Climate change falsehood

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by gonzo, May 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    "Can we do it with out WWIII" I am in a pretty good seat for that action. It may be of benefit in the long run.
    "...each American eats or wastes 4.7 lb of food a day." I suppose we COULD eat the banana peels and such...(can I start with the kids and go from there?)
    "Soylent Green --> YUM!
    What is it 10 cals of oil in one of food, yikes we gotta stop breeding!" At least they got to watch a nature film as they were euthanized! Also, we stop breeding as the rest of the world does everything in their power to build youth and power? I don't think that is the answer. Look at how, in America, the best and brightest consider it their responsibility to back off breeding. What happens? Our country's youth void is filled with the Mexicans who were not successful there (arguably not their best and brightest)
    "bone picked" - "Boned" - but please don't bone my portion, thanks.
     
  2. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    Hmmmm...

    I mean "we" as the human race. Learn about exponential growth rates, that is the problem in the end --> its "US" (humans collective) that are totally unsustainable at current growth rates, there is maybe a century at the outside before we have to markedly reduce population. Now before you have a go at me, have a look for material on exponential growth and get your head around this issue, this is not any particular world view, this is maths, and its hard to dispute that the issue needs addressing.
     
  3. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    predicting the local weather and estimating climate change are not even remotely the same thing

    climate change predictions are by and large based on the alterations in the chemistry of the atmosphere brought on by mans use of fossil fuels
    the various feed backs that ensue and the resulting overall change rate

    local weather is a completely different story

    best
    B
     
  4. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    Come now Boston, you KNOW that the climate modelling is dependant on so many assumptions that it can in no way considered to be accurate. We can build models that will deliver any required outcome, especially if our funding relies on it! For or against the issue to claim accuracy in climate modelling just shoots your cred to bits! They are still arguing a theory here and the same fact 'pool' is being used to support several differing positions on the issue. To claim any absolutes is hubris.
     
  5. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    if that was true then climate change theory would not have been able 50 years ago to make the accurate predictions it did.
    watch the flicker posted early on in the thread authored by Naomi Oreskies

    yes I suppose a model could be manipulated to show certain preferred outcomes thats why the impartiality of the scientist is so important and why I reject so much work from the industry side of the question. I make absolutely no claim to absolutes :D and at no time have suggested otherwise instead Im the guy always checking folks when they sling words like proof, and facts. Read back through the thread and you will find countless examples of this.

    its also one of the reason the IPCC does not award money instead only sanctioned to collect and collate data

    keeps the science impartial

    what there does tend to be sometimes is disgruntled writers who's work for whatever reason is rejected by the IPCC

    actually I know some of the guys who work the climate models up at NOAA in boulder not more than a few miles from where I live
    they aren't the assumption making types believe me and for the most part try to rid all there work of unknown variables
    you should hear em arguing with one another

    I had several of em stop in on a talk I gave recently on Asian elephant conservation and we had a chance afterward to hang out a little
    whats happening in the arctic is exactly what was predicted to happen
    so there models even 50 or so years ago worked out to be pretty good

    only thing they really got wrong was the rate of ice melt which as it turns out is happening a lot faster than predicted
    it is thought that a forcing based on open water vs far more reflective ice surface is responsible
     
  6. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    Fifty years ago we where just revving up for the global cooling scare that eventually unfolded in the 70's! That was the dominant school of thought, hey throw enough models out there and one will hit the mark.

    Sadly there is no such thing as independent science, all science is funding dependant and again sadly there is a strong tendency for them all to be funding whores. When you are talking small % differences in assumptions making huge differences in outcomes they all become cynical sluts for the cash!

    Really what makes you think government funded anything is pure?

    The IPCC has already proved to be a hopelessly political body, only when you get politics out of this will it become credible, pls don't pretend these guys are the purists here... there is no high ground in this bun fight.

