Cruisers Forum
 


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-10-2020, 21:00   #196
Registered User
 
Dave_S's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Brisbane Australia
Boat: Schionning Waterline 1480
Posts: 1,987
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
Don't know about you, but I wasn't around 120,000 years ago. Climate science might not have been a thing back then either.

If there was another cause for the current warming besides our raising the CO2 by more than 40% ... we would know.
I feel like it sometimes,

but my point, we don't know for sure what causes natural cycling and we should and it shouldn't be to hard for the minds on earth to figure out....easy for me to say I know but some thing or things are at the bottom of it and when you line them up they will match. Here's some ideas but they are just theories that don't really fit but worth a read. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles.

I'm not making this stuff up. It is widely agreed from both sides that the climate changes have existed since millions of years before people (dawn of the earth really). There are many cyclic patterns, but the one to be worried about I think is the one recurring each 108,000 years or so and we are on the upswing at the moment. There are shorter term corrections where we go up and down but on the 108,000 year cycle we are trending up fast.

I like the idea that nature compensates buy more plant life growing as a result of CO2 increases, more plant life more rain, more cloud, more cooling, and the world over compensates and we enter an iceage then plant life dies, CO2 increases etc. etc around and around. This would mean we may save ourselves by creating more CO2, wouldn't that be a kicker.
__________________
Regards
Dave
Dave_S is offline  
Old 11-10-2020, 21:35   #197
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 2,845
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
Best form of defence is attack, try to be civil. I don't have my thoughts set in concrete, as I said happy to be proven wrong.

The source of the chart is EPICA, it is written on the chart. I have not seen any credible or otherwise arguement with the data on it, it seems to be widely accepted.

The warming since the start of the industrial revolution has been 1°c even if you add the whole 200 years in full to the chart it still places us well within the expected range.
Civil?!

What wasn't civil in my response to your apparently trolling question?

How 'bout a little reciprocity.

You misread, misinterpret and make an assumption that you think is correct, and after your misreading, misinterpretation and assumption, when multiple people who have more experience and knowledge tell you how, you tell them they're wrong or haven't supplied you with the information you want to hear.

I was a skeptic 30 years ago, and it took me 5 years after that to come to the conclusion that the problem was serious enough to see changes in my own lifetime. And 20 years to compile my own personal kind of 'meta-analysis' on the scientific data supporting it, from scientists whose entire lives have been spent doing the relevant research, combined probably totaling 1000's of years.

And you come in here with your 30 second observation and tell us we're wrong because you don't understand?

Yeah, I think someone here needs to learn a little about civility, but it ain't me.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
Your link goes to a click bait How to talk to a skeptic page. Is that what you meant for me to read ?

What I was hoping might happen is that you might go looking for some solid information to support your position and realise that regardless of what ever credible information you found it could not put a temperature increase dot on that graph that was outside of reasonable expectations.

I am 100% impartial, I would like to know the truth regardless if it is man made or not. It is the core data on that graph that works for me because it seems conclusive and it tells me the temperature is well within normal expectation. If anything we are a little below probability.
The website you were referred to is not 'click-bait', but a compendium of common denier tropes and the real, scientific explanations for many of the disengenuous questions put forth by pseudo-skeptics.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, the graph ends before the warming we're talking about happened. If you are unable to understand graphs, you shouldn't use them to try and support an unsupportable position.

All the current temperatures (actually they're temperature proxies, so that eliminates them from your argument anyway, because to work out the 'actual' temperature we're talking about the data has to be 'manipulated', which in your mind seems to invalidate 'real' science), and all the current CO2 levels (on the graph you think invalidates the conclusions of science) are well above the highest level shown on your graph.

So you're either not "100% impartial", (because your point "regardless of what ever credible information you found it could not put a temperature increase dot on that graph that was outside of reasonable expectations") is wrong, or you've got a denier ax to grind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
Reasonable expectations are exactly that, based on what happened repetitively before giving a reasonable assumption of what might happen again.

