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

    ya I musta missed them as I been doing other stuff and not reading each and every post

    might be fun to go back and look at these alleged five failed predictions though

    oh
    and typically a scientific debate consists does consist of two opposing theories
    for instance when Niels Bohr debated with Einstein about relativity vs quantum mechanics
    or when anthropology debated the competing theories of the savanna theory vs the aquatic ape theory

    even a rudimentary science history class will discuss the more famous of the scientific debates
    non scientific debates are one thing but a debate of science demands at least some form of significant data typically formulating a hypothesis be presented by the dissenting party

    I am not aware of a single scientific debate and certainly not one of this significance that did not follow this approach
     
  2. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    * AGW predicts that CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere causing warming; CO2 first, warming to follow. The observed reality is the opposite no matter what timescale you choose. This is a failed prediction of AGW.

    wrong
    the data being discussed is from ice cores subject to the permeability issues that deniers have denied for ages
    this so called flaw only represents the typical failure of deniers to understand the science behind the data

    ps
    not a prediction





    * AGW predicts that since humans are assumed to have caused the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 levels by burning 'fossil' fuels, we should find >21% fossil carbon in the present atmosphere. We do NOT find that amount or anything close. That's another failed prediction of AGW.

    wrong
    we actually find ~27%
    could be a little higher these days but we find it and its known to be human caused by simple isotopic balance studies
    again the deniers simply deny the science behind the reality

    ps
    not a prediction


    * AGW predicts that the atmosphere, specifically in the areas of cloud formation and precipitation, will react to positive thermal perturbation by increasing the greenhouse effect, forming a strongly positive feedback between positive thermal perturbations (including CO2 increases) and greenhouse warming. We observe the opposite, that a feedback mechanism does exist, but the sign is negative. This is another failed prediction of AGW.

    wrong
    and so much so that its not even worthy of comment


    * AGW predicts that if a warming event is due to an increase in greenhouse warming, then the center altitudes above the tropics will exhibit ~2.5X the total observed 'global' warming. This region of the atmosphere has remained very constant in temperature, even while there has been some warming, meaning that the observed warming is NOT attributable to an increase in the greenhouse effect. This is another failed prediction of AGW.

    wrong
    the majority of the heating was predicted to occur in the upper latitudes and that is precisely where is it found and in almost the exact amounts predicted 60 years ago

    ps
    not a prediction

    * AGW predicts by tabulation that the present atmosphere should contain 800 ppm CO2. We observe less than half this concentration. This is another failed prediction of AGW.

    wrong
    the carbon cycle is known to be a complex and intricate system encompassing many variables. the simple fact is that even if some few variables are not readily identifiable there influence can and has been measured and is accounted for

    ps
    not a prediction


    not only did that take about ten seconds to debunk, but every point has been discussed in detail here and countless other places

    whats really funny is that not one of these is an actual prediction of the theory of rapid global climate change
    so chalk up another false claim to the deniers camp

    love
    B
     
  3. TollyWally
    Joined: Mar 2005
    Posts: 774
    Likes: 26, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 423
    Location: Fox Island

    TollyWally Senior Member

    You couldn't trouble yourself to cast your eyes upwards just one post from one you quote and refute not with any specific facts but a sentence devoid of any specific information. Just cruisin in for a bit of a driveby.

    "whats funny is that the dispersion studies done at the time of the nuclear tests you are referring to showed almost the exact opposite of what your trying to say they do

    the excess of isotopes formed or transformed by the nuclear tests did not disperse but instead loitered in the top few feet of the ocean surface and over a relatively localized area. The residency time was non linear and the % remaining in the atmosphere is still with us today"

    A cite perhaps?
     
