. I say global warming is bad science with an agenda
     
  2. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    I noticed you didn't compare the average global temps along with that graph :D. Also how many studies went into it :?:. Typically in order for any study of this type to be considered "robust" its going to have to use multiple data sets from multiple researchers and methodologies. Otherwise the error bar is so great that really nothing can be reasonably concluded.:eek:

    and I'm not sure were you thought I brought in the politics other than to mention it wasn't boating related sufficiently to warrant a discussion on this board.

    Your link
    Was what I was responding to. I believe you posted it in reference to your claim that scientists where involved in some kinda excessive profiteering from there studies in climate science :idea: If you read the article its not the scientists that will be getting the money. Its going towards developing electricity, utilities and private financial institutions, did you read the article :?:

    I know some pretty big names in climate science and I seem to remember having to cover at least one guys tab at the coffee shop a few months ago. Most scientists, unless they are university professors, and even then, don't make jack for money.

    OK I'm out the door
    B
     
  3. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    So, folks doing research and developement for companies aren't scientists? :)
    I post what I think is relevant as do you. If my post doesn't quite meet your standards, then a little tolerance maybe in order.
    If neither side accepts any of the oher sides experts or data, there is no discussion. Just noise and discord.
     
  4. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Confucius say, "Man who no move uphill get water on brain."
     
  5. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    People who work for the corporate empires are working for a vested interest. Sure some of them studied the sciences, geologists for instance working for the oil and gas industry. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists ( AAPG ) A great example, are the very same geologists, tainted day in and day out with the oil and gas industry disinformation campaign and there livelihoods depending as they do on oil as gas money are in the group of scientists least likely to comprehend climate change science. While scientists who actually study climate change hold a 97% consensus concerning the issue. The AAPG was the last major scientific society to admit that climate change was due to human burning of fossil fuels.

    From
    http://www.aapg.org/explorer/president/2007/03mar.cfm

    The question is, does anyone really think thats a coincidence ????????

    Of course not.

    On the same score is it fair to say that the electrical engineers working for private corporations in R&D on improving battery technology going to qualify as climate scientists making "huge" profits from RD grants allocated by the Japanese government. As noted in the article which you presented as evidence that climate scientists are somehow involved in some kind of effort to bilk money out of there studies of climate science. Again the suggestion is simply so ludicrous that it begs the question of why it would be even suggested if not in a classic denialist blanket attempt to degrade the integrity of our climate scientists. The vast majority of which are living at the poverty level or just above.

    I can't help but notice that the issue isn't one of relevance but one of simple credibility. Making one wildly inaccurate claim after another has nothing to do with relevance.

    It also might be important to note that if a student in a math class insisted that 1+1=3 and demanded that his opinion receive its fair share of "tolerance" then it might be fair to say that student would most likely fail the class, miserably.
    I see little difference in your wild claims that have absolutely no basis in the science and the students claims that 1+1=3. Neither have the credibility to be worthy of debate. Although ensuring that the other students in the group are not confused by the one students inability to grasp the concepts would be in order.

    Thus its important to make the errors in your logic clear to our readers.

    Once again there is no debate, the science is quite clear on this. What is worthy of effort is to counter the oil and gas industries disinformation campaign. Easily enough done except for one truism

    You aint going to learn
    what you don't want to know

    I guess its easier to believe its not happening that it is to admit it is and something needs to be done about it.
     
  6. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Also there is no "other side" to the issue. There is only one working theory. If there where two competing theories then you might have a point. There isn't. So the point is moot.

    What there is, is a vast and very well funded disinformation campaign geared towards confusing the public and creating the illusion that there is doubt in the science. There isn't, 97% consensus

    is the highest consensus of any theory

    ever
     
  7. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, urp. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. You just want to destroy corporations and the people who bought stock in them, such as teachers, firemen, policemen, ships captains, secretaries, doctors, nurses, ditch diggers, pilots, road-builders, divers, dockworkers, plumbers, carpenters (hey, aren't you a carpenter?), repairmen, painters, machinists, boat-builders, truckdrivers, miners, drillers, Indian chiefs, Warren Buffett and probably yourself.
     