    All models have an underlying set of assumptions, even the very model itself is a somewhat compromised assumption as we cannot yet model vastly complex systems like climate accurately. To believe that we can even do that is quite arrogant... fact is we have not run ANY model long enough to prove it let alone refine it. Pls don't distract from that fact that there are plenty of assumed facts punched into these models and that the outcome can be completely altered by varying these inputs without even talking about the accuracy of the model itself.

    Like I said years ago global cooling was the dominant theory! Whatever happened to that? Long term climatologists like Evelyn Browning-Garriss have also predicted a lot of what is going on using what are quite well established and well understood climate cycles. She always seems somewhat bemused by the proliferation of scientists from other disciplines that all of a sudden are climate experts. Seriously they laugh at the GW crew, I trust her more than a government funded scientist, her business is only as good as her forecasts, she needs to be right to stay in the business unlike your average scientist.

    I'm pro conservation but honestly the greens have loaded the shot gun, pointed at their feet and blown away thier very foundation in my eyes. They are just another selfish political group that are missing the point completely... the big point. ITS US...! ZERO GROWTH POPULATIONS AND ECONOMIC MODELS ARE REQUIRED, SIMPLY BECAUSE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH IN A FINITE SYSTEM IS IMPOSSIBLE. We will long run out of resource before we could even prove the models being discussed here.
     
  7. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    well that last bit Ill agree with no problem
    but I think it is relevant that rapid climate change accurately predicted whats going on these days
    there is definitely a trend in the graph of the last 600,000 years showing that we should have been entering an cooling period. Thing is we forestalled it with all the co2
    as predicted

    the graph of the last 600,000 years temp has been posted many times in the global climate change thread
     
  8. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    Oh come now, we are still well with in margins of error when it comes to ice age cycles! Man has been active industrially speaking for less than .5% of a typical interglacial period and you are claiming our modelling is accurate enough to say we have stretched that envelope by what... decades? I think that centuries is pushing the bounds of accuracy when it comes to these cycles, most of what I have read is give or take 1000's of years!

    We are also not sure exactly how rapidly cooling occurs when these events take place, we have evidence to suggest that warming prior to the cooling is normal and we have reason to believe that the warming may indeed be the trigger event. The fact is we don't know if we have altered that outcome in any way shape or form and even if we have delayed it, what practical difference we could have actually made, or can now possibly make to what is a natural cycle.

    So even if it is conceded that we moved a time line by lets say three decades, what practical difference is it going to make if the big freeze is due? Very little IMO... the planet will survive the change, many species will and many will not. Unless we get our heads out of our posteriors we will be one of the ones that fails, tragically with the possibility of it being by our own hands fighting over what is left of our energy resources!

    Maybe nature will have the last laugh and we will freeze our butts off all the while pining for all that oil we have already burned ---> maybe that is the big population reducer that is required, a snap freeze. I have heard theories floated that the big freeze may come very quickly indeed when it arrives! Nature has a way of balancing these things eventually.
     
  9. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    ah you clearly did not look at the compilation of data on co2 and temp over the last 600,000 years

    there is a clear deviation from the normal cycle and a clear deviation from the normal co2 count that is so worrying

    its like the build up of pressure on a fault line
    when the climate finally has its human induced earthquake its likely to be fare more radical that it would normally have been and that is the big worry
    not just the effects of warming

    please read back on the climate change thread and find the post concerning the snowball earth theory

    basically approximately 600 million years ago the entire earth froze and pretty much everything died

    its a pretty solid theory and although I actually agree with most of what your saying I cant help but think that by building up that pressure to change
    within the climate system by altering the atmospheric chemistry the way we have we are setting ourselves up for either a catastrophic freeze as has happened before or we are setting ourselves up for an anaerobic event as has also happened before except more extreme.
    thing is ya, we were likely headed for a gradual cooling period
    a survivable cooling period
    what we have now is a likelihood for an unsurvivable event
    could be a rapid cooling
    could be a rapid warming
    thats why they called rapid climate change
    you got most of the logic path on the nail head
     
  10. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,773
    Likes: 1,678, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    "......predicting the local weather and estimating climate change are not even remotely the same thing.."