It has nothing to do with optimism, I'm not talking about what the human race is wishing was true...... It's about probability, probability based on natural non man made history.

Each of those gradients on the graph is 2°C, if you transpose across to the last 3 or 4 high's we're in quite a bit of trouble..... And it's all natural historically. Not sure which side is in denial. Maybe the one's that think we can fix it ?

If the time and energy spent on this could be used figuring out what causes the natural cycles we might be headed in the right direction although I feel the answer is beyond our influence.
Well. everyone else knows which 'side is in denial, surprise!, it's the side that is denying the man-made part.

That you don't even know that we do know what causes these changes pretty much puts paid to your silly fear that "the answer is beyond our influence".

The current changes we're experiencing are directly because of our influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
....My offer remains open for anyone to tell me where I have gone wrong. I am happy to be wrong because I have an open mind and an ability to see things from another perspective and happy to change my mind if the facts support it.

Once more... Explain to me how the temperatures we are seeing now are outside of reasonable expectations.
We have. Apparently you're not. Apparently you don't. I'll believe it when I see it.

By your own admission, if the numbers we're experiencing now are above the numbers shown on your graph and are, as you so quaintly put it, "reasonable expectations", then 39% above (for CO2 levels) and a degree and a half C above base-line (for temperature) is definitely 'outside' them.

Additionally, using different proxies we know that they've not been this high for at least 3 million years, and likely 35 million.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
Ah, that's too easy.

Here it is
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/...limate-change/

It might look familiar, it's your link to me. Note Fig 3, it is the graph headed EPICA.
EPICA is not a source. It's a band from the Netherlands.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
Ah, the "look over there" defence.

I'm not debating CO2 or green house gasses.

My challenge was to provide evidence that the global temperatures are not within the expected range. But that's really not possible because it is quite clear we are sitting somewhere a bit under cooked at the moment .
The intent was not to defend, but to enable you to comprehend. You're the only one who thinks "it is quite clear we are sitting somewhere a bit under cooked at the moment".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post
Forgetting for a moment about manmade or not, and excluding the last 200years. I'm guessing that no one disputes the natural cycles of climate change over the longer term exists. How do we not know precisely what causes it....
No, they don't.

Because of many, many years of scientific research and discovery, we do know what causes it. We don't know everything, but we know plenty enough to tell the difference in man-made and natural.
jimbunyard is offline  
Old 11-10-2020, 23:34   #198
Registered User
 
Dave_S's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Brisbane Australia
Boat: Schionning Waterline 1480
Posts: 1,987
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Civil?!...............................
I had a response to each of your points but it read like two old farts squabbling and will be seen as a pissing contest. I'll just say nothing.

Hahaha You don't have to answer I can already hear you now.
__________________
Regards
Dave
Dave_S is offline  
Old 12-10-2020, 05:26   #199
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chesapeake
Boat: Catalina 22 Sport
Posts: 1,243
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondR View Post
I am partisan but it's not because I'm pro or anti the greenhouse theory it's because I am against the mass ussumptions of political fashions because of the harm they do.

A political party in Europe propagated the theory that a certain race of people were responsible for the social and economic problems experienced by the country. The subject party managed to assume power and embarked upon a program of extermination of those they held responsible. This program of extermination became known as The Holocaust. Following a world war the culprit regime was destroyed and many of the perpetrators punished by the victors.

The physical evidence of their crimes was so extensive as to render any reasonable doubt of the occurrences impossible. However this did not prevent certain historians from attempting to deny the occurrences. Some human behaviors are considered so abhorrent as to have them defined as totally immoral and denial of The Holocaust falls into this category.