  8. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    From
    http://timeforchange.org/main-cause-of-global-warming-solutions


    The main cause of global warming
    It took more than 20 years to broadly accept that mankind is causing global warming with the emission of greenhouse gases. The drastic increase in the emission of CO2 (carbon dioxide) within the last 30 years caused by burning fossil fuels has been identified as the major reason for the change of temperature in the atmosphere
    More than 80% of the world-wide energy demand is currently supplied by the fossil fuels coal, oil or gas. It will be impossible to find alternative sources, which could replace fossil fuels in the short or medium term. The energy demand is simply too high.

    Another issue is the non-renewable characteristic of fossil fuels: It took nature millions of years to generate these resources, however we will have used them up within the next decades. Alone the shrinking supply will not make it possible to continue as usual for a longer time.


    The main cause of global warming is our treatment of Nature
    Why have warnings about climate change been ignored for more than 20 years?
    Why were ever more scientific evidence demanded to find the coherence of man-made CO2 emissions as cause of global warming? Why wasn't common sense reason enough to act?
    The true cause of global warming is our thoughtless attitude to Nature.

    Why can one still today find people who stick their head in the sand and don't want to understand what's going on in the earth's atmosphere?
    Why do most people refuse to change their personal behavior voluntary in order to reduce CO2 emissions caused by their activities?
    The answer to all these questions is a rather simple one:

    In our technology and scientific minded world, we seem to have forgotten that mankind is only a relatively minor part of Nature. We ignore being part of a larger whole.

    We believe to be able to control Nature instead of trying to arrange ourselves with Nature. This haughtiness is the true main cause of global warming. As a matter of fact, some people still believe that technical solutions alone would be sufficient to fight global warming.

    Although we are guests on Earth, we behave as if no further visitors would arrive after us. It's like having a wild party where we destroy beds, the kitchen as well as the living room of a hotel without ever thinking about our future staying in the hotel nor about other guests arriving later
     
  9. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    The main cause of global warming is the Sun. The secondary cause of global warming is friction of the earth from tidal forces. The third cause of global warming is the hot air coming from warmnologists like Boston. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    http://www.physorg.com/news62952904.html

    "At the very center, it is believed temperatures exceed 11,000 degrees Fahrenheit, hotter than the surface of the sun."
     
  10. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Its pretty easy to calculate or measure where all these excess greenhouse gasses are coming from

    [​IMG]

    so its kinda a no brainer as to why the planet would be warming when we have such huge quantities of greenhouse gasses being released into the environment.
     
  11. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    And they don't mean diddly in the greater scheme of things.
     
  12. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    The following might help some readers in understanding exactly how the various trace gasses are measured and identified as to there sources.

    From
    http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

    I'd post a few more tidbits out of that paper but its not open access, so feel free to go read up on the techniques used to measure these ratios as its an important tool.

    cheers
     
  13. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Why all the effort to counteract the disinformation campaign ? Anyone hoping to get back to a life on the water or already enjoying a life on the water will know that keeping an eye on the weather is ultimately important. If that weather is changing faster, and getting more violent, its going to impact how often and how safely we take to the water. Our windows of opportunity become more critical.

    From
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0204-global_warming_equals_stronger_hurricanes.htm

    Global Warming Equals Stronger Hurricanes
    Meteorologists Find That Increased Ocean Temperatures Cause Increasingly Intense Hurricanes
    February 1, 2008 — Climate change experts studying hurricanes documented a 35-year warming trend in ocean surface temperature and linked it to larger hurricanes. The increase has been 1 degree Fahrenheit, resulting in four percent more atmospheric water vapor and six to eight percent more rainfall. Though global warming does not guarantee that each year will see record-strength hurricanes, the long-term ocean warming should raise the baseline of hurricane activity.
     
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    co2 level is not relevant, does not drive climate change, man made co2 is less than 1 % of annual co2 emissions,CO2 as a causal factor is a wildly erroneous claim as you accuse others of, is rejected by many climate scientists in important positions in important universities as I've documented before.
    higher CO2 lagged some hundreds of years behind higher temperatures throughout the eons. The baby can't create the parent. It's very very bad science Boston! Bad logic.
    here is global warmings refutation.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

    They admit CO2 lags temperature, admit don't know why, and still contend doesn't matter, obstinate that CO2 drive climate!

    BAD SCIENCE!
     

  15. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

    Do you believe NOAA knows the weather better than global warmers? I do.

    quote
    " We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 3). In addition, a new study by Landsea et al. (2010) notes that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic. In short, the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.