Climate change.

[idlerboat 116]

G.O , what an odd thing to say.

This is a sailing site. There would not be a sailor here who would not except that adverse weather is a scurge...

As to when ? thats why records of been kept...its why choices of passage times have been made.

When is the weather meant to be of a certain type and conditions ?

The polynesians , perhaps the best sailors ever have been chosing when they sail for a few thousand years.

 

They made their choices from oberservations over many thousands of years.

No computer models.

So what is your point ?

Who said that these years of weather patterns are changing ?

........best you hit the internet : )

Those same (non boffins) are worried by the changes that they see. And if you want to try the vast majority of scientist, then there is a world of information out there.

Try ...www.bom.gov.au for starters and look at climate change.

If you belive that it is a world wide conspiracy by scientists to make sure they get another grant, then go for it. Money rules on this planet. The vested interests that are desperate to maintain profits have millions of dollars more for this task than the scientific community.

History has shown that they usualy win, until there becomes such an irefutable correlation of the damage, then change has happened.

It has come down to this....again.

Have humans to the detriment of themselves changed the climatic patterns of the planet ?

The anwser is yes.

To fob it off ( and I am not sure why you would do that...because a red light is just that)

on "a natural unusual climatic anomaly"...is odd.

 

 

(Pardon me, but I do hope that you are not another injected climate change sceptic, there is a lot of that going on in social media...they usualy have a few post and then jump right into the climate debate......).

[Guest]

Can anyone tell me which year, decade or century the climate was what it it is meant to be? And who decided that is what we should have.

brilliant question... for those who can see! (Holistically that is)

[wheels 543]

Greene-O wrote:

Can anyone tell me which year, decade or century the climate was what it it is meant to be? And who decided that is what we should have.

 

:clap: brilliant question... for those who can see! (Holistically that is)

Damn good question.

[Guest]

And if you want to try the vast majority of scientist,

You really that sure about that? Suss that news article I linked to earlier and then suss the website it's from, which was set up by a Fellow of GCC from the Uni of Queeensland or some similar title, so it's seriously pro-change. It's www,skepticalscience.com or close as, it's in that new article.

 

Look at the actual numbers of the 12,000 paper study they have just released. The headlines shout 97.2% agree GCC is human made. Do the numbers support that claim with out using smoke and mirrors?

 

This study, more specifically the headlines, will shortly if knot already become 'fact' by default. Pressie Obama even tweated it last week. It will be used by the pro-change side as definitive proof i.e if 97% agree then it must be 100% fact. In doing so it will cement smoke and mirrors into the debate. How is that good for anyone?

 

This looked interesting. I haven't read it yet though.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/04/30/global-warming-alarm-continued-cooling-may-jeopardize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/

[idlerboat 116]

Can anyone tell me which year, decade or century the climate was what it it is meant to be? And who decided that is what we should have.

 

Back to that question....I still dont understand the relevance.

Base line data is what science starts with. It has nothing to do with who decided...it simply is.

The basis for the current argument is that compared to accepted past states, certain conditions are not good for human habitation.

The fact we are by human activity acelerating ourselves into a less habital condition should be cause for alarm.

If you in your wisdom are happy to accept accelerated climate change due to human activitys, then thats up to you.

The question as a whole could be applied to just about anything.

Other people who are going to be far more directly effected may not have the will or luxury to debate such an esoteric question.

 

To KM s link..."Forbes" really ? I would be stunned if they didnt try and counter attack with all their strength. They are not exactly know for their stand on conservation and planetery protection.

There is no question that the conservative backlash is in full swing. It has become a wonderful excuse for popular politics.

Our conservative government here have just stated that they will not honhour up to 2 billion dollars of clean air loans that are in play by the present government. The fact that it may cost millions of "outright" dollars in legal costs means nothing to them. Its to be seen to be anti human caused global climate change.

This is not the feelings of other world governments. It seems in fact that countries with the poorest average wage are the most likely to support and pay for mitigation. Worth thinking about. It would seem that the richest would therefore be the opposite end of the scale, but no, it turns out that the countries that are going to be the most effected because they are the biggest users per person of carbon bassed fuels are the most reticent to except the proposition. Hardly supprising.

It will get worse and the fight will go backwards. (Australia is one of the worst polluters per person on the planet).

Because carbon trading is bassed on market trading, and we all know that that keeps the planet safe, if some countries jump the price goes down. It will only start to have effect after more serious ramifications are felt. Sadly smaller island nations (as an example) who suffer from changing fish migration and salt water ingress are not going to be enough for major change. They are small fry in the billions of dollars that will ebb and flow over the comming decades.

