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. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    another relatively common argument, "the data doesn't go back far enough". Science had developed very sound data going back consistently roughly 1m years. There is also some very good work done on certain portions climate throughout the history. But there will always be more to do. Doesn't mean that everything we are seeing doesn't point to the same thing. We screwed up the atmospheric chemistry. Period.

    Human actions have raised the levels of preindustrial CO2 by ~30%. Period. Thems the facts
    The "only" response the system can have to additional greenhouse gas is an increase in temps. Period. Thems also the facts
    WE are responsible for the present warming trend. Period. Like it or not.

    And that warming trend is far stronger than anything seen in the past climate record. By miles actually, and "always" accompanied by a mass extinction event.

    Marginalizing it won't make it go away.

    A full 2°C since 1800 with the present rate being ~0.2 pr decade over the last four decades. A frightening exponential increase induced by the advent of fossil fuels.
     
  2. 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

    I never said the data doesn't go back far enough....it does through various types of sampling. What I said was the data used for the examples wasn't going back as far as the data that is available....different conclusions depending on the data that you choose to use. Living on a boat is an example of how small of a "carbon foot print" is possible.
     
  3. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    you said "like the last real ice age". OK so I showed what, the last "four' interglacial periods. Or roughly went back four times your stated requirement. The scale of a graph showing temp, going back that far doesn't have the ability to show the present level of temp change because it would be a microscopically thin line going straight up. So science tends to show charts in the time frames where the scaling is sufficient to demostrate the "rate" of change. Not just the amount.

    Its another common argument that simply doesn't hold water.

    Just because the scale is insufficient to show temp in the CO2 graph presented you can rest assured that the relationship still exists. An increase in greenhouse gas "must" be accompanied by an increase in temp. Its basic physics. So now go look back over the data presented and see that we have covered numerous interglacial periods, and that we have deviated from the normal cyclical climate pattern. Its very simple, if you change the atmospheric chemistry, you change the climate.

    [​IMG]

    the width of the lines represent tens of thousands of years, not hundreds, so a change occurring over the last 200 years isn't going to exactly show up very well. But we can look at the CO2 and clearly see whats its doing in this graph, we can also, based on even the most basic atmospheric chemistry studies, going back a hundred plus years, as well as based on actual temp measurements today. See a distinct rise in temps synonymous with the rise in CO2.
     
  4. Climatesanity
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: colorado

    Climatesanity New Member

    on 11/15/11 at 11:15 PM mountain time Boston quoted me ...

    and replied with...

    The model in question (which I will refer to as the VR2009 model) is actually quite simple. It attempts to related the sea level rise rate to the temperature via the following model...

    http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/new-equation3.jpg?w=435&h=45[ /IMG]

    The VR2009 authors used smoothed yearly temperatures, from 1880 to 2000 and smoothed yearly sea level rise rates over the same period; inserted them into the model; and found the best fit parameters for [I]a[/I], [I]b[/I], and [I]To[/I]. This is not rarified air, supercomputer type of stuff, it is actually quite simple, with only 120 data points (1880 to 2000). Given their input data, their derived values of [I]a[/I], [I]b[/I], and [I]To[/I] are correct.

    I confirmed them [URL="http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/rahmstorf-2009-off-the-mark-aga in-part-8-reproducing-vr2009-results/"][COLOR="Red"]here[/COLOR][/URL].

    Now, the equation above, with the derived values for [I]a[/I], [I]b[/I], and [I]To[/I] are purported by VR2009 to be a fundamental relationship between temperature and sea-level. How can I say that? Quite simple, because they claim it is legitimate to apply their model to 342 hypothetical temperature scenarios for the 21st century. How did they come up with 342? They borrowed them from the IPCC, who applied six IPCC SRES emission scenarios to nineteen Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCM) with high, medium and low-carbon cycle feedbacks (6 x 19 x 3 = 342).

    The implication is, of course, that their model can be applied to hypothetical temperature scenarios to project the resulting sea level rise rates.

    By the same token, if the model does give a fundamental relationship between temperature and sea-level rise rate, then is could also be applied to hypothetical temperature variations for the past to reveal what the sea-level rise rate would have been under that hypothetical.

