What Do We Think About Climate Change

I didnt think so



more like you avoided responding just like you avoided stating your position on climate change there mate



you avoided each and every question instead deferring to your insistence on this East Anglia thing that is as of yet completely up in the air other than it being the work of thieves

if your position is so week as to be intolerant of debate then why pretend the debate in the first place

obviously you had no intention of debating climate change

obviously the caliber of the argument is insufficient to tolerate an honest look at the data

instead in typical denier fashion you simply deny the data pools validity

brilliant

tens of thousands of scientists going back hundreds of years and you want to question the veracity of there work

good idea
while were at it lets rewrite the study of say botany in he new world simply because Bartram was not formally educated
or the study of physics simply because Halley funded Newtons work and Halley was later proven wrong in his calculations of the orbit of his famous comet

sorry but to have yet another denier come in and obviously obfuscate rather than present any form of coherent argument is just to funny

I know you mistake this for derision but its really not

Im laughing my *** off over here at your blatant refusal to even remotely enter into a debate were you claim you would "clean my clock"

obviously you are avoiding a debate at all costs and I dont think a single reader is missing that point

I do greatly appreciate the levity though
my back is still killing me
and all this laughter is bound to loosen it up some

best of luck
B

 

Climate change

It's easy to make up a lot of names , knowing no one will ever bother to check them.
We will continue to have problems, as long as we fail to identify obsessive greed as a mental illness, and thus continue to allow the blatantly obviously mentally ill to rise to positions of control and power.
We admire such mentally ill people in powe, and tend to support them politically in porportion to how far their obsessions ( Mental illness) has put their wealth far beyond anything that anyone could possibly need.
It has been found that once one's personal needs are reliably met , one is as happy as they are going to get. Winning the lottery makes one extremely happy, for a few days, then ones happiness drops to it's median level. A tragedy drastically decreases ones happiness for a few days, then it normally rises to it's median level.
I'm sure your Fijian friends were, on average, far happier than far richer people here in the "Priveledged" world.
Given that your environmental footprint being measured by how much money you go thru, the all too common mental illness called "Blind Obsessive greed" is definitely a major source of environmental degradation.
I know a rich guy who calls himself an environmentalist. He puts his recyclables in the blue recycling box, then drives his motorhome to the polls to vote for the green party, then to the airport, then flies halfway around the world, doubling or tripling his environmental footprint in a matter of hours.
The people with the smallest environmental footprint are the homeless. It goes up from there . Liveaboards are definitely at the bottom end of the scale with an environmental footprint that is microscopic compared to most land dwellers.
Want to reduce your environmental footprint? Move aboard. Give up your car.

 

Im working on exactly that Brent
just unfortunately takes time

oh
I used to live in a greenhouse out on the ranch
I rented out the house
I used about 4 light bulbs an outhouse and a wood stove in the winter
had a water wall going in the summer to stay cool
it was beautiful
got some pictures around here somewhere
bedroom set up in the middle surrounded by plants
I could not miss in that set up

I am happy in a small cabin like setting synonomous with a yachting life style
all I really need is a computer link and a fire place and Im happy as a clam

 

anyone still want real information?

Joyce & Keigwin are from a credible organisation (not into data fudging etc as far as I'm aware) and their short paper is worth a read. Originally dated 2003 but last updated just over a week ago.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046

They mention the Younger Dryas. Now there was some rapid climate change - estimates of cooling by 7 degrees in 20 years (in Europe).

My point? Rapid warming AND cooling has occurred often. Long before anthropogenic impacts. Humans might be exacerbating (since mid 20th C) the rising temp over the last 12,000 years, but so what? Paleoclimate data isn't as good as we'd like, but we're still easily within historical bounds and there is no risk of 'runnaway catastrophe'.

Note that glaciations have been far more severe on human populations than warming. And if the Woods Hole guys are right and there is a repeat of the 'Little Ice Age' (during our current waming trend before this Interglacial ends) then the additional population around the North Atlantic now compared to 16th-18th century will mean we are all impacted in a significant way (immigration, refugees).

I'd like to see more efforts into better communication of the possible consequences of climate change (both continued warming and localised snap freezes) as it will emphasise that the first major step is an international body that works (cf the UN, which basically doesn't work). Financial resources are always a bit limited, so rather than asking 'is it happening because we did this' and 'if we do that can we stop it soon enough'
why not ask 'if we accept its happening, what are the consequences' and 'how do we manage those'

As Hoffman says, 'enjoy the interglacial';
cheers - Brian

 

Boston is beginning to remind me of a punchdrunk boxer wandering around the ring throwing punches at shadows and ghosts after the fight has ended and the venue is empty. The show is over, he lost the fight, and only he doesn't know it. Pathetic.

