SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Climate Change

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Climate Change (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=216653)

You know what!?

This Climate Change, would have occurred whatever we, the human, are here or not. The only thing we are responsible for, is having advanced this change.

Markus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon (Post 2259232)

I hope that is the case...it wouldn't be the first time someone has caught me out with that. :haha:

Men are always wrong, even if we don't know why. You should apologize!! Anyway, I gladly am behind Donna as she is a member in "The Bilge" where she is welcomed and cherished.

Quote: You know what!?

This Climate Change, would have occurred whatever we, the human, are here or not. The only thing we are responsible for, is having advanced this change.

Markus

There is no denying that, but is it that significant? One major volcanic blowout has vast atmospheric influence for instance. Of course that is a chance occurrence in the short term, but over the long term is of a predictable nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead (Post 2259250)

Men are always wrong, even if we don't know why. You should apologize!! Anyway, I gladly am behind Donna as she is a member in "The Bilge" where she is welcomed and cherished.

I still want to know what the issue was. Don't tell me it's a woman thing, I've been married thirty six years(same woman you...) so I've learned something. :woot:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aktungbby (Post 2259214)

:sign_yeah::k_confused::Kaleun_Crying: I don't see it either....let me go check with my better half...just for perspective!:oops:...& enlightenment!:huh:http://www.thehellenictimes.com/images/b8bfe8d7f2f0.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2259252)

I still want to know what the issue was. Don't tell me it's a woman thing, I've been married thirty six years(same woman you...) so I've learned something. :woot:

:sign_yeah:34 years here...to a former divorce attorney !:k_confused: Thank god for community property, a separate bank account, and a mancave to hide in! :Kaleun_Wink: I have to remind her when she's winning the (every) brawl..."I'll do 'till mister wonderful shows up"....:Kaleun_Goofy:I won't say where SWMBO is tattooed.:03::rotfl2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2259252)

I still want to know what the issue was. Don't tell me it's a woman thing, I've been married thirty six years(same woman you...) so I've learned something. :woot:

Probably not our concern even though a bunch of jesting, so best we move on before we're prompted to do so.

Donna knows she's always welcome in the bilge...

I think for certain that climate change does exist there is plenty of evidence that the earth has cycled through warmer stages and colder stages once it developed a stable atmosphere. I would say for certain that our activities have some effect. I doubt very much that we can effect things enough to stop the natural cycle.

There is even evidence that Mars at one time may have had a life supporting ecosystem. Perhaps no planet (well actually in fact no planet can support life forever) can support life forever. My guess is other beings in the universe either died out before they could solve the long term problem or they did come up with a solution which most likely was to colonize other similar planets. Something we humans are long way from yet as it seems that such planets are not so close to each other though not hard to find if you have the means to do so.

The way I see it enough humans will likely survive long enough to find a home(s) elsewhere or perhaps the artificial intelligence that we created which in turn became self aware and got rid of us(or made us their slaves will).

I believe Mars lacks enough mass to hold a human compatible, or Earth-like atmosphere.

A necromancy here, but this essay is really good: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/2...nformed-troll/

Quote:

Current peer review science, by attempting to explain away model failure, in fact confirms that the science is wrong
Guest essay by David M. Hoffer
It has become a favorite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed science. With this simple strategy, they at once excuse themselves from the need to know anything about the science, and at the same time seek to discredit skeptic arguments on the grounds that, not having been published in peer reviewed journals, they may be dismissed out of hand.

A retreat to authoritarian arguments in the face of dead simple observations is not new. It is a repeat of history. Not having learned from it, we appear to be condemned to repeat it. But both history and the current peer reviewed science are, if one steps back and looks at the big picture, on the skeptic side.

In the fifth century BC, Empedocles theorized that one could see by virtue of rays emanating from one’s eyes. Falsifying this notion required no more than pointing out that one cannot see in a dark room. Despite this simple observation, his theory enjoyed substantial support for the next 1600 years.

