Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Aug '16 00:04
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/opinions/chad-myers-climate-change-weather/index.html
  2. 26 Aug '16 16:42 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/opinions/chad-myers-climate-change-weather/index.html
    Meteorologists are not climate scientists.

    If Freeman Dyson (a renowned theoretical physicist at Princeton University) is not qualified to have an opinion on global warming because he is not a climate scientist why should you care about the opinion of a mere meteorologist?
    The Pliocene Epoch shows that global warming was much greater back then with about the same CO2 level as today. Climate scientists do not agree that man is the primary cause of global warming today despite many false claims that they do. How many times do you have to be lied to in that way before you realize your whole argument is based on a myth rather than fact as you were duped into believing?

    Your faith based approach is troubling. Try basing your opinion on science for a change.

    “With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade. This ‘almost’ record year does not help the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the surface temperature observations,” said Judith Curry, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

    This year may be warmer, but what does that prove since that has been the trend for over 300 years? This warming trend started from natural causes so it is completely reasonable to expect more record breaking years even if man is not the primary cause. Your burden of proof is to show that man is the primary cause, not that there is global warming. It does no good to prove there is global warming if nature is the primary cause. Try again.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Aug '16 03:14
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Meteorologists are not climate scientists.

    If Freeman Dyson (a renowned theoretical physicist at Princeton University) is not qualified to have an opinion on global warming because he is not a climate scientist why should you care about the opinion of a mere meteorologist?
    The Pliocene Epoch shows that global warming was much greater back then with ...[text shortened]... ing. It does no good to prove there is global warming if nature is the primary cause. Try again.
    You are the denier, so YOU need to provide the proof otherwise.
  4. 27 Aug '16 14:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You are the denier, so YOU need to provide the proof otherwise.
    Prove a negative? No, the burden of proof belongs on you. Prove your positive!

    https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/23/measuring-bias-in-the-u-s-federally-funded-climate-research/#more-22037
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Aug '16 16:53
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You are the denier, so YOU need to provide the proof otherwise.
    I don't know what it takes to make people like you realize humans ARE effecting climate in a negative way.

    I guess for you it's business as usual until my Florida coast home gets inundated with the ocean.

    Every year, new heat records are smashed, hurricanes get stronger, tornadoes get more numerous but you just have your fingers in your ears going 'I can't hear you' I can't hear you'.

    My brother in law has in fact, a beachfront condo in south Florida and the erosion from the encroaching ocean is already destroying parts of his property. There used to be a boat launching ramp but it is half gone now and the ocean is about 20 feet closer to his home. I'm glad I don't own that property.

    8 billion people spewing CO2 into the atmosphere can't possibly effect climate? Get serious.

    We are living in our own feces.
  6. 30 Aug '16 19:34
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I don't know what it takes to make people like you realize humans ARE effecting climate in a negative way.

    I guess for you it's business as usual until my Florida coast home gets inundated with the ocean.

    Every year, new heat records are smashed, hurricanes get stronger, tornadoes get more numerous but you just have your fingers in your ears going ' ...[text shortened]... o the atmosphere can't possibly effect climate? Get serious.

    We are living in our own feces.
    So you are a rich guy that owns ocean front property that wants to tax the poor into inescapable poverty to solve an imaginary problem you might face in the distant future. You have mentioned your brother in law building his condo in a stupid place before. That is his own fault for being foolish. It is not because of global warming that he has a problem. We have been over this before. Stop blaming the climate on your own bad judgement. Look at any sea level chart and see there is not any problem. Rises are predictable and not alarming at all.

    Hurricanes are not a threat and not stronger because of man burning fossil fuels. Global warming is primarily natural. Just because a lot of liars told you different you believed it because of your left wing ideology. Tornadoes are not more numerous either. They are merely being detected more because of modern technology. We have been over this before too. Why do you keep repeating the same old propaganda?