 

Yes Brian I also like there article however when they speak of past global climate changes in the past they are referring to those driven by typical natural cycles. In that sense yes there has been some pretty rapid climate change in the past. But now imagine if you turbocharge the process which is what we have done by altering the chemistry of the atmosphere, now those natural processes may be even more accelerated and if so that could lead to an even larger feedback resulting in an unusually extreme event this time around.
if you read the article again they are not saying and neither am I that climate has not shifted in the past and at times quickly, what they and I and a lot of others are saying is that we are inducing a shift and that that shift is more likely than less to be far more abrupt and severe than normal or what is being predicted

if you remember I posted data showing that the IPCC had been conservative in its estimated rate of changes in atmospheric parameters

the information was rejected by deniers

I also posted information warning of the consequenses of shutting down the thermohaline system

that information was also rejected by the deniers

as was information concerning the snow ball earth theory
and nearly every other point that article made
the article
while it readily admits that we have a lot more to learn
is equally as clear that the majority of scientists believe we are inducing a climate shift
one that is surely to not go well for the human race

 

The show is over.
It's time to call it a day.
AGW deluded have all been led astray.
So take this moment to gather a thought,
that it was in vain,
this theory you taught.

BYE BYE, for now.

 

might want to cut back on the sauce there Hoyt

all is not lost
you might still realize the error of your ways soon enough to at least move to the tropics and high ground

 

The business end of boating.

Several years ago I saw something that got me thinking about a "new" style of watercraft. After some research I did a "concept" design and built a scale model, (I have some experience in boat design and boatbuilding though it has been some years). The boat itself is a powerboat and could be of any size from say 15Ft to 50Ft or greater though I see the primary market as between 18Ft – 32Ft.

The design lends itself to virtually any market: recreational, commercial, military, governmental, transport, emergency services, tourism, etc. Since the recreational market is extremely soft right now this is a real benefit. Additionally the design and business model respond to a serious global market need.

The boat though is not the only issue I address with the design. The boat industry business model as it is, is very dated and has a destructive impact on sales and thus the overall health of the industry. How can a 23Ft boat cost half again the cost of a good car?

I have a solution and am looking for either an industry partner or an investor or other? My interest is to build a company.

Please email me at scrane516@gmail.com – serious inquiries only.

 

Boston, at present I'm not convinced that atmosphere chemistry is unique - the PETM event might be an analogue and there could be more recent ones also. What I find intriguing is that for both PETM and the Younger Dryas, the rates of warming and cooling that marked the bounds of both events are equally rapid. To me it suggests that abrupt and rapid events lead to metastable states, which encounter some 'buffering effects' that promotes return, equally rapidly, to long term trends governed by Milankovitch and other cycles. All a bit rough if you are in the middle of it, no doubt.
The reality is that we have enjoyed unusually stable temperature and climate conditions for quite some time. In general the last 10,000 years and more particularly the last 150 years. I’m sure this is a factor for the human population explosion, or what a dispassionate extra-terrestrial historian will one day likely write up as ‘The plague of humans was from about 1850 – 20xx. They observed many locust plagues in that time but learnt nothing’.
Future generations will have to deal with some cooling events and if we don't over-breed, kill ourselves over some 'principle' or whatever, then they will also have to deal with a glaciation. If we rely on history of recent glaciations, enough will survive for the next interglacial but they might have to reinvent a few wheels etc. Have no real fear for the human race – we will survive! Well, some will at least.
I don’t think humans are inducing a shift. Adding to one? Yes. Accelerating it? Perhaps. But it was happening anyway. And if we are 'the straw that breaks the camel's back' then, yes, you and I might live long enough to see some consequences such as shutting down the thermohaline system for a bit. But the one sure thing is that the IPCC models are wrong (eg Spear noted omission of water vapour from models, which is not a trivial omission) and I have no doubt that we should 'expect the unexpected'.
Folks tell me I’m a denier but I want to split hairs on it – climate is changing, currently warming – yes. Human contribution to that? Qualified yes (but as noted previously), in very recent times only and marginal in the overall scheme of things. The real ‘denier’ in me, that drives me to the keyboard, are the people who say ‘its nearly all due to human contribution’ (thus we can reverse it – fat chance!) and that ‘we need to take lots of (very expensive) action immediately’. I remember the Y2K bug kerfuffle, and resent it because I was ordered to manage my employer’s program when I wanted to do something useful instead. Things were so bad that I was told I wouldn’t be able to open the fridge to get a cold bear on 1st Jan. Ok, my memory might be a little hazy on that detail, but the scars from ‘the sky is falling’ brigade remain. And I sense them nearby – they’re out there again!
Snowball earth theory? I know there were some problems with it (particularly for complete cover), but frankly I can’t remember in sufficient detail what they were and it’d take me a while to dig them up. If someone really wants them I can go look but I won’t promise immediately. I do remember one ‘cause-effect’ theory related to it was that glaciation at equatorial paleo-lattitudes could have arisen from higher obliquity. Just what changes us to, or from, 23.5 degrees is of course ‘a bit of a problem’. But with obliquity of 60 degrees, the equatorial latitudes would be ice sheets and both polar regions would be tropical or at least temperate.
Meanwhile, I’m off to buy some recent literature on climate change to supplement crawling on the web. Its been a while since I got my geology degree and if I’m going to end up in debates at dinner tables then I’d better be up to date in case one of their kids is studying geology now and shoots me down in flames in my (retired) field of expertise.

