What Do We Think About Climate Change

your post script is far more political in nature than environmental and might be better aplied to the economics page and how it effects live aboard yachties
I for one actually dont see any mas rioting or lynchings for any but politicians in the near future

 

You are right... bark away dogs, I have unsubscribed.

 

Yes much better to consider these things in isolation, makes perfect sense!

 

I'm just gonna watch this for a while here. Boston is really getting insulted that we won't drink his KoolAid, funny I watched a series of specials on NatGeo last night on cults, thought of Boston and his tactics immediately. When someone produces evidence of CO2 causeing warming rather that the other way around I'll start paying attention. Melting, dead Polar Bears, Glacial evaporation at 0 degrees f, coral bleaching, etc ad nauseum, are not evidence of CO2 causation. You have thrown up a lot a dust, shown us how smart you are, yet have utterly failed to prove your case. In science it is not the skeptics role to prove you wrong. You have an agenda, a radical one, that is not mainstream in any way shape or form. You will undoubtedly throw up more dust and ridicule, insult everyone around and try to bully everyone here in silence and submission. You will still be wrong, and you will still be angry, and have accomplished only to cause others to do research and study because of the disdain you show for others, thus further weakening your position, to the delight of people like myself who don't consider the fate of the universe to hang on my every word, as do you. Ego, the idea killer.

 

Boston

Once again you are proven full of ****.
You've NEVER answered the merits of the point I've brought up WRT gas concentration and light absorption, except to reference the Mikey Mann Virgin Stratosphere red herring or to discredit whoever raised the objection. Neither of these constitutes answering the question in a cogent, plausible scientific way.

Everyone here will remember that you have refused to answer this, insisting that you already have, when in fact you never did.

I pointed out months ago that the MMVS is a red herring with NO support in scientific literature and NO empirical support in observational data. I've pointed out that warmers universally admit to the reality of observed stratospheric cooling, which directly contradicts the predictions of the MMVS theory.

So we are back to the stable ground of Beer-Lambert, wherein CO2 has already given us all the heat it can.

Jimbo

 

Hey Boston,

Show us the data that underpins this assertion about 200 year life span of atmospheric CO2. There have been 35 studies done on this subject and they average to 5.6 years. The 200 was again, pulled out of one of your AGW hero's butts in order to get scary scenarios out of GCM's. Segalstad proved how the AGW alarm charlatans got this wrong. Pesky fellow that Segalstad; maybe your AGW camp will contract a successful hit on him this next time, then there will be one less evil 'denier'

Cheers, Chump


Jimbo

 

once again you are clearly hallucinating
Im laughing my *** off at you guys
insulted hardly its far more amusing than anything
talk about a complete inability to comprehend the basic scientific process

how many times have I stated that science works by virtue of preponderance of evidence
consensus
how many times have I stated that there is always anomalous evidence with the highs and the lows getting tossed

the fossilized deniers focus on the anomalous data as if any theory had a flawless data stream
rather than even consider the mountains of data in agreement

its the majority of agreeing data which in this case is extraordinarily lopsided and that is what the consensus represents
97% is a whopping huge consensus

I strongly urge anyone reading this to start at the beginning and read the thread for yourself
Jims rejection of basic science in order to maintain his religious like disbelief is more than obvious

The constant assertions that nothing has been "proven" is a cheep tactic on the part of the oil and gas industry to forestall meaningful change
with it being explained over and over that proof is an absolute and science works on a preponderance of evidence.

these petty few have been consistently incapable of comprehending that reality

rather than be frustrated I actually got a real bang out of that jive about some kind of cult cause if anyone is cult like its the deniers camp
another classic deniers tactic to accuse the scientific community of the tactics they themselves work endlessly

you guys are hillarious
please feel free to continue

imagine if 150 years after the first circumnavigation there were still a few who insisted the earth is flat
that's what you guys are doing

Jim you are jumping up and down like a child in a tantrum
admit it
go look back through the thread if you need to and see for yourself that your question has been answered numerous times and each time you pretend the same tactic.
what your not pretending apparently is a complete lack of comprehension regarding how science works.