  4. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    I try and not waist my time on deaf ears ( who would have guessed that one eh ). Had Jim presented even one reference to any of those ridiculous claims I would surely have looked it up and commented in kind

    Ill be happy to provide citations to my claims and will concerning that one as a simple courtesy however in future it would be reasonable to suggest that if you want referenced responses you will have to provide referenced questions

    cheers
    B

    here is one study specifically of the bomb c14 and its residence and dispersal history
    read it and weep

    http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm

    and from
    http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html#CRA

    [​IMG]

    as you can see half life is a very confusing misnomer because in terms of volume when T=1/2 there is no linear relationship

    again in this graph from the first site I linked to we have the following graph largely in agreement but on a different time scale with the one above

    [​IMG]

    so it becomes obvious that although half the material might disipate within a relatively short time a very large percentage (~1/2) remains in the atmosphere for significant period of time as subsequent graphs on the sites provided clearly show that at no point within the ~30 year study didbomb related c14 levels return to normal

    you will also find supporting data here as well as a few better resolution graphs than the ones presented on that first site I linked to
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp057/ndp057.pdf

    the questions of dispersal in ocean surface waters is found in first articles references as well as a number of others
    as well as some interesting info from the radiocarbon dating site provided

    so as can be seen by a simple review of the actual data this wildly inaccurate claim of there being measurement studies showing that c14 dissipated from the atmosphere within ~5 years is simply not true and that a further examination of the charts available though the PDF file provided, equally as clearly shows that after ~30 years a significant fraction of this bomb related c14 is still very much alive and well within the chemistry of our atmosphere. Try PG 43 middle graph and get ready to retract a few misguided claims from our favorite deniers cause that base line of 0 is a random mark chosen long after that first bomb went off and does not represent an actual base line measurement of normal atmospheric c14 as is noted in the text.

    cheers
    B
     
  5. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 130
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    Something that a lot of people don't necessarily understand is that half life is not the only, nor necessarily the most relevant parameter to consider.

    Let's analyze a simple example. Consider a two compartment system, with a single compound being exchanged between the two compartments. Assume the two compartments are well mixed. Let the concentration of the the compound in the first compartment be denoted by "A", and the concentration of the compound in the second compartment denoted by "B". Assume that the transfer of the compound across the boundary between the two compartments obeys simple first order kinetics. This means that the the rate at which material leaves a compartment is proportional to the concentration of the of compound in the compartment. The rate at which a compound enters a compartment is proportional to the concentration of the compound in the other compartment. The net rate of change for the concentration in a compartment is the difference between these two quantities.

    This is just about the simplest kinetic system possible.

    Let the rate constant for the transfer of the compound out of compartment A be denoted by ka, and the rate constant for the transfer of the compound out of compartment B be denoted by kb.

    The equilibrium constant is B/A, and for this simple kinetic system the equilibrium constant is also given by ka/kb.

    I plan to post a the rest of the kinetic analysis later, when I have more time. However, the most important consequence of these relations is that the half time for the decay of the system toward equilibrium after being perturbed, such as if one suddenly adds some of the compound to compartment A, is not directly related to how much of the material remains in compartment A and how much is distributed into compartment B. For example, it is possible for the half life for this process to be very short (such as a few minutes) and yet the majority of the added material may remain in compartment A (say 99%), or the majority may remain in end up in compartment B. the final ratio of how much ends up in each compartment is determined by the equilibrium constant, not any of the rate constants (though it does depend on the ratio of the rate constants.)

    Bringing this grossly oversimplified example around to the discussion of CO2, the half life for the process of distribution of CO2 between two compartments (such as the atmosphere and the ocean) could be very short, and yet the concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere after equilibrium is established could be a significant fraction that amount that was added by some source (by man for example).

    Note: I don't claim this to be a full (or even realistic) analysis of the kinetics of CO2 in the atmosphere. I only use this to show that the half life of a process does not necessarily closely relate to how much the concentration may change from an original value, once equilibrium is reached. In other words, it is kinetically possible for the half life for the process of exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and ocean to be very fast, an yet a large fraction of added CO2 could remain in the atmosphere.
     
  6. alanrockwood
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 130
    Likes: 16, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 116
    Location: USA

    alanrockwood Senior Member

    What you are saying is true. I tried to explain some of this in words a few days ago, but my feeble attempts fell on deaf ears. I pointed out that half life is not a very significant parameter in a system that does not obey simple first order kinetics.