Some of the more zealous adherents of the AGW/CC climate theory wish to both propagate the theory and silence those not willing to uncritically accept and support it. These climate zealots wish to have their protagonists branded as morally deficient in the same way The Holocaust deniers were hence my objection to the term.
Charming, but irrelevant argument. Climate change denier works for me if climate change zealot works for you!
lestersails is online now  
Old 12-10-2020, 06:46   #200
Registered User
 
jackdale's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,252
Images: 1
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_S View Post

Once more... Explain to me how the temperatures we are seeing now are outside of reasonable expectations.
Based on natural forcings (Milankovitch and solar cycles), we would expect the earth to be cooling.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution and the massive increase in the use of fossil fuels and the release of 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere we were on a a 6,000 year cooling trend that can be attributed to Milankovitch cycles.

Using carbon isotope analysis the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.



https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

Solar activity is declining while temperatures are rising.



In science, correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causal relationship.

The Berkley Earth Surface Temperature study has demonstrated a 250 year correlation between CO2 and temperature.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pape...eley-Earth.pdf

The mechanism for CO2 as a GHG has been known for 2 centuries.

https://history.aip.org/history/clim...x.htm#contents

Ergo ...

The null hypothesis that the current warming is natural has been discounted.

Quote:
Explanations for the industrial epoch warming are polarized around the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming (AW) and giant natural fluctuations (GNFs). While climate sceptics have systematically attacked AW, up until now they have only invoked GNFs. This has now changed with the publication by D. Keenan of a sample of 1000 series from stochastic processes purporting to emulate the global annual temperature since 1880. While Keenan's objective was to criticize the International Panel on Climate Change's trend uncertainty analysis (their assumption that residuals are only weakly correlated), for the first time it is possible to compare a stochastic GNF model with real data. Using Haar fluctuations, probability distributions, and other techniques of time series analysis, we show that his model has unrealistically strong low‐frequency variability so that even mild extrapolations imply ice ages every ≈1000 years. Helped by statistics, the GNF model can easily be scientifically rejected.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2016GL070428
__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 12-10-2020, 09:04   #201
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 20
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Based on natural forcings (Milankovitch and solar cycles), we would expect the earth to be cooling.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution and the massive increase in the use of fossil fuels and the release of 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere we were on a a 6,000 year cooling trend that can be attributed to Milankovitch cycles.

Using carbon isotope analysis the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.



https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

Solar activity is declining while temperatures are rising.



In science, correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causal relationship.

The Berkley Earth Surface Temperature study has demonstrated a 250 year correlation between CO2 and temperature.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pape...eley-Earth.pdf

The mechanism for CO2 as a GHG has been known for 2 centuries.

https://history.aip.org/history/clim...x.htm#contents

Ergo ...

The null hypothesis that the current warming is natural has been discounted.



https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2016GL070428
It's good to see the basics laid out in an unambiguous fashion. Anyone who wants to argue against AGW must address the very points made in your post first or be dismissed as a politically motivated crank.

I find the biggest issue when dealing with the climate change deniers is that they never address the central and undisputable chemical and physical processes that our occurring in our climate. Instead, they prefer to pick holes in a piece of supporting research or simply go after the man rather than the ball (the idea that anyone is getting rich from being a scientist is laughable, climate scientists doubly so).
AndieKay is offline  
Old 12-10-2020, 10:02   #202
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,565
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndieKay View Post
I find the biggest issue when dealing with the climate change deniers is that they never address the central and undisputable chemical and physical processes that our occurring in our climate. Instead, they prefer to pick holes in a piece of supporting research or simply go after the man rather than the ball (the idea that anyone is getting rich from being a scientist is laughable, climate scientists doubly so).
Exactly. You get it.

Since they can't counter the findings of AGW with other, better scientific findings, they* have to attack and try to discredit the people and institutions who have done the real work.

What's unfortunately happened is that climate change has become the proxy for all the human-caused environmental issues (and many associated social issues like poverty), and by building this massive CC strawman (rabid greenies! sekrit soshulist agenda! agrarian dystopia!) they are simultaneously blocking significant progress on those other fronts.