    When it comes to mathematical modelling and predictions based upon assumptions, they are exactly the same.
     
  11. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    A 100 years in 600,000? Man made trend? Proof? Now I am laughing like a drain!
     
  12. Koalla

    Koalla Guest

    burp!
    And here it is again. People chasing their own *******s.....one opion after another. Make a difference...toss your money into green stocks...the market dictates or politicians-the end. Oh, I lost 1.5 million in the last 6 months because I refuse to invest in uranium, oil or pharmaceuticals. I live on the streets and get kicked and shoved by you owner people who take claim of property and thought. Grow up or out.
    koalla
     
  13. Zed
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 232
    Likes: 13, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 179
    Location: Australia

    Zed Senior Member

    What a nice little bundle of contradictory fur you are :D I hope its fake!
     
  14. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    A football field. All the different gasses in yards. Nitrogen - 78 yards. Oxygen - 21 yards. Everything else, including dust, water vapor, etc. - < 2 yards. CO2 - One third of an inch. We are making a goal-line stand with the western economies of the world behind it for the man-made portion of 1/3". Boston, you live this. What is the man-made portion of one third of one inch as graphically represented by this football field?
    "ZERO GROWTH POPULATIONS AND ECONOMIC MODELS ARE REQUIRED, SIMPLY BECAUSE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH IN A FINITE SYSTEM IS IMPOSSIBLE" Can we force other places to control their growth? No. Can we experience negative sum birth-rates and maintain the life-style of which we would like to be accustomed? No. Can we maintain a commanding position in the world, and an arguably benevolent postion, at that (at least to western interests, you can't argue) abetting our safety and security positions worldwide with third-world growth-rates eclipsing ours for decades or centuries? I think not. I am not in favor of killing off innocents to further our agenda of reducing competition for world resources. Educating or passing out condoms in Africa, India or China is not going to work.
    That leaves... Kicking *** when someone messes with us. No precision bombs - they don't cause pain. I'm talking ala Dresden in WWll. It accomplishes several things. 1). gets rid of those who do us harm. 2). makes it an unpleasant thought to consider doing us harm 3). reduces population 4). Practices us up for when a bigger threat comes along.
    It is horribly unpleasant to consider the innocents and their consequences when hell is unleashed on a civilian population but when retaliation is sanitized, there is not much dis-incentive to the aggressor's countries. If we were to hammer the centers of aggression (with collateral damage) of the Somali pirates, the survivors would likely get a job and start Sunday school, for example. I DON"T CARE about their perceived rights as they don't care about ours. When they are pummeled into civility, they can be accepted into our community.
    As for the Muslims, if they want to be accepted in the world community, if they don't want to be despised by getting-more-hawklike-daily people like me, they will police their own. If they don't want Isreal to come and kick more ***, they should not allow the jihadist in the next building to launch rockets across the border(I say Isreal shows incredible restraint). I am in favor of making an example of the nuclear programs of Il and Akmadinajad with a few 2,000 lbers dropped on palaces for good measure. If they retaliate, devastate. There is your compliance and population control. Sorry, all of those who think of war as unneccessary are wrong. It is inevitable. The only thing which isn't, is that we will come out on top. If you are reading this, you have a computer and are probably in the "we" catagory - you just don't believe it.
    Don't like religion? You probably won't like "kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", but I argue that Hussein pitching a bible at your door is a lot less offensive than him pitching his kid with an attached bomb into a market full of Jews.
     

  15. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    sounds like your robust debate has descended into drunken one liners Zed
    your inability to articulate your position any better than that is far from any form of informed debate that is usually associated with someone confident in the substance of there beliefs. guess it is once again the deniers who are descending into a pathetic diatribe and an attempt to shout down the science behind the theory
     
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.