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)
  2. IF Gloabal Warming is occurring it is as a result of Non-Human or Natural Processes.

    99 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Firstly I think its important to once again remind the readers that East Anglia was cleared of all charges. Specifically
    so maybe now we can lay off the false accusations concerning the integrity of East Anglia.

    Your assumptions that I was somehow missing the point were also incorrect, actually I got the implication entirely, what I'm trying to point out is that if the model works then why not publish. I'm inclined to believe it doesn't work, or Tom would have been published already. If realclimate rejected it, they did it for a reason, and I strongly suspect its a whole lot better than the same ole tired argument I've seen go up the flag pole before. They don't like me, or, they are bias, crying censorship, anything. OK so Tom says it works, prove it. Even if it does get published, then the real discussion begins, not ends.

    Which is another question I've got. Why the same exact poorly constructed arguments over and over again. How many times must the same tired ancient overused tripe be shot down before the deniers give up and at least try a new tack. Its not bias, its science. This looks like a classic game of find the flaw.

    I got the implication, unfortunately you didn't get mine.
    I'm thinking its BS. But I'm always willing to take a second look. So go get published and lets hear what the community says about it then. Tom says it takes forever to load the data, fine I believe him, sorta. My computer doesn't have the programing to run that equation anyway. Even if it did I'd seriously question the parameters against common accepted and cited parameters and see what the flaw is. Maybe some of the contributors erred in there assessment so far. But if Realclimate rejected it, I'd say there is some underlying reason, and its not scientific bias. We've all heard that one before against East Anglia, didn't work then, doesn't work now.

    but I apreciate the double speak. Actually its Dave changing the subject cause we started with Al Gores film, something I've consistently tried to engage him on, and he's moved on to anything but his issues with Rapid Global Climate Shift. IE that there is some question about how much of the present warming is caused by human intervention.

    suggesting that I'm not sticking to the subject, when your insisting on debating an some obscure equation thats yet to get a peer review and yet to be proven accurate is whats called the Gish Gallop.

    I'm not the one avoiding the subject

    the basic issues of climate change

    what caused it

    where that cause came from

    what we are going to do about it

    Toms equation is a long shot side note, means nothing to the overall viability of the theory.
  2. Dave Gudeman
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 135
    Likes: 27, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 359
    Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dave Gudeman Senior Member

    Right. And that's changing the subject. The subject was RealClimate's attempt to suppress evidence. You want to put off the debate until we have a refereed journal article to discuss, a process that takes at least months, and that's assuming that a skeptic could get a fair refereeing process, which is very much in doubt as we know from ClimateGate. So your defense, is "I'm not going to discuss the ethics of hiding technical criticisms on an informal forum until you get those specific technical criticisms validated by peer review in a process that is highly slanted against them." Even if the technical criticisms were wrong, that doesn't change the fact that RealClimate was trying to avoid the scientific process by hiding it rather than answering it.

    Even if it turns out to be wrong, that does not justify hiding it. If it's wrong, you answer it. Hiding it is a cowardly anti-scientific response. You are trying to change the subject from RealClimate's unethical behavior to the factual issue because you have no defense for RealClimate's behavior.

    They didn't "reject" it; they deleted it. This wasn't a refereed journal; it was a forum. The comment wasn't submitted for acceptance; it was posted on a forum. Posted comments are only supposed to be deleted if they violate some standard like no copyright violations or no gratuitous insults, or not related to the discussion thread. It would be like the boatdesign moderators rejecting a comment to a post. Does Jeff ever delete a comment just because he doesn't agree with it? What would you think of him if he did? That's what RealClimate did.

    The standards to post a comment are not the same as the standards to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, and you are just being ridiculous pretending that they are. This was a comment on a forum. It didn't violate any of their standards for posted comments, and it was deleted anyway. They just didn't want any of their readers to see the comment because it damages their story. So they censored it.

    It would be interesting to go back and count how many time you have brought up this same exact poorly constructed argument over and over again. Just assert that the arguments have been shot down and you win. Really. Really. Lame.

    This is hilarious. You defend yourself from my point that you are trying to change the subject by changing the subject and accusing me of changing the subject.

    OK, now you want to talk about Al Gore's film. You've been "trying to engage me on it" except that you haven't and why would I want to discuss Al Gore's film? I've never seen it and haven't made any specific comments about it. But that sure takes the issue away from your attempts to pretend that deleting a comment in a forum is JUST LIKE rejecting an article for a peer-reviewed article and we can just trust RealClimate to make these decisions impartially even though they won't talk about why they made the decision.