I will say again, the earth is a finite system. "Growth" as a continum is not sustaniable. "We still have X number of years of "whatever you wish to extract", is not an anwser.....it is at best a delaying factor approriating wealth to the present generations and leaving the problems to the future....

The idea that we can do that even in the short term (reverse a situation that has taken thousands, indeed millions of years, in a few hundred, without ramifications is in my oppinion naive.

To say that "we do not have enough proof" is like an econimists worse nightmare......just because it is not showing up on your balance sheet now dosnt mean it is not happening....

[wheels 543]

Base line data is what science starts with. It has nothing to do with who decided...it simply is.

And that is what the question is. What is the Base line and who exactly decided that the Baseline should be...errr....the base line.

certain conditions are not good for human habitation.

That's extreme. Human Habitation is not under threat from Global warming. Change in Habitation maybe, but not threatened. And that has always been the case through out History of Mankind. In ancient past, well before the industrial age and assumed Global warming, People groups moved across Continents in search of Food as the Climate changed up and down. We don't see that today because of Borders and Nationalities and that fact that we adapt to Changes rather than move. But we do see some places that are now growing crops that once could not grow that crop.

Sadly smaller island nations (as an example) who suffer from changing fish migration and salt water ingress are not going to be enough for major change.

Now there is one Falsely used scenario. Did you know that there is not one Island Nation yet threatened by rising Sea levels. Those Islands used in Headlines of rising sea level arguments are Sinking far faster than the Sea level is rising. All Atoll type Islands Sink. It is this very nature that creates them in the first place. A Volcano Rises from the ocean floor, becomes extinct and the under it's own weight, sinks again and creates the Island and Atoll. As it sinks, Coral continues to grow upon itself with the dead Coral forming the base. So far we have seen about 3mm rise in Ocean per yr. Some of these Islands are sinking at a rate measured in inches per year.

And there is yet another mistake made by Science. Sea Level rise has just recently been found to have been calculated completely wrong and will now be less than half what was once reported by Science as an increase over the next hundred years.

 

Now while I seem to be always be coming from the side of the exact opposite to Climate change, I say once again. I am not denying it is happening. But from looking at the whole picture and reading claims and counter claims, I personally am not convinced that all the Data being pushed as Gospel is indeed correct.

Climate change or not, I do want to see and live on a cleaner Planet.

[Jon 360]

Wheels that's I believe your best ever post.

It can often be very hard to put your point across without looking OTT and I and many others are in your camp.

[Guest]

I believe the baseline is just prior to the industrial revolution.

Its not good for human habitation, period, dosn't matter if its because it gets too hot or because wars or famine occurs its still not good for human habitation.

So if an islands sinking surely a rise in water at the same time is only going to increase the danger!

 

The problem is too much people and this climate change may just sort that.

[Guest]

The water level rising at 3mm a year may not sound much Wheels but after 100 years thats 300mm. Now I'm sure those Islanders want their kids and grandkids to inhabit the same space but unfortunately that seems unlikely. But thats ok as its only 3mm a year!!

[Guest]

To KM s link..."Forbes" really ? I would be stunned if they didnt try and counter attack with all their strength. They are not exactly know for their stand on conservation and planetery protection.

Don't know really Idler I'm knot a Forbes sort of a reader. But I did just have a read of it and saw a person doing a commentary in a news outlet, which is just the same as most of the Pro side, just like the link I put in earlier to a very Pro one, so I'd say it's fair to assume the Forbes article is no more nor no less valid than any others. A quick suss shows most media have been running both pro and anti articles, including Forbes.

 

It is an interesting article and I can see why a Pro changer would struggle with it.

 

One para, of a few, that jumped out

Peter Stott, a researcher who authored the most recent IPCC report chapter on global climate projections, has found that climate model projections of an alarming temperature rise are inconsistent with past observations. When he and his colleagues at the U.K.’s Met Office forced the amount of global warming predicted by the models to equal the amount of warming actually observed, the projected future rise to accompany human greenhouse gas emissions dropped substantially. In other words, the better climate models match the past, the less scary the likely future looks.

If some of the IPCC team are know having issues reconciling what they were saying against what they are now seeing, it's knot hard to see why may Rangi Public are sitting on the fence next to me.

 

What the British Met Office says about that Peter Scott.

About Dr Peter Stott

 

Peter leads the Climate Monitoring and Attribution team.

 

Areas of expertise:

- Climate modelling of past and future climate.

- Attribution of past changes to their natural and anthropogenic contributions.

- Climate monitoring.

 

Publications by Peter Stott

In the publications is some IPCC stuff and a range of other stuff all very GCC looking.

[rigger 47]

The water level rising at 3mm a year may not sound much Wheels but after 100 years thats 300mm. Now I'm sure those Islanders want their kids and grandkids to inhabit the same space but unfortunately that seems unlikely. But thats ok as its only 3mm a year!!

