ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

I feel sooo sorry for you. Maybe you and your buddies can view these boring posts as a stimulating challenge to find solid evidence to support your point of view.

New York Times | Why Can Some Kids Handle Pressure While Others Fall Apart?

Blah!

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by dskira

GREEN
...

Eloquent.

[Petros]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Well,It doesn't have a single ounce of facts to back up its headlines and lead paragraph.

I'm sticking with my original reaction, squared: it's a pack of deliberate, bald-faced lies. There is no way anyone who's at all conversant with the subject could honestly make such blatantly wrong claims.

It appears you did not follow the links that the article was based on, the article itself was not proof of anything, but a commentary on the conference. Please spend a few minutes looking at the presentations by legitimate scientists that I posted for you below and than tell me where the lies are, or are you satisfied with simply repeating statements from others without even looking at what they are talking about?

It is true that many of the presenters at the conference are not climatologists, that is because they were commenting on their area of expertise on the economy, politics and medicine. Many climatologists make direct statements and claims about these topics, well outside their own area of expertise. Would it not be better to have experts in those area speak? Or you just do not what to hear it because they are not climatologists?

My interests were in the presentations made by the experts in climatology and paleo-climatology, of which there are plenty. They make presentations on both the past, and compare it to future predictions. Their presentations indicated there are serious shorting comings in the methodology used to make these predictions, especially when trying to tie it to human activity. No doubt there is some effects humans have, but without credible science, it is difficult to get a good measure of that impact.

These presentations below I found very interesting, all by climatologist or specialists in paleo-climatology. All of those below appear to be legitimate scientists. I do not see any reason for them to fabricate their information. Unless the IPCCC addresses these issues rather than smearing them, it is difficult to take any of the IPCCC claims as valid. Normal science is a give and take of ideas that either supports each other or it does not. It is not legitimate science to smear another researcher without addressing the science itself.

go see them for yourselves;

sebastian-luning, Phd

http://climateconferences.heartland....-luning-iccc7/

craig-idso, Phd

http://climateconferences.heartland....ig-idso-iccc7/

madhav-khandekar, Phd

http://climateconferences.heartland....andekar-iccc7/

tom-segalstad, Phd

http://climateconferences.heartland....galstad-iccc7/

anthony-lupo, Phd

http://climateconferences.heartland....ny-lupo-iccc7/

patrick-michaels, Phd

http://climateconferences.heartland....ichaels-iccc7/

stan-goldenberg, phd

http://climateconferences.heartland....denberg-iccc7/

william-gray, phd

http://climateconferences.heartland....am-gray-iccc7/

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Petros

Normal science is a give and take of ideas that either supports each other or it does not. It is not legitimate science to smear another researcher without addressing the science itself.

go see them for yourselves;

I tried.

Honestly I couldn't even get past the introduction where the IPCC is named as spreading "alarm-ism, hysteria, lies and misinformation".

That is not "addressing the science itself", and really not worth my time.

I would be interested if you could post a single point cited at the conference which is as you say is not adequately addressed by the IPCC.

[Petros]

you have to get past the introductions, I just skip that part. Most of the scientific presentations are only 15 min long after the intros. lets stick with the science please.

There was several comparisons of past atmospheric carbon vs. temp, and all other factors that affect temperature. The IPCCC ranked all the various factors or "driving functions" of temperature, and used that to estimate future temp. There was a pretty detailed breakdown of these factors that to shows the IPCCC breakdown does not correlate to historical temperature records, and how there appeared to be no supporting for their ranking, putting carbon much higher on the scale than other, apparently more powerful influences.

There was also an interesting presentation of the carbon cycle in how it moves from plant and oceans, to atmosphere and back again, with supporting data from various sources (often IPCCC sources). The suggestions of the data was that perhaps atmospheric carbon was the results of rising temperature, and not the cause. IOW, other factors would raise the temperature, and the rise in atmospheric carbon would follow.

There were several interring presentations on ocean temperature inversions, where there would be sudden changes in which the cold water from deep in the oceans would rise to the surface and cool the climate. these inversions appear to be cyclical and can be traced back a number of centuries, and they also correlate with temperature major climate cycles. If this is indeed a powerful driving factor of climate, it needs to be accounted for in the IPCCC estimates rather than be ignored.