    You're running and dodging like a cat in a cage full of mean dogs.

    Let's make this real simple. I'll ask you a yes or no question: Suppose there is a forum moderator who, without comment or justification, deletes a post that

    (1) is by a person knowledgeable in the discussion area
    (2) presents a technical argument relevant to the discussion
    (3) does not violate any written usage guidelines of the forum
    (4) disagrees with the moderator

    Would you suspect that the moderator wants to hide information from his readers? Yes or No.

    Please note that answering this question does not require discussing the deleted post at all. That discussion would just be a sidetrack because the answer should be obvious from just the information given.

    If you answer "Yes", then why are you defending RealClimate for doing exactly that? If you answer "No", then what do you think the justification is? Please don't retreat again to the idea that the moderator was acting as a sort of journal referee. This is a forum, not a refereed journal and the moderator does not act as a journal referee.
  3. Climatesanity
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: colorado

    Climatesanity New Member

    On 11/14/11 at 07:32 PM Boston wrote...

    You have not read my postings very carefully. I have been critical of several sea level rise rate models, but I have not proposed a different model.

    I am not "crying in my soup," but rather posting my observations at my leisure. And I will continue to do so. We have all seen this debate played out in websites, blog posts, newspaper op-eds, radio, and around the office water coolers. The fear of sea level rise is being used to influence world-wide political and social movements. This wrenches the debate from the ivory tower and places it in the middle of the town square. Truth is independent of the forum.

    As for "You offered it to realclimate, they scoffed at you..." This has been discussed in great detail already. Those who missed this discussion can see it in my comment from 11-12-2011, 10:37 PM mountain time. As I pointed out, the authors at RealClimate did not bother to "scoff" at me. Rather, they hid my techincal comment from their readers by simply deleting it.

    You are free to dismiss my comments, and rely on your preferred authorities. You can ramble on about my motivation, criticize my forum, etc. I do not insist on having your ear. But I prefer to keep things on a technical level, with perhaps a little sarcasm here and there.

    I am reminded of Leonardo da Vinci's observation: "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." I prefer Feynman's approach: "I calculate everything myself."

    Now, We have been talking about "Global sea level linked to global temperature“ by Martin Vermeer and Stefan Rahmstorf, PNAS, 2009 (which I refer to as “VR2009″ to save ink).

    Here are links to my series of posts that consider some of the bizarre consequences that would result if VR2009 were correct. These unrealistic results necessarily lead to the rejection of VR2009.

    Part 1, The basic problem.

    Part 2, A little more detail on the math.

    Part 3, A few examples that show some bizarre consequences that would result if Vermeer’s and Rahmstorf’s model were correct.

    Part 4, Improbable parallel universes.

    Part 5, Variation of gamma. Fast increasing temperatures cause sea level rise rate to drop, while slowly increasing temperatures cause sea level rise rates to increase.

    A look at Church and White sea level data. This is the sea level data that is the foundation of VR2009.

    Response to RealClimate comments. A few poorly considered comments concerning this series about VR2009 showed up at RealClimate. This is my response.

    Chao’s artificial reservoir “correction” to sea level. This “correction” to Church and White’s sea level data leads to a (supposed) larger sea level rise during the 20th century. But this “correction” has some critical flaws.

    Part 6, Vermeer’s and Rahmstorf’s model is applied to satellite sea level data and fails the test.

    Part 6.5, the gory mathematical details from part 6.

    Part 7 What does Vermeer’s and Rahmstorf’s model imply for a constant sea level rise rate of 3 mm/year?

    Part 8, My reproduction of Vermeer’s and Rahmstor’s results

    25% of sea level rise rate is due to groundwater depletion, not global warming. Yet Vermeer and Rahmstorf did not correct their model for this effect.

    Part 9, What happens when Vermeer’s and Rahmstof’s model is applied to the updated Church and White sea level data with a Wada groundwater depletion correction? The effect is huge

    Part 10, Vermeer and Rahmstorf used out-dated sea level data from Church and White, and did not correct for groundwater depletion. When Church’s and White’s updated sea level data is used and a groundwater depletion correction is incorporated, then their model yields 21st century sea level rises that are only half of what Vermeer and Rahmstorf reported.

    Part 11. Here is Vermeer’s and Rahmstorf’s Matlab source code.

    Part 12. Vermeer and Rahmstorf claimed to apply a sea level correction based on Chao’s artificial reservoir data. Instead, they use an inverse tangent function that hardly resembles Chao’s data.