what the whole thread will remember is your religious like denial of anything that seeks to correct your lack of comprehension.

when ice is melting
its generally getting warmer mate
its pretty simple

why is it getting warmer if the record shows we should be in a cooling trend
a simple analysis of atmospheric chemistry
a huge rise in atmospheric co2 over the 600,000 year norm
the isotopic signature of that co2 matches that of fossil co2

with there being countless studies in agreement
and a rare few in disagreement

if you wish to cling to those rare few
after the scientific community has reviewed and rejected them as inconsequential is your problem

you guys are great

cheers
B

 

Notice in Boston's latest response there's not a single word about the substance of the assertions made about either Beer-Lambert or the life of atmospheric CO2. He has NEVER addressed either of these points with any data, because all of the available data cuts against his 'cause'.

Instead he wastes a lot of words calling everyone who disagrees, fossils, dinosaurs, agnotists, idiots or whatever word he is fond of lately.

All fluff, no substance, as usual.

Jimbo

 

Notice Jim has had numerous concepts concerning this exact issue explained to him over and over in this thread and although he failed to comprehend the psychics or science involved still insists that it somehow if its explained to him again
he will suddenly get it

start simple Jim
and lets see who is all fluff

what's the forcing relationship between h2o vapor and temp
if you can answer that one correctly we can move on
hint
its in the thread already and if you actually comprehend it
you will find the answer based on gas laws
something you were previously not able to grasp

throughout history ingorance leads to frustration leads to anger
you sound angry in that last Jim
if you worked on relieving your ignorance
you might not sound so angry

ps
both assertions have been thoroughly addressed earlier in this thread

think carefully before you ask me to go back and reprint our conversations regarding vapor forcing
if you remember it was quite embarrassing for you

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

So Boston, there is a lot of intelligent people (yourself included) here kicking this around. What am I suppoze to think when I read things like this below? Do I have any idea if this guy is for real or not. Is he bought and sold by the oil giants?

I am afraid you will snort a condicending laugh and put me and the author down....so this will just infuriate me.... and I come to think you are a pompass *** that is so full of himself......and that we mere mortals and our beliefs are unworthy of consideration.

"No one cares about how much you know, till they know how much your care"

Many of your answers are falling on deaf ears.....beause of your delivery. It is the case on both sides.


But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

Read the firt link then I just ran this one up on google search.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/scie...e-greatest-threat-to-northeast-us-canada.html

 

OK I got a really dumb question. Everyone is worried if the ice melts we all drown.....

But if I fill a glass with ice and pour in water to the top....all the ice melt and the water is the same level. Ice displaces water...so the level stays the same. I know some of this massive melt is on land (if it is melting anyhow)...but a lot of it has to be in the sea?

 

jmolan, I think it was posted a while ago, info on the volume of water in the ice ON Greenland and non floating stuff in Antarctica as the 2 larger influences IF they melt in our lifetimes - some 6 metres and 12metres respectively... (but failing filing system in my head leads to inaccuracies...) also the expansion factor - but that is largely discounted as temperature decreases quite rapidly with depth for various reasons...

 

Let the ice melt. There will be new waterfront properties. I can travel over more water and hopefully the dumb people will drown because they are too stupid to go to higher ground. Oh and if there is global warning and Canada becomes as warm as Tahiti... Great....

 

Hmmm, Boston sounds a bit shrill for someone who is laughing. I kinda feel bad for him, all he has left is making little kids cry about dead polar bears, and other AGW nonsense.

