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. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    the effort of thousands of scientist have gone into that and innumerable papers all in support of the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change

    simple reality is that although Im sure that mistakes can be found on all sides of the coin the mas of data concerning this issue in overwhelmingly in support of the theory with 97% of scientists involved agreeing and with one of the largest % of confidence of any scientific theory in the history of scientific theories

    I notice you mention Guillermo's ( on vacation ) graphs from what 20 posts ago
    maybe you forgot my response to his post


    in summary Guillermo's graphs

    did not show data past the turn of the last century and so could hardly be considered relevant in discussing today's issues with abrupt climate change
    and
    failed to contain the resolution to show the abrupt nature of today's changed had they presented up to date data

    so I suppose the real question is
    is avoiding or denying the data really the best that can be done to address the realities of our present situation and if that is going to be the standard tactic of the deniers then how are we to take there issues seriously if they are not willing to even take a look at the data and instead present 100 year out of date information in time scales insufficient to even address the major point of the problem

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

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Just think of WONDER Boy as 'Lenny' in this clip from 'Memento'. It does not matter how many times he's told, shown and proven what's real, he cannot form new memories, so he just keeps going back to the same old 'truth' he thinks already he knows. It's only funny when you ignore how tragic it actually is
    :(



    Jimbo
     
  3. Hisflyingtune
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 8
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    Hisflyingtune Hisflyingtunesmith

    Nuke Reactors and Cheese

    Hi Spearaddict,
    Actually, we ARE on the bleeding edge of nuclear reactor design. The reactors which we put in our nuclear submarines are second to none. I just spoke last Wed. evening with a man who designed the sensor controls that go into nuke reactors and they are so sensitive that, for example, a reactor thought to have only two years of fuel went for 7 years between overhauls. He did say that Three Mile Island and Chernobyl would never have happened had his company's controls been used.

    Secondly, have you ever noticed how thyroid cancer is epidemic around nuclear power plants........and there are no exceptions. For example, around Limerick, PA and also Harrisburg, PA, thyroid cancer has an ENORMOUS incidence.

    Now, as to hoytdo:

    Originally Posted by hoytedow View Post
    That was a cheesy response. What happened to Global Warming? All of a sudden you quit using the term.

    I had not planned to respond to this but his baiting me is irresistible. Again,
    both sides need to come forward with integrity and admit to what they do NOT know.

    So, now, if this response is "cheesey," Hoyt seems to have served up vintage adhominem whine. :D

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

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    WONDER B,

    There's only been ~1C of warming since the start of the 20th century; hardly an alarming trend. And we don't need graphs of proxy data to observe that decidedly non-alarming trend either since the wonderful invention of the thermometer.

    I find it absolutely hilarious that you worry over the resolution of the graphs Guillermo presented and then put enormous faith in the claimed resolution of works such as MBH-98, which pretend to be able to resolve .2C @ 1000 years. And that from a few tree rings.

    Jimbo
     
  5. Brian@BNE
    Joined: Jan 2010
    Posts: 262
    Likes: 13, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 151
    Location: Brisbane, Australia

    Brian@BNE Senior Member

    Boston you are thinking a bit short term....

    A longer time period for reference, showing natural climate variation has to be considered here.

    Firstly, yes the climate is warming, and it has done so for 12,000 years - fortunately for humans! :D But that's not even one full glacial cycle.

    Secondly, looking at the last 5my there are lots of glacial cycles, many at higher temperatures than where we are now.

    Thirdly, the last 65my is instructive in showing that the climate has been very much warmer in the past, and cycled. The PETM ( http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0426-petm.html ) is fascinating not just for the rapidity of temperature increase (and what it reached!) but also the subsequent delcine (perhaps over a few thousand years) back to the trend in that era. Not to mention that it was an important event for the age of mammals, ourselves included. There are clearly a lot of buffers in the global climate system that operate on scales and in ways that we can't adequately grasp at present. Something those in charge of the purse strings must not forget.

    Don't worry about the planet, natural climate variations will occur and be buffered, all by mechanisms that are not well understood. Sure, human population will be in trouble.:( Bostons population explosion graph says it all - think of 'locust plague' (rapid breeding, ravaged landscapes and when no food left, an inevitable and rapid population decline) But for the planet, the 'human plague' will be just a blip, and nothing we've done to date will leave a significant scar...

    But on human timescales, a lot of people have jumped on the wrong bandwagon. A couple of the critical issues that are not being well enough addressed are the consequences of global warming: 1. rising sea level (= large number of displaced people) and 2. disruption to food production. For a time a warmer planet might produce more food than it does now - there are some benefits of a greenhouse! But it has to get to those who need it, and at present we don't do a very good job of that. Its important: hungry people start revolutions and wars! And even now some nuclear States aren't members of the NNPT and some near-nuclear States (eg Iran) are being run by very scary people indeed at present. The displaced people issue will need international cooperation that Copenhagen recently demonstrated is beyond the capacity of our 'global leaders'. Many developed countries can't adeqautely deal with a few hundreds or in some cases a few thousands of 'boat people' or other 'illegal immigrants'. Just wait until the numbers we have to deal with are in the millions, and it won't be that long either.