    I also just posted a comment about systems that do obey simple first order kinetics.
     
  7. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    I saw that Allen but these guys don't have much of a background in the sciences so are not likely to really grasp that approach

    I find that graphs and links tend to do the most good at least for the many readers that might be following along

    interestingly enough a number of folks have dropped in from time to time tried there hand at explaining these basics and the reaction of the deniers is always similar

    ignore the explanations and insist that there feeble points are somehow based on "facts"

    at which point I usually start arguing for the use of data as a "fact" is an animal far more at home in a court room than a science lab
    science is far more open minded than to doggedly attempt to cling to anything so fleeting as an alleged fact
    data is flexible and allows for the inclusion of new information
    fact seems so final and unyielding to that same new information
    however
    there is simply no explaining this to a denier
     
  8. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,742
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Since you're claiming a charlatan like Monckton as a serious spokesman for your cause, you're the one who should be sensitive. As a matter of fact, you should be downright embarrassed. Is that honest-to-God the best you can do?:rolleyes:

    And what's this about me 'admitting' Bozo's like that are unqualified? "Admit" it my arse; I'm the one who's pointing it out. You're the one who keeps bringing them up as though they're worth listening to. Why don't you admit they're unqualified?

    Unlike Monckton, the people I trust actually have degrees that are directly connected to the subject -- instead of a Masters in studying ancient Rome and Greece. They actually do research in the field of climatology. And they publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals, instead of in the op-ed pages of tabloid British newspapers.

    If you don't like their conclusions, the problem may lie with you instead of them....
     
  9. mark775

    mark775 Guest

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

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    If anyone else read the article you might have noticed a whole bunch of links to studies and other documentation. You also might have noticed that Boston didn't refute a single item. The distractions in this entire thread have come from Boston when he posts silliness like 97% blah, blah,blah, and that the only source of truth is from government paid grant whores along with all his ad hominem irrelevent attacks and attempts at intimidation through arguments from authority and calling those who question deniers. Even Phil Jones says the debate is not over. Guess he isn't following the lead from Boston.

    What Boston is making perfectly clear is that he is an over the hill fraud masquerading as a person of importance using other peoples arguments to prop up a nut case social agenda.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

    Oh, by the way, has anyone found a fraudulent signature among the 3,804 Atmosphere, Earth or Environmental Scientists that signed the petion project?????????????????


    Anyone, anyone?
     
  12. fasteddy106
    Joined: Apr 2009
    Posts: 72
    Likes: 17, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 171
    Location: connecticut

    fasteddy106 Junior Member

  13. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    Eddy, I believe that you are a little hard on Boston - At least he has convictions like a man. Troy fights because his union stance is "on this topic, this is how you believe", and he likes to fight. This Wood chararacter, smart as his namesake, is keeping the leftist (goose) step because he doesn't understand why he was a liberal in his youth and just does not have the capacity to grow out of it. Let me explain, because not everybody has insight born of living in one of the seven chakras of the liberal dimension (New York, Sydney, San Franscisco, Boulder, Homer, etc.).
    You see, we were all liberals in our youth - forget idealism, and what the school system has been trying to instill since the sixties, etc. - We were liberal because we thot it wud get us laid. Not like out in the countryside where there was a neighbor girl and we expirimented - In one of the chakras, there is competition (well, not San Fransisco so much) and in our naivete we believed that if we watched General Hospital with the girls at 2:00, through osmosis, thru proximity, we were going to get a little action. For awhile, the young men got dreadlocks and protested WTO, then tried EMO persona and protested their own existance. It's a fashion thing gone crazy, really but chicks kinda dig it because a man presents himself as anything other than a man.
    The point is, that whatever it took to be more female (hang out at a coffee shop and talk), we did. And this is the rub - IT DIDN"T WORK. The girls were perfectly willing to talk, hug, cry, go camping - but when it came time for action, they were last seen on the back of "Spike's" motorcycle. People like Wood didn't ever learn this and continued this practice beyond college.
    So, allow me to give you a run-down on this guy. He is over thirty, probably in his forties, is a devoted worker for Pfizer, recently took out a loan on a condo (doesn't mind having lots of neighbors as it increases his odds), works out at the gym twice a week, covered his eyes when his Prius wouldn't stop, Atheist, Vegan, Warmer, donates to Sea Shepherd ("Greenpeace does't DO enuf") and you'll still find him, twenty minutes, or more, in a Starbucks with a $4 foofcoffee. He's in the one with the scooter parked out front (he remembers Spike but still doesn't quite get it). Yes, he rides a cycle - it's just a 28 day cycle.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Jimbo1490
    Joined: Jun 2005
    Posts: 785
    Likes: 41, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 527
    Location: Orlando, FL