 

interesting post
gave me a pat on the back and a slap in the face all at the same time
so where to begin
I think if you look at any area of this thread you will see some pretty rough and tumble conversations with no individual having a monopoly on any of it
so to single me out is a statement in itself
or need I quote a few of the jewels that have been thrown my way

if you look at what Ive been saying from the start you should quickly see that I have been constantly trying to get it through to certain folks that science seldom deals with absolutes
yet they continue to insist on proof and facts
science deals with data and what the preponderance of data suggests
thus the its use of consensus
in this case 97%
which means you should be able to find 3% of perfectly capable scientist who disagree
of that 3% I have a field day pointing out which ones seem to be industry funded agnotists
its an important distinction as to the unbiased reporting of there beliefs and conclusions
thing to first do when faced with a dissenting opinion is to find out if the research is independent of any industry influences or not and conducted in a scientific manor.
this is after all supposed to be a scientific debate and so should we not regard scientific evidence as apposed to industry spin
IE
was it paid for by a source that would be financially benefited by the outcome of the research

all this should be disclosed under the heading of competing interests in any good paper but the industry funded people have learned to disregard this and often fail to list there funding or if there research was conducted in an unbiased way

I dont think its insulting or inappropriate to point out that DR Morner has been a prominant climate change denier and that he has taken money from the oil and gas industry to write articles
pointing this important consideration out doesn't constitute a snort or a laugh
it constitutes a consideration of the author, the manor in which his research is conducted, and his impartiality as a scientist, and the work he conducted.

how much do I care and how much do I know
hmmmm
I dont think Ill review my educational background as the opposition loves to make claims of elitism; but only finding enough work to keep me amused about half time, I decided to go for a position in a research facility close to were I live. The position requires about two years of education be completed on site and out of about 6000 I was one of 200 chosen for the first round of classes, of that 200 they weeded out about 175 and now Im in the second round of classes have passed, along with the entire class ( we had a great group ) and have been given a scholarship to move on to the final year of training while I pass a number of field trials over the summer.
all this as a volunteer and when I get hired if I get hired, the job basically pays peanuts.
in the mean time Im expected to represent this institution and give talks on wildlife conservation and resource management.
I think my level of commitment is reasonable

frankly I agree with you and wonder if anyone else on these pages is actually educated in the issues or is just cut and pasting there way to support there diatribe

in the end
I dont know **** about ocean level changes in the last 50 years
what I do know is that posted in this thread is number of different assertions about sea level change none of which I have bothered to comment on
or at least not in depth since its not sea level change thats the major consideration
I can dig up crap posted by the deniers stating that ocean levels
have always changed
are not changing at all
have changed more in the past than the're changing now
or were significantly higher in the past than they are now
which why I also find it necessary to point out that the 3% of scientist you may be able to find who disagree with climate change, also disagree with one another as to why

and I can point out were all this has been gone over before in this thread

my point being that if any newcomers care to read the thread ( yup its a long one ) you will find most all of these questions and allegations having been covered, then I wont have to repeat myself over and over again
which is why I only drop in from time to time and yes
laugh at the same few people clinging to the same old dogma over the same old misunderstandings

my questions for the deniers in the crowd would be
why is there no scientific debate

Ild love to hear why deniers think that scientists, who love a healthy debate concerning these kind of things, are not bothering to hold any large conferences specifically to discuss the competing theories.

why are there no competing theories

why is there so little agreement among the rare few who do disagree

why is the preponderance of data in agreement

and why is it that there would be no debate if 97% of scientist agree on something

its not rude
some of the responses people are about to make are rude
but not the basic questions that if answered in a rational and honest way make the conclusion self evident

ps
the evidence for the rude tactics and malicious intent is clearly represented in the post directly above by sloweddy
obviously a desperate attempt to illicit some less than intelligent response
when the simple reality is obvious
deniers are getting frustrated so they resort to childish insults and attempts to bring the conversation down to there level
sorry
Ill stick to speaking about climate change
and you guys stick to looking bad cause if thats the best debate you can present
its obvious who is laughing at who

pps
not real bright
polar bears are likely to survive and are having a field day in areas were the seals are having to haul out to have there pups rather than have them on the ice. ( all that ice deniers claim is not melting, tell it to the seals that cant find any to birth on )
in other areas they are in decline but
its limited thus far to an alteration in there feeding habits
mostly
all in all the bears could be doing lots better and although in some cases in some areas they are struggling
they are a highly adaptive species
they are also considered a key species in that if we can save there environment
we save a lot of environment and thus the other animals in it that do not require such large expanses
its a tactic of the conservation movement that I do not always agree as its political and not always based on what animal is really in trouble

cheers
B