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. bntii
    Joined: Jun 2006
    Posts: 731
    Likes: 97, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 1324
    Location: MD

    bntii Senior Member

    In debates, I always like to leave a weak foil about in the off chance the opponent will pick it up...


    Morning Yob- yep, sleep seems out of fashion for me as well...
     
  2. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

  3. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    by Christine Dell'Amore
    National Geographic News
    Published August 16, 2010

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/

    Climate scientists have cracked the mystery of why Antarctic sea ice has managed to grow despite global warming—but the results suggest the trend may rapidly reverse, a new study says....

    The new analyses are based on climate models and sea-surface temperature and precipitation observations from 1950 to 2009. They show that, in the 20th century, ocean warming boosted precipitation in the upper atmosphere over the Antarctic region, which fell as snow.

    More snow made the top layers of the ocean less salty and thus less dense. These layers became more stable, preventing warm, density-driven currents in the deep ocean from rising and melting sea ice...

    But that won't be the case for the 21st century, since human-caused global warming is predicted to dominate the Antarctic climate and trigger faster melting of sea ice, he said.

    As increasing greenhouse gases continue to warm the oceans off Antarctica, more Antarctic precipitation will turn to rain, which rapidly melts snow and ice, according to the study, published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    The more the ice melts, the more the sun's rays are absorbed into the dark ocean instead of being reflected back into the atmosphere, according to the study. This will further warm the ocean and melt even more sea ice....
     
  4. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    I see a warming trend, with a huge increase in the last 10 years. What do you see that I don't?
     
  5. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    The tabulated entries are in hundredths of a degree. Divide by 100 to view the decimal degree variance from the mean. I see minor fluctuations over quite a few years, no constant linear increase. I see a total warming in the warmest year on record, of only .6 degree centegrade (6 tenths of a degree) higher than the mean temperature from 1951 to 1980.
    I also see that 2011 was cooler than 8 other recent years according to NASA and cooler than 10 other recent years according to NOAA.

    I posted on an earlier post, the 1st quarter 2012 was cooler than 16 recent years. 15 months are not a long cooling period, and only cooler by a tenth degree or 2. But the total warming is only up a few tenths on average.

    Bostons refutal that the sun isn't more active fails to understand that the solar wind blows away cosmic rays that make clouds, when the sun is more active. Fewer clouds, more heat gets through. Scientists with a vested interest (their reputations) in CO2 drives temperatures are of course going to try to discredit solar driven climate. When CO2 is finally discredited, so will be the scientists that pushed acceptance of CO2 theory so hard.

    The CO2 DEFINITELY isn't matching current temperatures. CO2 is WAY up, and the past 15 months have been coolest in a decade of years.

    The next couple years should finally cinch the argument. Solar activity (solar wind) is calmer and calming. We should see more cloud cover as a result and relatively cooler years.
    No doubt, CO2 will continue to rise. If temperatures continue to cool or simply stays near stable, instead of heating up? Man made global warming as a theory and as a political agenda is dead! :)
     
  6. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    yab sees butterflies and zebras, moonbeams and fairy-tales. Why can't you ?

    Deal is there are multiple data sets concerning temp over the 1800 to present time frame. Any discussion based on the scientific method would look at all of them. Not just one and not without far more information than whats presented by Yab. The best way to look at this stuff is through graphs that compare the various findings. rather than by looking at raw data that may or may not have been calibrated.

    Oh and Image, I just posted that same article somewhere, might have been this thread, but good find ;-)
     
  7. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    You keep trying to discredit me as some kind of lunatic. I'll stand by my record of success in life. Top of my profession for 30 years. Success as husband, father, grandfather.
    You will be eating YOUR words before very long. :)

    Total amount of warming from 1880 till now is .8 of a degree C. Hardly anything to get alarmed about, unless you are a panicky type. Hysteria isn't a symptom of good mental health you realize?
    :D

    Looking at graphs is NOT the best way to look at the figures. Put your crayons away Boston. Drawing soaring graphs to represent a few 10ths of a degree change, is an obvious attempt to magnify things out of proportion.
     
  8. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,857
    Likes: 400, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Control Group

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

  9. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    I do understand that the entries are in hundredths of a degree variance from a mean temperature. Looking at the January temperatures (just because they are easy for the eye to follow in the table of numbers), I definitely can see an increasing progression of temperatures.

    -42, -33, -12, -17, 1, 22, 17, 43

    I agree that the total change in average global temperature over the last century is less than 1 degree C. That doesn’t seem like much, given that daily and seasonal temperature variations are so much greater. But most climate scientists say that such an apparently small change IS a big deal. I accept their analysis. Apparently you do not.