Galileo died while under house arrest for supporting the notion that the earth orbited the sun. His was convicted in part on the basis of peer reviewed literature of the time insisting that the movement of the planets as observed from the earth could be explained by the planets simply reversing direction in orbit from time to time. For nearly two thousand years, into the early 1800’s, when people fell ill, the peer reviewed literature confirmed that the best course of action was to let some blood out of them. The simple observation that death rates increased when this treatment was applied was dismissed out of hand on the premise that, if it was true, it would appear in medical journals. Sound familiar?

History is replete with examples of what seems today to be utterly absurd ideas. Ideas which stubbornly refuse to die, sustained in part by the equally absurd notion that evidence to the contrary was not to be accepted simply because it hadn’t appeared in the “right” publications. But is the notion of climate science today as easily falsified by simple observation? I submit that it is. We have the climate models themselves to upon which to rely.

For what are the climate models other than the embodiment of the peer reviewed science? Is there a single model cited by the IPCC that claims to not be based on peer reviewed science? Of course there isn’t. Yet simple observation shows that the models, and hence the peer reviewed literature upon which they are based, are wrong. We have none other than the IPCC themselves to thank for showing us that.

The leaked Second Order Draft of IPCC AR5 laid bare the failure of the models to predict the earth’s temperature going forward in time. In fact, if one threw out all but the best 5% of the model results…they would still be wrong, and obviously so. They all run hotter than reality. Exposed for the world to see that the models (and hence the science upon which they are based) had so utterly failed, the IPCC responded by including older models they had previously declared obsolete as now being part of the current literature:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/0...till-look-bad/

Even with those older and supposedly obsolete models included, the models look to be complete failures. In other words, confronted with the data showing that thousands are dying from bloodletting, the IPCC is resurrecting old studies showing that three or four patients recovered once in an old study from a long time ago. They are point blank asking you to believe that planets reverse direction in orbit quite of their own volition. They’ve contrived a theory that you can’t see in the dark because the rays from your eyes must interact with light to work.

As ridiculous as that may seem, for the IPCC, it is (literally) even worse than that. For this we have the foremost climate scientists on the planet to thank.

Kevin Trenberth, arguably the most politically powerful climate scientist on earth, famously lamented in the ClimateGate Emails that we cannot account for “the missing heat”, a tacit admission that the models are wrong. Since then we’ve seen multiple papers suggesting that perhaps the heat is being sequestered in the deep oceans where, conveniently, we cannot measure it. If true, this also invalidates the models, since they predicted no such thing.

Dr Roy Spencer’s paper suggests that the heat is escaping to space. If he’s right, the models are wrong. More recently we have the paper by Cowtan and Way, which tries to make the case that the heat is hiding in places on earth where we have no weather station or satellite data. Pretty selective that heat, going where nobody can measure it, but not where we can. If they are right, then not a single model predicted any such thing, and so, once again, the models would be wrong. Spencer’s paper stands apart from the others because it doesn’t twist itself into absurd contortions in a blatant attempt to preserve the CAGW storyline. But make no mistake about it, all these papers are being published, not because the models (and the science they are predicted upon) are right, but because they are wrong, and obviously so.

No longer is the debate in regard to if the models are wrong. The debate is now about why the models are wrong. The models having fallen, the peer reviewed science they purport to represent falls with them.
But you need not believe me in that regard.

Just the peer reviewed science by the foremost climate scientists on earth.

That site seems completely non-biased and definitely not a crock of agricultural byproducts.

I'm bookmarking it for future reference under "USEFUL AND REASONABLY ARGUED POINTS" or possibly under "IN NO WAY AFFECTED BY PREEXISTING AGENDA - NO SHRED OF SIN ATTACHES"

Cheerio.

I'm convinced that they're convinced that they can convince a baised person that they are unbiased towards a baised opinion.

I believe there was no peer review before the enlightenment.
With the scientific method the real peer review was established.

