What Do We Think About Climate Change

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Pericles, Feb 19, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tcubed
    Joined: Sep 2008
    Posts: 435
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 318
    Location: French Guyana

    Tcubed Boat Designer

    Jim, i am not in the mood for an argument, but i think that a lot of energy gets wasted debating the details when the basics are important enough, and obvious enough to warrant appropriate actions without debate.

    See my above post #2323 for a basic outlook.

    I find it hard to imagine that anyone could disagree with such fundamentals.

    But if you do , or if you see a flaw then please specify which part exactly and what are the reasons why those statements are in error.

    ***

    Mark, how about sticking up for your planet instead of just for your country?
     
  2. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    T.T.T. I was awake during science class but Jimbo is much better oriented to refute your generalities on a scientific basis. I believe, but am unwilling to demonstrate, that he has already addressed every angle that could possibly arise.
    Now, from a sociopolitical perspective, I have to respond to your use of the word "greed".
    Here we go! Martin Luther conceptualized that worldly work was a duty and diligent work was a sign of grace.
    This formed a gulf from Catholicism, which was more concerned with "good works". Look at a world map of religion and you'll see this gulf very distinctly demarcated and picture how different the world is in areas Catholic than areas Protestant. In areas Protestant we have something called an economy, whereby people work to produce something - It started out to be out of obligation to God and evolved into obligation to family and self.
    To be concise; In areas Protestant we built, we earned.
    In areas Catholic, they converted and, shall we say, had a
    more relaxed attitude about work.
    In areas Muslim, which need to be included because of
    sheer numbers, they lopped each other's heads off and
    wondered what that black **** was coming up from the
    ground.
    In Godless areas, they developed communism, which always
    fails.
    Do you really believe because our parents taught us to work, that we are greedy? Because we worked our asses off and developed a continent or two, did we use more than "our share"? Are we bad because many of us escaped persecution and ended up in the only place free enough to let us do what we wanted as long as we didn't hurt others? Should we be punished, even if it were to mean destroying the society responsible for more health, prosperity, and benevolence than any other in history?
    More relevent, What is the thing that most starkly differentiates Puerto Rico from the Dominican Republic and Haiti? Relative prosperity? If you really cared, wouldn't you live in a grass shack over there or are you content to not pay U.S. income taxes while collecting almost all of the benefits of U.S. citizenship? How the heck did you score that anyway?
    That being said, I do more for the environment than most, through education, trash drives, chemical and oil spill awareness, actually stopping to dip a plastic bag out of the water, conserving energy, and raising my kids to be like dad. I educate them to care but not accept bad science, or more aptly, non-science, as in Global Warming.
     
  3. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    That sounds like an argumentum ad hominem :D
     
  4. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Attached Files:

  5. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    NASA has taken an interest in the current solar minimum and is getting ready to launch one or more studies about it. They are willing to spend $4.5M on a three years program for such studies.
    http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9 CCMSC.pdf

    From there:

    In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 24. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment. For example:

    Causes – Solar output
    • Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947;
    • Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age;
    • Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum;
    • Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 23;
    • Effectively no sunspots;
    • The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and
    • Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.

    Consequences
    • With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932;
    • Cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere; and
    • Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity.


    Cheers.
     
  6. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

  7. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Richard Lindzen (allegedly one of those fools and/or corrupts Tcubed smartly warned us against) flags against simplified visions of climate variability, including the Sun's variability:

    "The global warming issue has done much to set back climate science. In particular, the notion that climate is one-dimensional -- which is to say, that it is totally described by some fictitious global mean temperature and some single gross forcing a la increased CO2 -- is grotesque in its oversimplification. I must reluctantly add that this error is perpetuated by those attempting to ‘explain’ climate with solar variability. Unlike greenhouse forcing, solar forcing is so vague that one can’t reject it.

    However, acting as though this is the alternative to greenhouse forcing is asking for trouble.

    Remember, we are dealing with a small amount of warming (concentrated in two relatively brief episodes) in an inadequately observed system. The proper null hypothesis is that there was no need whatsoever for external forcing in order to produce such behavior. The unsteady and even turbulent motions of the ocean and atmosphere are forever moving heat from one place to another on time scales from days to centuries and, in doing so, they leave the system out of equilibrium with the sun leading to fluctuations in temperature.

    The thought that these turbulent fluctuations demand specific causes is absurd -- almost as absurd as calling for specific causes for each whirl in a bubbling brook."

    http://www.heartland.org/full/24841/Climate_Alarm_What_We_Are_Up_Against_and_What_to_Do.html

    Cheers.
     
  8. alan white
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 3,730
    Likes: 123, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1404
    Location: maine

    alan white Senior Member

    Better to look at data from a perspective of motivation. You can get way too far into details and minutae, never realizing that what makes you right is often only a desire to justify how you enjoy your life.
    Seen from a perspective of motivation, each piece of information becomes realized differently, depending on personal orientation.
    Like a force of gravity, the motivation to be right puddles and congeals wanted information in a way that corresponds to pre-existing ideas and beliefs.
    This is why debates take up hundreds of pages and anytime one visits to see what's being discussed, as Frosty did, nothing has been accomplished in terms of changing anyone's views.
    Immature insults are thrown at people, involving basic personal traits that polite and decent people, no matter what they believe, should know only would ever stand in the way of understanding.
    So, if not understanding, what is the motivation?
    "Being right" doesn't count as an answer to that question.
     
  9. Tcubed
    Joined: Sep 2008
    Posts: 435
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 318
    Location: French Guyana

    Tcubed Boat Designer

    Excellent post, Alan.
     