* the "they" is really the industries and their lobbies who are too heavily invested in the whole fossil fuel chain to willingly acknowledge the need to greatly reduce the use of fossil fuel. They have put so much disinformation out there that there are now many people who are genuinely skeptical, but only because they've given too much credit to the disinformation. And many conservative- or authoritarian-leaning political parties have embraced CC denial or or skepticism, so now it's a dogma with them.
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 12-10-2020, 10:33   #203
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 20,490
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Yes. Old thing of correlation vs. causation.


However, if we assumed our polluting and overpopulating DOES NOT CAUSE climate change then is this a good reason to NOT stop polluting and overpopulating?


Thinking is similar to reading. But it is not the same thing. Having both skills is a bonus.



b.
barnakiel is offline  
Old 12-10-2020, 12:18   #204
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 6,501
Images: 7
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by lestersails View Post
Charming, but irrelevant argument. Climate change denier works for me if climate change zealot works for you!
Very relevant if one wishes to keep the debate impersonal and an objective clash of ideas rather than a subjective clash of personalities. As we say in Australia one should play the ball and not the man. One generally leads to a solution of the conflict and the other bloody noses or one might say an evolving debate leads to a meeting of minds and a revolution generally a severing of the intellect and the digestion and blood running in the gutters.

There's a lot of folks about who never manage to come to an understanding of the difference between the terms civility and servility.
__________________
Satiriker ist verboten, la conformité est obligatoire
RaymondR is offline  
Old 12-10-2020, 13:13   #205
Registered User
 
jackdale's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,252
Images: 1
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndieKay View Post
I find the biggest issue when dealing with the climate change deniers is that they never address the central and undisputable chemical and physical processes that our occurring in our climate. Instead, they prefer to pick holes in a piece of supporting research or simply go after the man rather than the ball (the idea that anyone is getting rich from being a scientist is laughable, climate scientists doubly so).
No one really denies climate change. The issue is the dismissal of climate science. No scientific institution in any country on the entire planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. Yet there are individuals who do so. Some such as Roy Spencer and Judith may be counted as lukewarmers or as genuine skeptics. I have used the data and conclusions of both.

I am prepared to discuss the science; I am not prepared to discuss conspiracy theories.
__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 13-10-2020, 19:56   #206
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,565
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

To momentarily veer back on topic... I think everyone agrees that the reef ain't dead... but it also ain't in the very best of health, either.

Sorry for the rerail.
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 13-10-2020, 20:03   #207
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,868
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
To momentarily veer back on topic... I think everyone agrees that the reef ain't dead... but it also ain't in the very best of health, either.

Sorry for the rerail.

If you believe that claptrap, I've got a bridge located in Sydney, Australia for sale that you might just be interested in.
Reefmagnet is offline  
Old 13-10-2020, 20:27   #208
Registered User
 
jackdale's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,252
Images: 1
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet View Post
If you believe that claptrap, I've got a bridge located in Sydney, Australia for sale that you might just be interested in.
Why did you buy that bridge? If you do not own the bridge, selling it is a scam.
__________________
CRYA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator, Sail
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 13-10-2020, 20:45   #209
Registered User
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPBs
Posts: 12,891
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
To momentarily veer back on topic... I think everyone agrees that the reef ain't dead... but it also ain't in the very best of health, either.

Sorry for the rerail.

Just another inaccurate beat up based on the same out-dated Terry Hughes study.
StuM is offline  
Old 13-10-2020, 21:11   #210
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 4,868
Re: The Reef Ain't Dead

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Why did you buy that bridge? If you do not own the bridge, selling it is a scam.

I'm selling it for a friend.
Reefmagnet is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I ain't no expert sailorboy1 Flotsam & Sailing Miscellany 87 24-01-2021 16:46
"Ain't No Such Thing as One Anchor in the Key West Channel" S/V Blondie-Dog The Sailor's Confessional 15 09-05-2012 11:28
this ain't no iPad Sailor Robius Anchoring & Mooring 9 24-04-2012 01:32
This ain't right? knottybuoyz Multihull Sailboats 15 04-05-2008 09:36

Advertise Here
  Vendor Spotlight
No Threads to Display.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 20:22.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.