    In my blog, I have applied their model [B]with exactly the parmeters that they derived[/B] (and that I confirmed) to some hypothetical temperature scenarios for both the past and for the 21st century. The results can be [URL="http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/rahmstorf-2009-off-the-mark-aga in-part-3/"][COLOR="Red"]quite bizarre[/COLOR][/URL]. In my opinion, these results invalidate their model.

    So why doesn't VR2009 get bizarre results when their model is applied to the 342 hypothetical temperature scenarios for the 21st century? They look plausible enough: temperatures go up, sea level rise rates go up. You don't have to be Einstein to figure that out. The pertinent question is "how much?"

    When examining a model equation, like the one above, it is often a useful mathmatical exercise to ask yourself what happens if various parameters become constant with time, or go to zero, etc. In the case of the above equation it is interesting to consider what happens when dH/dt is constant (i.e. d2H/dt2 = 0). This is not an implausible scenario - all the data shows that the sea level rise rate is nearly constant. For example, [URL="http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png"][COLOR="Red"]satellite data[/COLOR][/URL] says the sea level rise rate is nearly constant near 3 mm per year.

    When you do this exercise, my hypothetical temperature scenario nearly jumps off the page.

    What we are left with is a bogus model which meets the no-brainer requirement that higher temperatures will likely give higher sea-level rise rates. But beyond that, the model is meaningless.

    The conclusion that I draw is that the Earth is a complex place and it is not likely that you can build a model that accurately relates the global temperature to the sea-level rise rate with only three easy fit parameters.

    Boston again quoted me...

    [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

    To which he replied...

    [QUOTE]OK and "then" they scoffed at you,
    or what was all that criticism you were quoting on your page[/QUOTE]

    You are equivocating on this point. How so? You are equating two of the thousands of RealClimate commentors with the few expert principal authors at RealClimate that you insist I defer to. In fact, The expert authors of RealClimate never bothered to scoff at me. They simply hid my comment from their readers by deleting it. If you can provide link where one of the expert principal authors that you insist I defer to has actually commented in a technical fashion to my points, then please provide it. I would love to see it. Then re-read Dave Gudeman's comment (11/14/11 10:16 PM mountain time), above, to help wrap your mind around this gigantic distinction.

    Best Regards,
    [URL="http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-doe s-show-increasing-temperature-trend/"][COLOR="Red"]ClimateSanity[/COLOR][/URL]
     
  5. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    on 11/14/11 at 00:32 Greenwhich Mean Time
    Tom said

    .

    to which I responded
    And then, also on 11/14/11 but somewhat later in the day at 04:47 Greenwhich Mean Time

    I quoted Realclimate with Mr Machanick's entire response to a review of climateinsanities claims of an alternative working model; or non working depends on at what point in the diatribe climateinsanity is at, rather than just one single aspect of the errors, we find a more complete list here.
    Because of a rather brief description of the errors found in Toms equation and Toms discussing only one error Phil mentioned and even that, in some pretty sketchy detail.

    On 11/10/11 at 22:45 Greenwhich Mean Time

    Tom quotes Phil
    but as we can see thats not all ole Phil said. See quote above. Yet Tom goes on to claim a strike, when in fact he only touches the tip of the iceberg and even that smells pretty foul given the obvious number of unanswered errors noted by Phil. In all fairness I'd have to say at best, your just prevaricating, delay of game, 5 yards, replay the down.
    But then again, why. Why are we dancing around the real issue.

    because on 11/04/11 at 20:26 Greenwhich Mean Time

    Tom posed his first real statement relating to climate change. which was a response to my earlier comment of

    Tom said

    and goes on to say

    but Tom also says

    Which has been the conundrum Toms trying to avoid ever since. If we know where the excess CO2 came from, we know that the present increase in CO2 "is" unprecedented over the last million or so years both in rate of change and in quantity of change ( we are now at ~380 PPM ) and we can show a direct relationship between temp and CO2 as well as we know the systems "only" possible response the additional greenhouse gas is warming, then how can it be said that "all" of the present warming, including warming induced feedbacks are somehow "not" the directly attributable to human influences. If you have argued that the present rise in CO2 "is" the result of human activities, but instead of admitting any of that, Tom wants us to believe this all happened before, 6000 yeas ago.