 

If those Islands are subsiding / sinking at a rate of inches per year (say 25mm per year that is 2500mm in 100years) they will disappear regardless of sea level rise. So like many times in history the people will have options - shift or build defences to protect the land.

 

A village in the UK was recently re-surveyed - it was abandoned to the north sea hundreds of years ago.

So climate change is nothing new to human history.

 

On the west coast - there is a cape that is eroding - do we blame that on Man made climate change

 

 

There was a really good chartlet that I cannot find that shows how much has changed since the area was first surveyed.

 

 

I'm with Wheels

 

Man made Climate change or not...

I do want to see and live on a cleaner Planet.

[Guest]

Idlerboat your answer to my question reminds me of a story I read.

 

A man (lets call him IB) was seated next to a young girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, “What would you want to talk about?”

“Oh I don’t know,” said the stranger. “How about Global warming, Mankind destroying the climate and the rising ocean levels?” as he smiled smugly.

“Okay” she said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow and a sheep all eat the same stuff- grass. Yet a sheep excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”

The Aussie, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence, thinks about it and says, “Hmmmmm, I have no idea.” To which the little girl replies, “ Do you really feel qualified to discuss the Global state, Mankind’s part in this and other esoteric questions , when you don’t know sh*t?”

[Guest]

 

Where have you been hiding greene-o.

 

A another gem.

 

Spain right now is having the coldest spring in 200 years. How could the cold north wind be so cold if there is global warming. If the north poles ice is eroding then why is it colder now than when the np ice shelf was larger.

 

Man may measure many things but he still only knows jack sh*t.

[wheels 543]

The water level rising at 3mm a year may not sound much Wheels but after 100 years thats 300mm.

If an Island is sinking at a rate of 25mm/yr, then 300mm in 100yrs isn't going to make a lot of difference to an Island already 2.5m underwater.

[wheels 543]

Sorry rigger, didn't see that you already bet me to it.

If those Islands are subsiding / sinking at a rate of inches per year (say 25mm per year that is 2500mm in 100years) they will disappear regardless of sea level rise.

[wheels 543]

Ultimately the sun is going to burn out and by that time the human population will be long gone and everyone reading this will be a billion years dead (metaphorically speaking)

I've got it. Science needs to look at how to turn the Sun down. Reduce it's output and we can solve the Climate change issue and increase the life expectancy of the Sun.

[Guest]

There are bigger things to worry about than global warming and sea levels.

 

Right now there are about 5 idiots on this planet with big red buttons in their top drawer of their desks with the capability to nuke the hell out of afew unsuspecting civilians.

 

Mind you that might resolve the global warming issue by giving us a nuclear winter

 

3mm is nothing. Humans have lost the plot politicaly, morally, and all because of religion and money.

 

The family of the slain man in England does not give a rats about GW.

 

Iraq, Iran, India, Syria... global what... its always hot here

 

GW is the wests new religion to justify what... a science project they can't solve!!

[Guest]

Wrong again Wheels..........."Auckland University's Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.

 

"Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger," he said.

 

"Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent.

 

"We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years."

 

Dr Kench says the growth of the islands can keep pace with rising sea levels."

From ABC News Australia

[idlerboat 116]

Idlerboat your answer to my question reminds me of a story I read.

 

A man (lets call him IB) was seated next to a young girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said “Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, “What would you want to talk about?”

“Oh I don’t know,” said the stranger. “How about Global warming, Mankind destroying the climate and the rising ocean levels?” as he smiled smugly.

“Okay” she said. “Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow and a sheep all eat the same stuff- grass. Yet a sheep excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?”

The Aussie, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence, thinks about it and says, “Hmmmmm, I have no idea.” To which the little girl replies, “ Do you really feel qualified to discuss the Global state, Mankind’s part in this and other esoteric questions , when you don’t know sh*t?”

 

I usualy dont make someone so excited as to reguratate a very old joke as an insult to me.....but thats ok.

Why not just say in your opinion I know jack sh*t ?

 

My writing is considered, and I dont feel a need to belong to any kind of team, or in fact am worried about getting my head kicked by serious debate.

Your last is just like someone at a sports match who feels it is nessesary to hurl abuse at the opponents when they feel that their side is winning.....

The same people who sculk off at 3/4 time rather than see their team lose.

[Guest]

Idlerboat I would not say in my opinion you know jack sh*t. That would be insulting.

My regurgitating of a very old joke was meant to be just that, a joke. Perhaps if you did feel the need to belong to some kind of team you might learn to not take yourself so seriously and understand that whatever you, I or anyone else on this forum says will make jack sh*t difference to the supposed problem.