There was a presentation on the factors that drive hurricanes by a specialist that spent his career studying hurricanes. Hurricane frequency have also been blamed by the IPCCC on anthropogenic climate change. He presented good documentation that the IPCCC not only did not have an hurricane specialists, but that there was no supporting evidence to that claim.

I really can not do this for you, you need to just go see the presentation by the scientist themselves rather than criticize the introductions. do not critize anything I wrote here, you need to see the data for yourself and email them if you have a questions.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Petros

you have to get past the introductions, I just skip that part. Most of the scientific presentations are only 15 min long after the intros. lets stick with the science please.

There was several comparisons of past atmospheric carbon vs. temp, and all other factors that affect temperature. The IPCCC ranked all the various factors or "driving functions" of temperature, and used that to estimate future temp. There was a pretty detailed breakdown of these factors that to shows the IPCCC breakdown does not correlate to historical temperature records, and how there appeared to be no supporting for their ranking, putting carbon much higher on the scale than other, apparently more powerful influences.

There was also an interesting presentation of the carbon cycle in how it moves from plant and oceans, to atmosphere and back again, with supporting data from various sources (often IPCCC sources). The suggestions of the data was that perhaps atmospheric carbon was the results of rising temperature, and not the cause. IOW, other factors would raise the temperature, and the rise in atmospheric carbon would follow.

There were several interring presentations on ocean temperature inversions, where there would be sudden changes in which the cold water from deep in the oceans would rise to the surface and cool the climate. these inversions appear to be cyclical and can be traced back a number of centuries, and they also correlate with temperature major climate cycles. If this is indeed a powerful driving factor of climate, it needs to be accounted for in the IPCCC estimates rather than be ignored.

There was a presentation on the factors that drive hurricanes by a specialist that spent his career studying hurricanes. Hurricane frequency have also been blamed by the IPCCC on anthropogenic climate change. He presented good documentation that the IPCCC not only did not have an hurricane specialists, but that there was no supporting evidence to that claim.

I really can not do this for you, you need to just go see the presentation by the scientist themselves rather than criticize the introductions. do not critize anything I wrote here, you need to see the data for yourself and email them if you have a questions.

There are only so many hours in the day. I don't waste them studying the Heartland Institute's paid set pieces and speakers, any more than I burn time reading pamphlets that tell me God created the Earth 6,000 years ago. When I want to know about climate change I'll go to genuine scientific sources, rather than looking at a conference put on by a professional lobbying and PR organization.....

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Petros

I really can not do this for you, you need to just go see the presentation by the scientist themselves rather than criticize the introductions. do not critize anything I wrote here, you need to see the data for yourself and email them if you have a questions.

My degree is in ecology- when I want to understand a topic I go directly to the research as I was trained to do.

I don't expect you to "do this for me", but do expect that you review ALL of the relevant research as well before coming to any conclusions.

[Yobarnacle]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...limate-change/

[Yobarnacle]

The changes since 1900 are 8 tenths of a degree C.

Minutiae! An argument about miniscule variations in average temperatures, which could reflect less accurate data gathering in the past.
Or fudging in the present. It's obvious there has been unprofessional and unethical practices on both sides, according to the many scandals by both sides.

This isn't science, it's politics!

Don't be fooled!

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

The changes since 1900 are 8 tenths of a degree C.

Minutiae! An argument about miniscule variations in average temperatures, which could reflect less accurate data gathering in the past.
Or fudging in the present. It's obvious there has been unprofessional and unethical practices on both sides, according to the many scandals by both sides.

This isn't science, it's politics!

Don't be fooled!

No, AGW is science. The dust clouds being stirred up to obscure the science are politics, and economics -- for the short-term benefit of the corporations that sponsor Heartland Institute's disinformation campaigns.