    Sorry Tom but wrap your head around coughing up the ball for a touchdown run into your own very words. First you claim that you accept the basic precepts of the theory of Rapid Global Climate Shift, then you present an obvious agenda to discredit the theory. Then you complain on your website about Al Gore's use of a one off weather event to "prove" global warming, when you yourself, right here for all to see, use a one off weather event try and "disprove" it. Your just not fooling anyone with all this dancing around, nice jig tho, very entertaining.

    Game over

    Ya I coulda mentioned it right off the bat but then I wouldn't have gotten to see your best Gish Gallop. The contradiction in your own statements is out. The only question that remains is if you'll continue the Gallop with this tripe about some obscure computer model your apparently going to insist on mixing up the parameters on and running backwards. Deal is if you agree that the excess CO2 is the result of human activities, and no other parameters have significantly changed ( which they haven't ) then there is no other conclusion but to admit that "all" the present warming is the direct result of human activities. Or do you have that Phlagiston detector and your just waiting for the proper moment to bust it out.

    Period,
    now where's my cheerleader.

    B

    [​IMG]

    HMMMMM

    Hey Tom
    I'm having trouble seeing that spike in CO2
    and whats that part about something similar happening in the arctic a few thousand years ago
    I'm not seeing that either.
     
  6. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    can't help it Tom, the hypocrisy is just to much, Climateinsanity complains on its site that Al Gore's infomercial is all just one big fat fake story designed to fool the viewers into believing in global warming. The site does so by using a list of complaints about the film, one of which clearly states in its preamble to toms page long prevarication that a one off event simply can't be used to defend the theory of global warming.

    http://climateinsanity.BS.com/criticisms-or-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth/
    But then Tom in his very latest post commits the exact same error in using a one off event ( and at that he has yet to prove the event ever even happened by providing any science to back up his claim. ) Which he would like us to believe is
    on 11/04/11 at 20:26 Greenwhich Mean Time
    Your argument is laughably hypocritical Tom

    Can you explain to the group how it is that your use of a single weather event to deny global warming is any more valid than Al Gore's use of a single weather event to defend it ?

    Sorry Tom but taking 6 pages to try and bend the conversation away from the basics but instead into some ridiculous discussion about some model that wont run backwards and with your own pet data derivations simply isn't going to mask the hypocrisy. Something tells me you pulled this over at http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...YQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEFyBMbwsnBsJyabvmOvgg0LIiq5A and they laughed there asses off, just before they deleted your "technical" argument.

    I guess my only question at this point is how much dose the energy industry reimburse you for trying to foist this off on the public.

    cheers
    B
     
  7. RayThackeray
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 147
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 90
    Location: Alameda, CA, USA

    RayThackeray Senior Member

    This stinks of big industry funding to try to deny climate warming. It's time for "Climatesanity" to come clean.

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Yeah, didn't think he would.
     
  8. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    I don't think they are allowed to admit it, but give him a chance to respond, might take him a few days or years for his conscience to kick in, but he'll probably not even address any of the more salient points. Its just not the denier way. He'll raise ten more "issues" or dance around this pathetic model thing he's on about.

    Think of it this way. Its good for the readers to see this kind of thing. Another denier with a bunk argument being shown as hypocritical at best and fraudulent at least. Tripping over his own words. As if we are not going to remember the various tact's attempted. Eventually since there science is "always" wrong, they stumble into themselves. As is the case with this one.

    Eventually he'll start recycling his arguments, I call it the BSkovitch cycle, but he'll never admit anything, he's probably working off a script anyway that predetermines his options. We've had a few of these types here and its always the same.

    As far as why I do it, I consider it a service to boatdesign.net
    and its pretty entertaining to boot.

    cheers Ray
    and have a great day.
     
  9. Climatesanity
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: colorado

    Climatesanity New Member

    Boston,

    It is getting very tiresome to respond to your endless diatribe. My views are expressed clearly on my blog, and many links are listed above.

    It is to bad that you feel I did not portray the comments by RealClimate readers accurately. On one of your above many comments you imply that I left out part of one or more of these Realclimate reader comments.

    I have provided many links to my my original posting on these complaints, and I urge interested BoatDesign.net readers to look for themselves. See "Response to RealClimate."

    ClimateSanity
     
  10. Climatesanity
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: colorado

    Climatesanity New Member

    Ray Thackerary

    You quote Boston...
    to which you responded...

    It is this kind of nonsense that assures me that my welcome at Boatdesign.net has been long over. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

    FYI, I am a Senior Scientist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, with 15 years of experience in solar energy research. The only energy industry that is "reimbursing" me is the renewable energy industry.

