Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

On another note, I visited my favourite weather forum today that I don't visit very often and discovered their climate change sub forum was shut down in 2013 due to name calling and perhaps even worse and the like. Seems cruisers are the best to debate this subject after all!

Reef of course we are the best to discuss this cc best.
1) we are a rather intelligent bunch ( for the most part)
2) even at our worst we are for the most part civil to each other
3) we don't make money off the cc debate as a whole.
4) it is a good distraction for us in the cold parts of the world while we wait for splash day.
5) we can sit down and have coffee, a few beers, or even lunch regardless of our cc side and that subject will never come up.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Reef of course we are the best to discuss this cc best.
1) we are a rather intelligent bunch ( for the most part)
2) even at our worst we are for the most part civil to each other
3) we don't make money off the cc debate as a whole.
4) it is a good distraction for us in the cold parts of the world while we wait for splash day.
5) we can sit down and have coffee, a few beers, or even lunch regardless of our cc side and that subject will never come up.

Mainly because there's too much talk about boaty maintenance & the upcoming 3-day weather forecast.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Mainly because there's too much talk about boaty maintenance & the upcoming 3-day weather forecast.

Exactly
And next weeks races

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lindabarzini

I judge a person's intelligence political affiliation by his skepticism to AGW.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

FTFY.

Originally Posted by fryewe

Your fix doesn't work for those of us who have no political affiliation.

Also doesn't work for those who can't be characterized using the pejorative terms assigned to conservatism and libertarianism in the US...which 95 percent of the world population.

Originally Posted by StuM

Do tell! What's my political affiliation?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Every generalization has exceptions.

All I did was change one stupid oversimplified generalization into another. One that at least has statistical evidence behind it.

Not sure about the "statistical data" underlying your reliance on "psychology" to determine why people are disposed towards believing in MMGW or not, but since you raised the issue of stupid, overly simplified generalizations, you might want to also consider that

"[t]he share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.

A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation | Pew Research Center

Now if you're desperate enough to continue feeding your simplistic stereotyping, you can look at the very next paragraph in the article which surveys which political party all those independently minded Americans "lean." OR, you could simply follow the advice you like to give the rest of us and stick with the science of CC, as opposed to the "psychology" or "party affiliation" of its adherents & detractors.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

There, fixed it for you. We don't know whether it is still warming

You forgot the the critical unsettled question:
What is likely to happen to climate in the next couple of hundred years?

And that's the one that is most unsettled - primarily as a result of the lack of research into drivers of natural climate change because of the over emphasis on CO2.

Your "fixes" are always welcomed Stu. Also from the Assistant Principal & others too, provided they're supportable.

Speaking of, I wonder if someone could "fix" the little brain blockage I was reminded of when you mentioned the question of CO2. I fear this may be one of those times when it's better to look stupid and learn, than always try and look smart but remain stupid. Not sure if it's a simple math issue or maybe a problem of comparing apples to oranges.

Anyway, let's use -- as an example -- Jack's historic ice core figures that show CO2 at 300 ppm (parts per million), and currently accepted(?) measurements now at approx. 400 ppm. So a 25% increase, supposedly attributable solely to fossil fuel emissions (by Jack & other believers, that is). But there also seems to be general acceptance that 96-97% of the atmosphere's CO2 now is from "natural" causes, i.e. not man-caused fossil fuel, wood burning, or other emissions that humans introduced into the environment.

So if humans are the sole cause of increasing CO2 concentrations 25%, then how can natural CO2 sources remain at 96-97%? Again, I'm likely missing something very basic, but inquiring minds would like to know . . . thanks.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM:

Maybe the science isn't settled.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Where did I say it was?

You mean that hasn't been the implication of every one of your relevant posts until this one??

[Reefmagnet]

Isotope analysis of co2 in the atmosphere is used to determine that which is produced from fossil fuel burning which supposedly allows the volume of anthropogenic co2 fossil-fuel emissions to be calculated. As for the increase over time, think of a bucket that has, say, 10 drips of water falling into it per minute but at the same time is leaking 10 drips per minute. Now, add another drip per minute to the fill and given enough time, the bucket would overflow.

I would also hazard a guess that part of the reason for the seemingly steep increase is loss of sinks as opposed to increased sources. This is something that doesn't get a lot of airtime. And then there's the "co2 lags temperature" theory which has some validity.

Anyway, if you plot co2 levels against average global temperatures since the mid 1800's, aside from the trend of increasing values, there is no other correlation. Co2 increase is smooth, temps are all over the place. Blind Freddie could conclude that there must be numerous other factors in play.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Isotope analysis of co2 in the atmosphere is used to determine that which is produced from fossil fuel burning which supposedly allows the volume of anthropogenic co2 fossil-fuel emissions to be calculated. As for the increase over time, think of a bucket that has, say, 10 drips of water falling into it per minute but at the same time is leaking 10 drips per minute. Now, add another drip per minute to the fill and given enough time, the bucket would overflow.

I would also hazard a guess that part of the reason for the seemingly steep increase is loss of sinks as opposed to increased sources. This is something that doesn't get a lot of airtime. And then there's the "co2 lags temperature" theory which has some validity.

Anyway, if you plot co2 levels against average global temperatures since the mid 1800's, aside from the trend of increasing values, there is no other correlation. Co2 increase is smooth, temps are all over the place. Blind Freddie could conclude that there must be numerous other factors in play.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

So maybe the 96-97% of CO2 from natural, i.e. not man-made sources, is the total amount of atmospheric CO2 produced, including that which winds up in sinks, i.e. the oceans & plants? I suppose back when it was supposedly only at 300 ppm there was no way to measure it in the atmosphere. I gather those are all historical measurements taken from ice cores, tree rings, plant stople, etc.? Or maybe the 97% figure is total carbon from natural sources in all its forms, and the ppm measurement is only that which winds up in the atmosphere?

[Reefmagnet]

I don't think the ecosystem can differentiate between natural and anthropogenic sources of CO2, regardless of what some alarmists claim. The reason for the amount of carbon dioxide increasing in volume (ppm) in the atmosphere is simply because the amount of CO2 being pumped into the air is more than that which is being extracted. It's a moving target because it's a continuous process and the ratio is constantly varying.

On a side note, I disagree with the idea of "forced feedback", as I think that Earth's climate has been both much too stable over billions of years and it's ability to return from extreme climatic conditions for this to be the case.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I don't think the ecosystem can differentiate between natural and anthropogenic sources of CO2, regardless of what some alarmists claim.

Who makes that claim?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by StuM:

Maybe the science isn't settled.



You mean that hasn't been the implication of every one of your relevant posts until this one??

Your inference is not my implication.

If the science was settled it would need no further study. No scientist would make the claim, politicians do.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Blind Freddie could conclude that there must be numerous other factors in play.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Climate scientists, including those who contribute to the IPCC, would agree with you.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmagnet
I don't think the ecosystem can differentiate between natural and anthropogenic sources of CO2, regardless of what some alarmists claim.

Who makes that claim?

You do. You have in multiple posts in this thread.

Want to revisit C12/C13 isotope ratios and C3/C4 plant responses?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

You do. You have in multiple posts in this thread.

Want to revisit C12/C13 isotope ratios and C3/C4 plant responses?

You are drawing inferences which I did not imply.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are drawing inferences which I did not imply.

That reads like differentiating to me.