    Here is a NOAA page giving a synopsis of their view of global warming. Section 3 comments on the less than 1 degree C temperature change over the last century, and also comments on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice changes.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

    I’m not a climate scientist, and I suspect neither are any of the other participants on this thread. Since none of us has the ability to directly determine the veracity of the claims of the many climate change “experts,” we each have to decide for ourselves which “expert” is most likely giving us accurate information.

    Here are two rules of thumb that I use to help me select my “experts” when I have to rely on them because I don’t have sufficient knowledge myself:

    Rule 1: If the majority of experts in a particular field agree with each other, smart money bets in favor of the experts.

    Rule 2: If the majority of experts in a particular field don’t agree with each other, smart money will not bet on ANY point of view.

    Applying these two rules to the question of climate change I note that the majority of climatologists say that Anthropogenic Global Warming is happening, and that it is a big concern. Rule 1 suggests that I pay attention to them. And so I do.

    Since the BoatDesign moderators haven’t closed this thread (yet) due to all the recent religious comments (maybe because we haven’t been too nasty with each other – calm yourself Boston) I’ll add a religious comment of my own:

    When I survey the opinions of the world’s religious experts I notice huge disagreements between them on all manner of theological topics. In this type of situation Rule 2 advises me to be religiously agnostic. And so I am.

    наилучшие пожелания в вашей религиозные искания
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I use different parameters when judging probable truth of statements.
    First, I ask, Who says it? if it's a politician, it already has 2 strikes against it. :) Al Gore was the first alarmist I encountered. He starts of with a dozen strikes against him.
    Does it fit within the ethics of it's field? A purported religious statement, full of curses, I wouldn't believe. A patriotic statement full of treason, I wouldn't believe. A scientific statement that claimed to be irrefutable, I wouldn't believe.
    I also look at total veracity. One error , no matter how many people concur, destroys trust.
    "CO2 is the predominant greenhouse gas." ERROR!
    "The science is closed." ERROR
    "The debate is over" ERROR
    "The sun is not a factor" ERROR

    I also look at intent. Do the endorsers have something to be gained, personally or as a group?
    Is there a political or religious agenda involved?
    There are still other indicators of trustworthiness.
    Man made catasrtophic global warming trips all veracity flags.
    Good luck and best wishes to you too! :)
     
  11. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Given such constraints, I'm surprised you have anything at all to do with religion!
     
  12. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Writing someone off as a liar before he even opens his mouth on a subject is hardly a rational way to judge the merits of what he's saying.

    It's just as irrational to decide that anyone who discusses global warming has proven he's a liar just by mentioning the subject.

    You're being mentally lazy, Yob. Suck it up.... I know you can do better than that.:(
     
  13. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    I'm not so sure Troy, Denial is as much a psychological impairment as it may be a failure to comprehend the basics of the science. Its a defensive mechanism that keeps the subject in there place of safety. Kinda like religion, its a faith or a belief rather than the product of careful consideration and scientific analysis.

    I'm not surprised at all you notice him ducking and dodging the realities of climate shift.

    Cheers
    B
     
  14. mydauphin
    Joined: Apr 2007
    Posts: 2,161
    Likes: 53, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 575
    Location: Florida

    mydauphin Senior Member

    Boston, are you familiar with programming trading.
    That is where you setup a computer program that looks at past economics and stock prices, then try to predicate the future by trading based on past history. Guess what- they don't work, because new factors are always coming into play and we don't really understand the invisible hand of the market fully. But some people are still getting people to put money into program trading

    Same thing happens with the climate models, there are plenty of people getting paid in Universities to make up these models. If they didn't they wouldn't get the grant money. This is the reality of academic world.
     

  15. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    well since the conclusion of your quote is so far off its pretty obvious your building on that error only led to even more misunderstandings.

    CO2 is our main climate driver. Yup there are obviously variables that occasionally present themselves but at this point they are secondary to human production of CO2. So when you say

    You are ignoring the realities of burning 90 million barrels of oil a day along with about 14 million tons of hard coal ( again per day ) and trillions of CU ft of natural gas/methane.

    and for every gallon of fuel burned the combustion process creates about 21 lbs of CO2 gas.

    to address your second point, the same thing does not happen in climate models. Our climate is predictable and there have been numerous accurate predictions made. Simply because its complex doesn't mean its impossible. The stock market is based off emotions, which why its so difficult to predict.

    Anyway its an interesting experience to see who's misunderstanding what about climate shift. We've been over the sun did it ploy, the volcano's do it more ploy, even the barycentric orbit ploy. I'm always curious that among people willing to grasp so desperately at straws, why they're not willing to look at the obvious.

    We burn a lot of stuff in the course of a day. All day, every day, adds up.
     
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.