    I'm all for people who want to try stop climate change - good luck. PS don't hold your breath waiting for success. BUT dont expect any taxpayer $$ to do it with - there are more worthy problems to address. And for those who want to quote '...since records have been kept' (ie about the last 150 years) to 'prove' their view and the need for urgent action, I simply say this: if a glacial cycle is one wavelength, its somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000 -20,000 years of climate observations you need at a mnimum. But you'd want a few wavelengths to have a statistically meaningful dataset wouldn't you? Imagine going onto the beach at low tide, watching the waves for 5 minutes and then going to sleep 'safely' above wave height ....only to drown a few hours later when the tide came in. I despair at the 'experts' who use just a few years data (including those who regard 'since records have been kept') - they're effectively on the beach for just a second or two, well below one wave (length) of relevant time and yet confidently predicting that they understand everything and just need (all of) our money to fix it. They can't grasp fullwave (lengths), multiple waves let alone something on a longer timeframe - the tides. I hope they drown soon!
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Marco1
    Joined: Oct 2009
    Posts: 113
    Likes: 28, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 240
    Location: Sydney

    Marco1 Senior Member

  7. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    for the hundredth time its the rate of change not just the amount of change
    that and the alterations in the atmospheric chemistry
    co2 is rising at unprecedented speeds and to unprecedented levels over the life span of human existence
    as is methane as well as population

    Temp is also rising faster than ever before and with no end in site

    think of it like driving a car towards a cliff that can only be seen in certain wave lengths
    science finds a way to observe the cliff but you dont believe it
    and some fool ceo begins a campaign to deny the science so that you keep buying his fuel for the car
    by the time you hit the cliff its to late
    and at some point your going to fast to stop anyway

    its the rate of change that is the concern and not just the amount
    although there are folks who will show good data for the tipping point being right around the corner and some who will say the change in albedo is already to great for the climate to return to normal any time soon

    rate of change guys
    climate science is all about rate of change and the alteration of atmospheric chemistry that is responsible for that rate of change

    takes a bow
    B
     
  8. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    Everything about DDT in Silent Spring has been proven wrong so millions died needlessly.







    WHO IS JOHN GALT?
     
  9. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    Rate of change is the issue, and since the first doctored and altered data was released, right up until AR4 the rate of change has been added to, forged, phonied, lied about, or just plain made up. Incompetence can't explain all of the egregious errors that have been the hallmark of the IPCC assessment reports since its inception. Whether it is adding temp or removing temp decline data, using preprogrammed errors in computer models, a lack of understanding about C02's atmosheric lifespan, ocean currents, wind dynamics, glacial growth and retreat, inability to read rulers, or just plain fraud, the alarmist community was on the verge of pulling off the biggest scam in the history of mankind and are now using Goebbels tactics to try and keep it going. Fortunately the change to take place in the U.S. Congress next year will put the brakes on this nonsense for a few years until the rest of the world gets sick of these snake oil salesmen as we are here in the U.S. and in Austrailia. Thankfully democracy is still in place here, much to the chagrin of the social engineers.



    WHO IS JOH GALT/
     
  10. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    You have way too much time on your hands Jim, you should come out here and help me finish my deck this spring.



    WHO IS JOHN GALT?
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    and still not a single coherent argument backed up by solid scientific data

    ps
    silent spring was a work of art and nearly every prediction has proven itself out flawlessly

    feel free to provide a single quote that has been proven incorrect and for once provide some real data to back up the wild claims
     
  12. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    Ouch, that sounds painful. I just don't even know what you are saying by "bleeding"- are we bleeding out technology to other countries? or are we leading?
    Either way, your anecdote about nuclear reactors on submarines and ships is not really on subject. A commercial size nuclear fission reactor is very different from a compact nuclear reactor on a sub. And if we were to use those reactors- dont you think the government would need to be the one building them? not a private company. You don't have the huge smoke stacks in submarines, you don't have the MASSIVE water cooling system on submarines, you dont have the 50 foot deep pools to shield the radioactive material on submarines.
     
  13. spearaddict
    Joined: Feb 2010
    Posts: 4
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 17
    Location: St. Pete/Palm Beach, FL

    spearaddict New Member

    that would mean they have to open the book! Uh-oh, careful there you guys, I wouldn't want you to strain yourselves.
     
  14. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member



    The real data has been posted for you innumerble times Boston, you just refuse to either read it or understand it or accept it!
     

    Attached Files:


  15. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. rasorinc
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,439
  2. El_Guero
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,186
  3. troy2000
    Replies:
    168
    Views:
    12,096
  4. gonzo
    Replies:
    675
    Views:
    44,655
  5. gonzo
    Replies:
    587
    Views:
    47,486
  6. Grant Nelson
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    3,371
  7. Boston
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    12,652
  8. Boston
    Replies:
    4,617
    Views:
    317,962
  9. hmattos
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,498
  10. brian eiland
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,404
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.