[Yobarnacle]

hysteria over 8 tenths of degree average rise over a century, when many adjacent years, including recent years, show as much as 5 tenths degree variation in average from one year to the next, is not valid science.
Science isn't hysterical!
And opposing points of view in science are not heretical.
And the conclusions of science NEVER result in scientists promoting political activism!
ergo, the alarmists are not being scientific, even if they are trained scientists.
Even scientists have political views.
Unfortunately, they are trying to use their scientific credentials in a political arena to push their political agenda!
Are there ANY scientists preaching pending climate calamity who claim conservative political leanings?
It's a liberal/socialist agenda.

[Petros]

Originally Posted by troy2000

When I want to know about climate change I'll go to genuine scientific sources, rather than looking at a conference put on by a professional lobbying and PR organization.....

So, you will not even look at any of the presentations, because your mind is already made up. How do you know your source is "genuine"? You do not think your own "genuine" sources does not have a vested interest in keeping the government grants coming? what do you know about where the money comes from for your "genuine" souses? How do you know they are not just as biased or worse?

I think your idea that somehow the "science" of man generated global warming is genuine is just as unsupportable as your notion that all of the scientists at this conference is influenced by "PR".

How do you know what is true and what is not. I doubt you even read any of your so-called "genuine" sources (not the PR, but the actual data). I have and from my science trained perspective it is all interesting, but not conclusive since it does not adequately address all of its potential short comings.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Petros

So, you will not even look at any of the presentations, because your mind is already made up. How do you know your source is "genuine"? You do not think your own "genuine" sources does not have a vested interest in keeping the government grants coming? what do you know about where the money comes from for your "genuine" souses? How do you know they are not just as biased or worse?

I think your idea that somehow the "science" of man generated global warming is genuine is just as unsupportable as your notion that all of the scientists at this conference is influenced by "PR".

How do you know what is true and what is not. I doubt you even read any of your so-called "genuine" sources (not the PR, but the actual data). I have and from my science trained perspective it is all interesting, but not conclusive since it does not adequately address all of its potential short comings.

Reality check: if I studied in depth every crackpot claim made by professional hucksters, I'd never have time for anything else. So when I want science, I go to genuine scientific organizations -- not professional lobbyists who are getting paid to wage disinformation campaigns.

Can you imagine a genuine scientific organization trying to discredit a line of scientific research by putting up billboards claiming it's supported by mass murderers? Face it: if you're taking these people seriously, you don't have a 'science trained perspective.' Or if you were ever trained it didn't take.....

You're right; I don't generally go to the original research on this sort of scientific question; I go to summaries of that research by people and organizations I trust. And an organization that has a track record of:

1) getting paid to spread disinformation on the effects of cigarette smoke on health,
2) getting paid to spread disinformation on the effects of CFC's on the Ozone Hole,
3) pumping money into state elections to support pro-business and anti-union candidates,
4) lobbying against the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, on the grounds that water is a 'commodity' that should be subject only to market forces instead of government regulation,
5) etc....

is obviously a mouthpiece for corporate interests. Why should I pay them any attention at all? Because they can round up a handful of guys with degrees in science, and pay them to spout the party line at a staged 'conference'? That isn't science...

Here's a little factoid for you, son: in 2000, the Heartland Institute filed a lawsuit against President Clinton for expanding the scope of, and increasing funding for, a report on climate change by the US Global Change Research Program.
Source: "Lawmakers, Groups Sue Over National Assessment on Climate Change," Greenwire, 10/5/2000

Tell me: is that your idea of an objective source of scientific information on climate change?

[Yobarnacle]

Troy
How are you coming with your plans for a retirement boat? or TEOTWAWKI boat?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

Troy
How are you coming with your plans for a retirement boat? or TEOTWAWKI boat?

Inching closer... I took out a loan to pay for materials a month or two ago. And I just took two weeks vacation because my son is home on leave from Korea. My main project while I'm home (aside from spending time with the kid) will be to enclose a 12'x42' roofed patio so I can use it as a workshop for building the hull.

Not that I really need the workspace enclosed to keep the weather out; I need it enclosed to keep the thieves out. Otherwise I'd spend more time trying to lock up tools and materials than I would building....

28' riverboat Cindy Lou

If I remember right, weren't you planning to turn two monohulls into a power cat? How's that coming along?