  10. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    one more of the many reasons I bailed out on this hopeless adventure T

    even after pointing out that there is an unprecedented rise in the use of fossil fuels accompanied by an unprecedented rise in co2 and an alarming rise in temp along with a unprecedented loss of species ie food as well as ice cover at the poles

    I still met nothing but denial from the agnotists

    rather than an intelligent review of data the skeptics were apparently unaware of

    give it up Billy
    these guys are never no mater how well you build the science for them
    going to admit they are wrong

    as proven by my post #2256 and concluded in my post #2260 ( 2174 also shows the deniers completely wrong )

    the previous post shows unequivocal warming by numerous measures and various scientific studies

    the later shows the skeptics inability to both admit they are wrong about it
    and "asimilate" the new information into there argument

    there is no point in discussing science with close minded people
    as science is an ever growing discipline within which it is necessary to reconsider ones position with each addition of new data

    these guys are trying to prove a point
    a scientist is one who is finding evidence to develop a hypothesis and then solidify that hypothesis into a theory with accurate predictions
    as the theory of rapid global climate change has been able to do

    as has been also pointed out in post # 2135

    course I dont see the deniers theories either being coherent or making predictions from fifty to a hundred years ago that subsequently showed up in the data
    but that wont slow deniers down any in hemorrhaging there ridiculous views

    its hopeless guys
    what Al White had to say is spot on
    these guys are arguing from a position of ego not one of science
    and the petty insults just go to prove it

    cheers
    B
     
  11. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    :D :D :D You're really funny, Boston!
    You are a true personality. Thanks for making me laugh.

    Warmest regards.
     
  12. Guillermo
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 3,644
    Likes: 189, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2247
    Location: Pontevedra, Spain

    Guillermo Ingeniero Naval

    Scafetta N., R. C. Willson (2009):
    ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036307.shtml

    The abstract reads

    “The ACRIM-gap (1989.5-1991.75) continuity dilemma for satellite TSI observations is resolved by bridging the satellite TSI monitoring gap between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results with TSI derived from Krivova et al.’s (2007) proxy model based on variations of the surface distribution of solar magnetic flux. ‘Mixed’ versions of ACRIM and PMOD TSI composites are constructed with their composites’ original values except for the ACRIM gap, where Krivova modeled TSI is used to connect ACRIM1 and ACRIM2 results. Both ‘mixed’ composites demonstrate a significant TSI increase of 0.033%/decade between the solar activity minima of 1986 and 1996, comparable to the 0.037% found in the ACRIM composite. The finding supports the contention of Willson (1997) that the ERBS/ERBE results are flawed by uncorrected degradation during the ACRIM gap and refutes the Nimbus7/ERB ACRIM gap adjustment Fröhlich and Lean (1998) employed in constructing the PMOD.”

    A key statement in the conclusion reads

    “This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.”

    Cheers.
     
  13. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Here's an interesting power point presentation from Tom Segalstad showing that nascent CO2 absolutely cannot be mostly anthropogenic, but rather from natural sources:

    http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Tom_Segalstad.ppt


    Note also that the real atmospheric CO2 level has been in the 400-500 ppm range for a very long time, at least 200-250
    years.

    An excerpt:

    "The calculations confirm that maximum 4% (14 GT C) of the air CO2 has anthropogenic origin; 96% is indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel (natural marine and juvenile) sources. Air CO2 lifetime is ~5 years.
    ~134 GT C (18%) of air CO2 is exchanged each year, far more than the ~7 GT C annually released from fossil fuel burning."

    Jimbo
     
  14. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    deniers proven wrong again
    ( sorry just had to it was so obvious )

    feel free to post the mythical calculations rather than refer us to some industry rag
    sorry Jim but its been long ago established that isotope differences in co2 can be used to identify the sources of that co2
    and what that information shows in unequivocal



    and for the final nail in the coffin I would point out that not only do we know how to identify sources of co2 but we can identify that naturally occurring consumption of co2 is biased towards naturally produced co2
    as proven in the following

    Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global
    climate change research
    Prosenjit Ghosh, Willi A. Brand∗
    Isotopen- und Gaslabor, Max-Planck-Institut für Biogeochemie, Postfach 100164, Jena 07701, Germany
    Received 29 January 2003 ; accepted 20 May 2003

    the rest of that got cut off but you get the picture

    the real question is once again
    not whether the science is in
    it obviously is

    but if those few who refuse to face the truth of our situation
    will also refuse to admit when they are wrong about even the simplest aspects of the science

    ps
    and wrong as written below as well
    Jim dont you get tired of being proven wrong so ofter
    everything in the previous refutes what your upholding in that presentation you posted earlier from the industry rag
    as usual you failed to comprehend the subject mater sufficiently to realize it did so and beautifully I might add
     

  15. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Boston,

    Nothing in that entire lengthy post refutes what's in the presentation I posted earlier.
    As usual, your self-styled 'profound and authoritative' refutation amounts to a little more than idle blather. Why not just succinctly either confirm or refute my post rather than 'obfuscation through complexity'? I know why: You can't.

    For each unit of CO2 that increases in the atmosphere , there necessarily must concurrently accumulate 50 units in the oceans. This is a simple function of the solubility of CO2 in sea water at a given temperature.

    When you do the math, in order for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 to be attributed to fossil fuel burning (or to any other atmospheric origin), we must have actually burned an amount of fossil fuels approximately 50 times more than all the worlds known oil reserves!

    I think we have some idea how much fossil fuel has been burned so far so this begs the question: How could we have possibly missed an error in calculation so large?

    The conclusion is obvious and inescapable.

    Jimbo
     
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.