    Jimbo1490 Senior Member

    Let's not forget that continuing to bring up the phony bogeyman innuendo of 'evil oil company' money is equally childish. You can point to NO shenanigans on the part of the skeptics, you only have your innuendo. Skeptics can point to a plethora of shenanigans from the warmer camp. If you want to throw out or discount research on the basis of childish innuendo, then I submit that it is YOU who have brought down the level of conversation. I'm all for sticking to the merits of the science, but YOU GUYS CAN'T DO IT! As soon as I show the fallacies in your AGW narrative, you'll fall right back into your habit of claiming that anyone who is a skeptic is getting a paycheck from an evil oil company, or some other equally silly and implausible conspiracy, and that therefore excuses you from addressing the merits of their assertions. Meanwhile you are prepared to accept as 'The Gospel of Jesus' the assertions of men WE KNOW QUITE FACTUALLY have behaved unethically WRT their professional ethics, regarding the very claims we are discussing.

    So do you REALLY want to stick to the science, Alan, or is this appeal just the time marker for 'Round Two' (or is it round 22? :rolleyes: ) of your game of childish innuendo?

    Jimbo
     

  15. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    I noticed on my last lecture series that occasionally when someone was unable to comprehend the data being presented they would simply ask the same questions or make the same claims over and over, eventually descending into frustration and occasionally exhibiting childish behaviors or making derogatory statements similar to this above.

    What is interesting is that some of these folks even when led through the material at a slower pace and step by step shown how the data fits together seem to somehow cling with a death grip to there preconceived ideas rather than make any attempt to learn anything new. I seem to remember the education director refering to this as fossilization..

    once again for those who failed to find or simply were to lazy to look for the appropriate links leading specifically to the supporting statements concerning my original claims

    from the previously noted PDF referenced in my original supporting data

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&ved=0CCsQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.terrapub.co.jp%2Fjournals%2FJO%2Fpdf%2F5506%2F55060705.pdf&rct=j&q=bomb+co2+residence+time+studies+&ei=xinTS4qMKoOQsAP_mtH_Ag&usg=AFQjCNFwftHR7p4DpupcEwcLRyDV_BmbfQ&sig2=peb-bfhW2GP1tvr67cbhHA

    published
    Journal of Oceanography, Vol. 55, pp. 705 to 716. 1999

    the PDF does not copy and paste very well which is why I left if up to the readers to investigate it on there own but for those who would prefer to ignore the data presented in defense of the accepted theory I'll see if I can bludgeon and paste the relevant segments

    and this from pg 707 same document directly supports my claim that pre bomb levels of c14 were unknown at the time the previously presented graphs were developed

    what is most noteworthy concerning these two examples given is that obviously there is supporting data concerning my previous statements and obviously those few who are most vocal in there derogatory comments are also clearly frustrated because they must not comprehend that data and/or are unable/incapable of investigating the information presented.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. rasorinc
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,785
  2. El_Guero
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    799
  3. troy2000
    Replies:
    168
    Views:
    9,320
  4. gonzo
    Replies:
    675
    Views:
    36,400
  5. gonzo
    Replies:
    587
    Views:
    39,056
  6. Grant Nelson
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    2,867
  7. Boston
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    10,191
  8. Boston
    Replies:
    4,617
    Views:
    264,637
  9. hmattos
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,130
  10. brian eiland
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,005
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.