 

no one states that water vapor is trivial. it just the fact that the climate models take 1 month to run a full cycle on supercomputers. water vapor and clouds would require so much detail to be added into the models that we wouldn't be able to even run them on the best supercomputers we have now. I think that is a big reason the climate change reports tend to be on the conservative side of the spectrum. They acknowledge that there are factors that they cannot account for, so they opt for the less extreme side of their calculations.
obviously humans didn't start this warming trend, it began before we even started farming. I think one of the big things about this time around is the rate of extinction of species, which, since 1850-present, is a rate which we haven't seen for 50 or 60 million years. This goes back to the 4 laws of ecology. which really is what climate change is all about. not too many species can survive when they violate one or two of the laws of ecology, and we're violating all 4 right now.

 

Brian Im a little fuzzy on how you can look at the rate of change in CO2 and not say we're changing the atmosphere and that its not happening faster than at any other time we know of

isotopic mass balance is clear on this issue

thing is in order to see the change in a resolution sufficient to show it you end up looking at a year to year graph
check that against any other data and the rate of change becomes so obvious Im just not sure how anyone could possibly deny its there

and that is just one parameter

methane is on a dramatic rise as well

as is particulate mater

can you provide any data of the proper resolution to address these questions concerning your view

Wally take note
this is how someone presents there position and gets a direct answer by doing so
might help you out next time your going to "clean my clock" in a discussion
note Brian has actually stated a view and stuck to the subject
no waffling
little bit of sarcasm
and having a good time

just sayin

Brian
Im going to throw a few graphs in over the next few minutes



problem with the above graph is its old and todays co2 level is more like 385 which is way higher than what is depicted
this next shows it more accurately







I believe its also pretty easy to show that the IPCC has been conservative in its estimation of the changes in parameters over the years as can be seen in the following graphs form the 91 report when compared to data gathered since

IPCC under estimated ice loss



underestimated the rate of sea level change



and underestimated the rate of temp change

 

I am still waiting for the picture of Boston in a silly hat.

 

and for the really spooky graph

now given that numerous data has been shown to support the conservatively accurate nature of the IPCC reports

this is what they are "conservatively" predicting for the near future



pretty darn spooky eh

in order to support the position of natural variability deniers must show this kind of dramatic and sudden shift within the paleoclimate record over numerous data streams
it would also require in order to suggest its not co2 that induced this change that deniers explain the near perfect correlation between co2 and temp historically as well as why its a near perfect comparison now and how that is just a coincidence

best of luck with that

cheers
B

oh
almost forgot
if you add the last ten years to the established data on that graph it tops even the worst case scenario
now that is frightening

Im not sure how anyone can look at the data and suggest we are not inducing a warming trend with all its implications

supposedly we were heading into another ice age cycle right up until the industrial age

 

Beautifull...why worry? It has been warmer before, we have done well,. just buy up some Alaskan properties or Buy in a Siberian village.
Canadian will do well and so will NZ and Tassie.

So where is the hat?