And science predicted the model wrong because we're dealing here with a phenomenon never before recorded in our history and because nature is so above us that even predicting means a faint of arrogance on our part.
We're dealing here with a case when science says ''most likely'', hippies take it as 100% and the corporations take it as ''most likely is not confirmed''. Quote mining on both sides and science takes the blame.

Positive proof that climate science is full of bloviated blowhards and copious amounts of bovine scatterings.
Some scientists will say and do anything to keep the grant money flowing.
It's all about the Benjamins.

It's a blizzard bby.:timeout:

I postulate that the planet goes through cycles of hot and cold depending on the solar cycles of Sol and that man's short span in time on this earth is just a blip on the radar compared to that.

Are they even looking at the amount of greenhouse gases being released by volcanos?

We need to find a way to plug those things!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolferz (Post 2289765)

It's a blizzard bby.:timeout:

It's spring where I am. And I'm in the Alps.

You're correct Wolferz, it does. I don't think anyone is arguing that it doesn't. It's scientific fact that we go through hot and cold cycles, you can look at soil samples and ice cores to see that.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/br...en_15/fig1.gif

The thing that's got scientists concerned is how much our activity has impacted this natural process.

Is our activity speeding up a process that would otherwise take thousands of years? Or is it slowing it down? Are we increasing the temperature swing or decreasing it? These are question that our ancestors will probably answer because we're still in the transition stage. However, the actual basic fact of climatic change cannot be ignored, our climate IS changing, and we have to deal with that fact by adapting ourselves to it.
America is currently undergoing a very impressive arctic winter in places, and the UK is currently undergoing one of its mildest winters on record. The fact that so many records are being broken indicates that things are changing. There are things that we're going to have to deal with in the coming years, in particular the melting glaciers and arctic sheets putting more water into the oceans, effecting the sea level. New York will have to get used to more Sandys, and if anyone has built a nuclear power station on the coast, this is something that they're going to have to think about.

I live next to the sea, not far from a river. In 1953 my house hadn't been built, but where it stands was under a meter of water. I fully expect that in my lifetime it will happen again, hopefully not when I'm still living in it. We've already had a couple of close calls over the past decade. :dead:
The Thames Barrier in London was built in 1982 to protect London from flooding, in 2014 it was raised 28 times, the highest amount since it was built. When the barrier was built it was estimated that it would only need to be used 2-3 times a year...it's now being used 6-7 times a year. There's concerns that the Barrier will need upgrading in the near future in order to cope with the rising number of peak tides or London will face a situation perhaps akin to Robert Carlyles watery film - Flood (which co-incidentally was the film we watched about two or three days before the 2007 North Sea Surge...only to find reality starting to mimic fiction shortly afterwards, a most unsettling event).
When you add to that the fact that there is now more CO2 in our atmosphere than there has been in at the very least fifty-five years (and possibly millions of years) then you can see that we have definitely had an impact on our natural climatic cycle. Precisely what that impact is, is something that our children will find out, likely to their detriment.
Unfortunately we're in a lag-curve, and perhaps this is what disillusions so many people in that we've taken all these actions to cut CO2 and it's still going up, primarily because the atmosphere is still reacting to events from sixty odd years ago, if we have made a change in our attempts to cut CO2 emissions, we probably won't see the benefit in our lifetime.

In short, basically, what's the harm in trying to cut down pollution? Is it that terrible that we might make the planet a better place for our descendants? :haha: We have definitely had an impact on our planets climate, no-one can say exactly how much or precisely what this will do, but anyone who has lived over twenty years can tell that the weather is changing. Whether (pardon the pun) this is natural or man-exacerbated is something that can be debated until the cows (the little methane producing sods) come home, but surely there can be no harm in trying to reduce our global footprint as well as preparing ourselves for the potential changes to come, especially those who live by the sea or a river (which is something like 90% of the worlds major cities) because they have an uncertain future ahead.