    Goodbye,
    Tom Moriarty
    ClimateSanity
     
  11. RayThackeray
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 147
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 90
    Location: Alameda, CA, USA

    RayThackeray Senior Member

    Hilarious that the climate debate skeptics go blue in the face if any paper hasn't been peer-reviewed yet, but when theirs don't pass muster (which they never do because they are always full of pseudo-science gobbledegook), they cry "Censorship! Massive global conspiracy!"
     
  12. RayThackeray
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 147
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 90
    Location: Alameda, CA, USA

    RayThackeray Senior Member

    If that's true, then get your papers peer reviewed and quit whining. If you're a scientist, you should know the score.

    But I'd still wager you're getting paid for this stuff. Let me guess - $100 a posting? Must be a pretty good stipend for someone with industry cred...
     
  13. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Tom
    oh well, I always hate to see any member leave simply because they are incorrect about something, Ive made a few errors myself, but try and learn from them. Sorry to see you go, but its your choice. You could always just use the criticism to better yourself. Rather than run for the door. Best of luck getting published, but getting your modified model that "doesn't" work past a review board, is going to take some awfully fast talking.

    Ray
    I don't think they get paid by the posting, not sure how the pay rate goes but I doubt its by the posting. Could be a flat fee for time spent on the net, for each anti warming blog spot, or maybe by popularity, IE blog hits, if you notice its been one plug after another to visit the site. One thing I'm relatively sure of is, we are on the radar over here, and another paid hack is probably already been assigned to boatdesign.net

    As expected Tom's admitted nothing, failed to address any of the issues actually associated with human involvement and climate change, and instead has chosen to bail out on us. Apparently his best shot wasn't exactly the coup de gras he thought it was. Lets face it, it was obviously a ruse from the word go which he was going to insist on foisting off on us, even if he had to have the entire discussion himself.

    Phil Machanik says

    His being caught out using the exact same tactic he complains about on his web site is what probably led to his departure. That and our suspicions concerning his involvement with the energy industry. Which is unfortunate actually cause even with just a Masters degree he might have been a worthy opponent, had he at least chosen to stick to the subject. Failing to do so was a dead give away. Real scientists are very particular bordering on anal about each and every aspect of there science leading to any given conclusion. Tom preferred to skip over discussing these important aspects of the basics and how we "know" that human actions "are" responsible for virtually "all" the recent warming. Instead he was hell bent on trying to trap me into a discussion concerning his garbage in garbage out manipulation of some formula he'd twisted to that particular end. I wasn't buying it for a second and once he realized that his whole agenda apparently fell apart.

    At which point he'd not a leg to stand on. So he bailed.

    My bet is, he's a paid hack for the energy industry, but its impossible to know for sure. Something tells me my appeal to his conscience also might have taken him off guard. I do hope he's learned something, the theory is unfortunately, very sound.
     
  14. RayThackeray
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 147
    Likes: 12, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 90
    Location: Alameda, CA, USA

    RayThackeray Senior Member

    Wow, the alternate universe you inhabit must be quite a few quantum klicks away!
     

  15. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    ya that was kinda a whopper wasn't it.

    also of interest was Toms undying devotion to that whackadoo. formula of his. He was under no circumstances going to actually discuss anything but that once he'd brought it up, even if no one else was willing to engage him. Yikes, I gotta wonder if it wasn't scripted and he's lost without the script maybe, no real way to be sure. Its also possible he knows the simple realities of the present climate model. CO2 is increasing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know were it came from, An increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere must be accompanied by an increase in temp. So his argument concerning how much of the present warming is caused by human activity he also knew to be bunk. He was lost once I pinned him on that one. That and the hypocrisy of his last example. A one off event exactly as he ranted about Gore.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Frosty
    Replies:
    115
    Views:
    8,051
  2. upchurchmr
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    4,503
  3. sdowney717
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    2,980
  4. rasorinc
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,565
  5. rasorinc
    Replies:
    171
    Views:
    12,907
  6. Guillermo
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    2,725
  7. Boston
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    12,148
  8. Boston
    Replies:
    4,617
    Views:
    304,731
  9. masalai
    Replies:
    3,693
    Views:
    235,180
  10. rasorinc
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,907
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.