    Best Regards,
  4. Boston

    Boston Previous Member


    not sure you read or understood the precept of the term Gish Gallop but you've got it down Dave

    The subject is global warming ( incorrectly stated but close enough for now ) and if humans are to blame. Read the tittle of the thread if your in denial. But nice try. With that in mind you might want to reconsider your initial comment. Or for that mater all subsequent comments, since none of them deal in any way with the issue.

    second comment
    not worthy of response
    Go prove your model, then complain if someone thinks its bunk.
    so now can we stick to the subject

    The standard in this case is correct science, apparently realclimate found flaw in the model or some pattern of misinformation from its author and chose not to run the piece. Its there prerogative. Again your avoiding the subject

    the next three or four points you make are at best redundant efforts

    classic double speak, maybe you can show me where the science lost, cause its not all about me or you. Its about the issue of Rapid Global Climate Shift. Nice try, but way off target and again ignores our central theme.

    The rest is classic double speak

    are any of the deniers involved in this thread willing in any way to discuss the issue of how much of the present warming is a direct result of human induced climate change.

    cause if you read the tittle, you might be surprised

    or are we really going to go on and on about some non issue based on some untested obscure model of absolutely no consequence = classic Gish Gallop
  5. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Basically you run a climate denial site, probably get paid for it from the energy companies, and are likely working on one of there $10,000 prizes for published works that refute global warming. But you want us to believe your impartial.

    Sorry but real science just doesn't work that way. Yup post away on the blogosphere but if you'd had anything substantial, you'd be making a bee line for the nearest review board.

    So just for fun, why not discuss the present measured increase in CO2 since preindustrial times, might yield some light on how much of the present warming is due to human activities.
  6. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,763
    Likes: 349, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Quam prospectum!

    hoytedow Helmsman

    It seems that you are a propagandist, Boston, and the truth means very little to you when it goes against your religious/political beliefs.

    In other words, you are human.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2011
  7. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Ok so its third and long

    Hoyt wants a time out, ( had some BS he had to rid himself of )
    Dave got confused and went to the ladies room.
    Tom is looking like he wants to punt

    Hoyt on the sidelines ( they don't let him play much ever since they did that genetic analysis ) attempts more double speak

    Bostons downin some suds and enjoying the game. :D

    I'm the propagandist. Riiiiiggggghhhhhht

    what truth, All I'm hearing is one argument after another while refusing to stick to any one till a confession is heard

    never mentioned religion, but if I did, ye merry ole inquisition would be on me like a bee on honey. I coulda said fly on **** but I wouldn't want to misrepresent my religious views :p

    never mentioned anything political, science and politics are two completely separate subjects, not that politicians don't use anything they can get there filthy little mitts on to further there own personal agenda's but thats again another issue entirely.

    I'm talking science, and the scientific process. Its an established protocol designed to ensure accuracy within the data pool. Its called the peer review process. Any time someone wants to forward an idea, they are welcome to do so. It gets reviewed by a committee of there peers called a peer review panel. there are hundreds of these panels so if you don't like one you can often find another. If its found that the hypothesis is wanting it can always be resubmitted. Which means that one can use the criticisms a panel panel might present.and forward your work through a little constructive editing.

    So far all I've heard is, we refuse to discuss the science, but how about if we talk about bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla instead. :p:p:p:p

    Sorry H but simply saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

    who's to blame for increasing temps? seems pretty dern obvious folks

    so why don't we take a look at where exactly all that excess CO2 came from and see what kinda worming and squirming we can get out of the deniers camp. cause the answer is virtually "all" of it.

    oh Boston runs a trick play, puts ole #121 in and takes out the fake punt option.
    maybe the press would like to talk to Philip and see what ever came of his critique of Tom's distraction during the punt. Speaking of which

    delay of game
    five yards
    still third and long.
    Toms takes the hike.
  8. RayThackeray
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 147
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 90
    Location: Alameda, CA, USA

    RayThackeray Senior Member

    Boston, I like the way you see through classical denying distraction tricks we've been observing for years in the evolution so-called "debate". I've always seen through them instinctually, but personally I've never been able to overcome them in normal discussions in the bar, over dinner etc. You get hit by a number of statements at random that appear to refute anthropomorphic warming and can't answer them, to the smug satisfaction of the denier. Saying "I'll research that and get back to you" is lame, and you just know they wouldn't read your email anyway. In everyday conversation, denier tactics seem to have a major advantage in the presence of most people who have few critical thinking skills.

