Visit our Popular Forums

SV THIRD DAY · 12-12-2015, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordMay

PARIS AGREEMENT - COP21
The final text of the draft agreement commits countries to keeping global warming "to well below 2 degrees C" and strives to limit it to 1.5 C, with the goal of a carbon-neutral world sometime after 2050.
➥ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

too bad it is non-binding.....
Which means it is like the Koyoto...remember that one that was going to save the world, didn't work, but here we are alive anyway?

GoingWalkabout · 12-12-2015, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Once you get the concept that the belief in MMGW is a Religion rather than Science you will see how challenging it brings out the radical jihadist in the true believers: Go on personal attacks, Fire professors, sack meteorologist, it is all acceptable in the name of Gia. They even use religious terms such as "Denier" to label the heretics that don't believe. Back when I was in the air pollution control field, I saw these people and were their peers and right away it became obvious to me that it was their belief system driving them, not science, so I got out before I was crucified upside down for the crime of blasphemy.

I totally understand.

BHI_Guy · 12-12-2015, 16:50

Let's see. So Third Day, do you believe in the theory of evolution? Because scientific consensus in favor of that theory is at about the same level as support for the theory of global warming as a result of human activity.

You've already acknowledged that you are willing to fly on airplanes (Bernoulli's theoroem with regard to fluid dynamics says they will probably fly).

GoingWalkabout · 12-12-2015, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by BHI_Guy

Let's see. So Third Day, do you believe in the theory of evolution? Because scientific consensus in favor of that theory is at about the same level as support for the theory of global warming as a result of human activity.

You've already acknowledged that you are willing to fly on airplanes (Bernoulli's theoroem with regard to fluid dynamics says they will probably fly).

I fly because I threw a boomerang and watched it fly in a half circle back into my hand. The boomerang is denser than air yet it has amazing aerodynamics that allows it to fly. Flat on the bottom and curved on the top. Exactly the same technology that gives lift and flight to an aircraft.

So I threw my boomerang and it went flying into the sky and as I looked up I saw a large passenger aircraft flying. I realized that what I was seeing both in their own right magical but in my understanding of science totally understandable. You see both boomerang and airplane conformed to the scientific laws of aerodynamics but I didn't have to rely on a theory for my confidence in the science. You see the theory was supported by objective scientific observation. I observed the fact of flight.

You do understand that for a theory to become scientific fact it must be supported by observable facts. And even these observed facts must themselves withstand rigorous questioning that attempts with clear logical thinking to disprove said facts. This is called science.

Having a collection of untrustworthy data that defenders rail against any attempt to question is the furthest thing from science that I can imagine.

**StuM** · 12-12-2015, 17:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by BHI_Guy

Let's see. So Third Day, do you believe in the theory of evolution? Because scientific consensus in favor of that theory is at about the same level as support for the theory of global warming as a result of human activity.

You've already acknowledged that you are willing to fly on airplanes (Bernoulli's theoroem with regard to fluid dynamics says they will probably fly).

Typical alarmist non sequitur. Why not ask about Gravitational Theory while you are at it.

And your last sentence is completely false. But let's not get into debunking the 97% meme again, it's been done to death.

**StuM** · 12-12-2015, 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

I fly because I threw a boomerang and watched it fly in a half circle back into my hand. The boomerang is denser than air yet it has amazing aerodynamics that allows it to fly. Flat on the bottom and curved on the top. Exactly the same technology that gives lift and flight to an aircraft.

So I threw my boomerang and it went flying into the sky and as I looked up I saw a large passenger aircraft flying. I realized that what I was seeing both in their own right magical but in my understanding of science totally understandable. You see both boomerang and airplane conformed to the scientific laws of aerodynamics but I didn't have to rely on a theory for my confidence in the science. You see the theory was supported by objective scientific observation. I observed the fact of flight.

You do understand that for a theory to become scientific fact it must be supported by observable facts. And even these observed facts must themselves withstand rigorous questioning that attempts with clear logical thinking to disprove said facts. This is called science.

Having a collection of untrustworthy data that defenders rail against any attempt to question is the furthest thing from science that I can imagine.

And that sums the whole issue in a single sentence.

What ever happened to the concepts of Occam's Razor and the Null Hypothesis?

The simplest conclusion based on historical accounts and proxy identification of the various climate optimums over the current interglacial and events such as the LIA is that the current temperatures are within the bounds of natural variability and the apparent temperature rise in the later part of the 20th Century was nothing special.

That should be the Null hypothesis that Climate Scientists need to disprove. Instead of trying to do so, any evidence/data which is contrary to their theory is either ignore or manipulated out of existence.

jackdale · 12-12-2015, 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM

Typical alarmist non sequitur. Why not ask about Gravitational Theory while you are at it.

And your last sentence is completely false. But let's not get into debunking the 97% meme again, it's been done to death.

To which Theory of Gravity do you subscribe?

You are correct it is not 97%.