    So thank goodness for the scientific method, which always trumps all in the end - even if it takes a hundred years to do it. The difference is that in the evolution debate, there isn't major damage being done on such a rapid timescale.

  9. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    hi Ray, thanks, There's only the same few tired old arguments most deniers mime. They themselves seldom know the reasoning behind it, they're just repeating what someone told them. So its really pretty easy.

    water vapor "follows" temp, it can't precede it. Basic physics
    solar variation exists but its demonstrably not responsible for the present warming, the graphs simply don't line up.
    Milankovitch cycles "used" to be a big player, but its background noise compared to the CO2 forcing. Although you can still see it in the data.
    excess CO2 is not natural, it can be directly attributed to human activities

    stuff like that

    With public opinion in the US only running about 50/50 and time running out, its important for people who can discuss it effectively to do so. Because once the organic carbon reacts to the increase in temps, we are screwed.
  10. RayThackeray
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 147
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 90
    Location: Alameda, CA, USA

    RayThackeray Senior Member

    I've become pretty jaded, and don't have time to learn all the rebuttals. The bottom line is that even when you produce seemingly bullet-proof data (for example, even if you're walking around with a flip chart in your pocket with all the side notes and references -and you can pretty much do that with an iPad!) you still can't convince a denier, because they will always roll out their trump card: "You can't argue from authority, because it's a massive scientific global conspiracy."

    Yeah, you know, the way science has always been done - through a massive global conspiracy called the "Scientific Method".

    Kinda reminds me of the other hoary old evolution chestnut "Science is just another religion!" Hell, they even believe that atheism is a religion - how can you ever win against that? Did you see the movie "Idiotocracy" set 500 years into the future? Well look at Sarah Palin, Michell Bachmann and Herman Cain and then tell me that we not there already...
    1 person likes this.
  11. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    I hear ya, but I just can't give up. I got kids and I gotta face them once I get really old, at which point we might just be in it deep.

    I never really think of it like I'm trying to convince the denier, those kinda people aren't going to learn what they don't want to know. I'm actually speaking to the readers or the other folks at the bar, hoping that anyone on the fence can see it as clearly as the science does, and no amount of wild claims can change that.

    Stick to the subject, don't let them go off on tangents, keep it simple

    we know the only response the system can have to increasing greenhouse gasses is to warming
    we know where those greenhouse gasses come from
    there is no other viable explanation for the present warming trend.

    the game ender for most deniers is that a 2°C rise in 200 years is beyond unprecedented within the data. It works out to be about 5000 times faster than in the High Permian extinction event in which everything down to about 2lbs died. At which point I often ask them, "so what do you thinks going to happen" I typically get silence

    Yah can't just get jaded, I guess to each his own, but if I'm going down, I'm going down swinging
  12. wolfenzee
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 18
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Port Townsend, WA (NE corner of Puget Sound)

    wolfenzee Junior Member

    Global warming is cyclical, there is historic proof it happens on a regular basis. That said pollution caused by humans has sped things up a bit.
  13. RayThackeray
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 147
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 90
    Location: Alameda, CA, USA

    RayThackeray Senior Member

    If what Boston says is correct (and I just looked at the graphs, he does seem to be on target) - humans have sped things up not just a bit, but in fact a frightening LOT. I don't have kids, but I do worry about everyone else's.
  14. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    there's also the, lets understate it camp.

    yup climate is cyclical, that much is obvious, its what is meant by Milankovitch cycles. But those cycles are being completely overwhelmed by the artificial CO2 forcing and are barely visible in the data anymore. Thats called The theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift. A climate shift induced by a sudden addition of greenhouse gas into the atmospheric chemistry.

    its pretty easy to see on a graph that there is a massive deviation from the norm

    here's a graph that shows a resolution able to convey the change in CO2


    and here's one able to show the change in temp


    as you can see its not that temp doesn't change, but the rate of change thats the tell tale, and its not cyclical.

  15. wolfenzee
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 18
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Port Townsend, WA (NE corner of Puget Sound)

    wolfenzee Junior Member

    You have to go back alot further to find evidance of being cyclical, like the last "real" ice age, and the one before that etc....regardless of what has happened in the past and whether or not we are having global warming, etc. The world is being effected by human pollution and we have to do something. If it comes down to a debate of how can we fix it of if....we can not stop the effects on planet....we do need to and can slow down the effects
Similar Threads
  1. Frosty
  2. upchurchmr
  3. sdowney717
  4. rasorinc
  5. rasorinc
  6. Guillermo
  7. Boston
  8. Boston
  9. masalai
  10. rasorinc
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.