Home | James Lawrence Powell

Reefmagnet · 12-12-2015, 18:01

Here's something to ponder:

There is plenty of evidence from Earth's history that suggests CO2 and global temperatures don't necessarily rise and fall in perfect unison.

CO2 content has been as high as something like 6000 ppm (IIRC) whilst there has been complex terrestrial life on earth, without apparent ill effects.

All notable climate change catastrophes including some that have caused mass extinction events have been cooling changes, extreme enough at times to cause "snowball Earths"

Earth is currently within the end of an interglacial period. It is to be expected climate will warm, then flat line (perhaps even "wobble" somewhat) before finally returning to ice age conditions over time. There is no such thing as static climate.

Despite 20 years, at least, of extensive research into AGW, no "smoking gun" to indicate catastrophic climate change - repeat, catastrophic - either of natural or man-made origin is occurring has been found.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

tomfl · 12-12-2015, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

To which Theory of Gravity do you subscribe?

You are correct it is not 97%.

Home | James Lawrence Powell

What some of the posters are rejecting is the models that predict AGW based on the failure of the models to predict measured temperatures. I suspect a lot of the articles your graph depicts are explanatory models claiming molecules that absorb IR hinder cooling when the sun is below the horizon, something very few folks dispute.

Until AGW models can predict measured temperatures they will continue to be rejected; no matter how many times you keep posting the same grapy.

jimbunyard · 12-12-2015, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuM

Geologically speaking, we are still in a CO2 deprived environment. Why do you think that is an optimal situation?

Just for grins have been kinda reading this thread off and on, seen the usual silliness and lack of familiarity with the actual published science...

Until now been keeping out of it, but it seems to be degrading a little, so let's ask a couple of questions to maybe liven it up a bit...

In the graph above, the horizontal axis has no continuity and therefore little to no value as a graph at all; for one instance, if the scale of the Holocene were used for the Precambrian, the Precambrian would extend more than 3 miles to the left... Then compare the Cambrian, the Silurian and the Mississippian. They're all represented by the same width, but are, respectively, 60, 30 and 40 million years long. These inconsistencies introduce distortions in the curves that render the information as a graph useless.

More to the point of the graph (I think), if we assume that where the CO2 curve starts is the middle of the Precambrian, well then indeed we do live in a CO2 deprived environment, because for the prior billion and a half years the level had been falling from a high of 30 percent (30 parts per hundred). Don't think you'd want to take a breath then anyway though because there wasn't any oxygen in the atmosphere, and it wouldn't get to a level even close to now for another billion and a half years or so. So how could anyone who isn't a stromatolite or a single celled, sea dwelling organism think that now isn't an optimal (or at least closer to an optimal) situation?

Second question. I think I read in this thread somebody asking about how such a small percentage of gas could possibly have any effect on climate, but can't be sure. At any rate it doesn't matter, because these (mostly) pseudo-skeptic threads almost always present the same arguments so we'll just assume that it was asked.

So, if the amount of CO2 is so small as to be impossible to make the observed climatic changes, how can all the terrestrial plants, as well as all the marine and aquatic plants (not so readily apparent but probably at least an order of magnitude more plentiful and quite as important, since we couldn't breathe without them) exist? Surely such a small percentage of the atmosphere can't be responsible for all plants (they use it as both an energy source and a building material)?

Of course, one has to trust those conspiratorial, conformist, consensus and grant seeking scientists for any of this to make sense or indeed, to even to be able to ask questions like these....

Lake-Effect · 12-12-2015, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Do people from Canada normally have fascist tendencies? Perhaps there are some uncomfortable truths being said that make you very upset so you want to stop everyone from talking. I would ask, who indeed is being a troll?

Now please tell me how a discussion about weather and climate has no relevance to sailors. I'm all ears.

No I am not a troll. I have not instigated argument or insult like you have just done. This discussion has been very civil even amongst people that have strongly held views. What is offensive is someone such as yourself trying to shut down civilized discussion and tell adults they can't any longer discuss the weather.

I have a lot more I could say to you but like I have already said, you are the one who is the troll.

Your OP was a troll, intended to mock anyone who doesn't share an apparent anti-AGW position. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.

If you think such baiting is suitable material for a sailing/cruising forum, and if you think this bunfight has been civil, and something more productive than thinly veiled mutual dislike, well... enjoy.

GoingWalkabout · 13-12-2015, 19:14

So are we going to have more or less ice down South. I have a second home in Argentina and am seriously interested in ice accumulation or dissipation in the southern region. And I will be looking at installing insulation either way on my cat. And yes I'm going to be sailing a cat in the far southern waters full of ice blocks.

model 10 · 13-12-2015, 19:58

I am trying to decide if the post should should end up in the bilge or the head, either way overboard.

Lake-Effect · 13-12-2015, 20:02

I, um, need to make it known that I was seriously out of line for the accusations of trolling I fired at GoingWalkabout (above and here). I reacted to a couple of (for me) hot-button words without fully reading and understanding the thread-starter.

My apologies to GW.