    "8 billion people spewing CO2 into the atmosphere can't possibly effect climate? Get serious. "

    I never denied man is affecting the climate. I simply stated man is not the "primary cause" of global warming. I have been very consistent about this for a very long time and you know it. Why do you keep stating nonsense over and over and over again like a scratched record? You must know you are stating nonsense that does not apply. Either that or you have dementia. If that is the case, please take notes so you do not waste my time.....over and over and over and over again.

    More CO2 likely will do more good than harm. I have explained that as well, but you probably forgot that multiple times. You act like we have not been over this multiple times. Believe me, we have......so many damn times! You do not have any proof, just wild theories without any merit.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    31 Aug '16 13:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    So you are a rich guy that owns ocean front property that wants to tax the poor into inescapable poverty to solve an imaginary problem you might face in the distant future. You have mentioned your brother in law building his condo in a stupid place before. That is his own fault for being foolish. It is not because of global warming that he has a problem. ...[text shortened]... e have......so many damn times! You do not have any proof, just wild theories without any merit.
    More CO2 will CERTAINLY not be good for such things as coral reefs because the more CO2, the more acidic oceans become besides the warming. Maybe we can grow more crops because of greater CO2 but that is only part of the equation.

    BTW it is not MY bad judgement about ocean front property, it's my brother in law's problem.

    He bought that property decades ago and his boat landing was in one piece back then. You could load and unload a boat into the surf when he bought it.

    The landing is literally half gone now and the beach is definitely creeping up on the house, not there yet but a pattern is clear.

    I am just glad I don't own that kind of property.

    And it is not just a rich man problem. There are plenty of coast people who are not rich. EVERYONE is in jeapardy over this ALL coasts around the world.

    Show me what else causes climate change other than mankind then if you think we are not the only issue here.

    I just read this: they now can monitor the amount of sea surface area and land surface area very accurately from satellites.

    http://phys.org/news/2016-08-surface-area-years.html

    They have data from 1985 on. So time will tell the tale of receding land.

    They did note land increased but due to human intervention such as the Chinese building up islands in the South China Sea and land reclamation going on around the world.

    Looks like that will be a good business model from here on out. Get into the land reclamation business, it will keep you in oysters.
  8. 01 Sep '16 19:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    More CO2 will CERTAINLY not be good for such things as coral reefs because the more CO2, the more acidic oceans become besides the warming. Maybe we can grow more crops because of greater CO2 but that is only part of the equation.

    BTW it is not MY bad judgement about ocean front property, it's my brother in law's problem.

    He bought that property deca ...[text shortened]... ess model from here on out. Get into the land reclamation business, it will keep you in oysters.
    "EVERYONE is in jeapardy over this ALL coasts around the world."

    False statement. Rhetoric instead of fact.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    02 Sep '16 13:58
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "EVERYONE is in jeapardy over this ALL coasts around the world."

    False statement. Rhetoric instead of fact.
    So if only half the coasts around the world will be in trouble, that's ok?
  10. 03 Sep '16 15:30
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So if only half the coasts around the world will be in trouble, that's ok?
    There is no evidence for that.
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Sep '16 13:47
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    There is no evidence for that.
    The evidence is already starting but people like you prefer to just hide your head under the sand preferring to just do business as usual. The land already lost in Alaska you just decide is due to local causes like storms and such. Ho Hum business as usual, move along, there is nothing here to see.
  12. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    04 Sep '16 17:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The evidence is already starting but people like you prefer to just hide your head under the sand preferring to just do business as usual. The land already lost in Alaska you just decide is due to local causes like storms and such. Ho Hum business as usual, move along, there is nothing here to see.
    Geological changes are causing the east coast to sink. And there is also speculation of the possibility of sea levels rising, which of course would exacerbate the problem.

    Over time (a few decades) here in the west I've seen evidence of what appears to be a drop in sea level. This is from my own personal observation of cliffs dropping nearly straight down to (average) water level, and I've been told this is also attributable to geological changes in this part of the country. It doesn't make sense for overall ocean levels to be rising in the east but dropping in the west, so I suspect geological changes are being ignored when someone attributes a rising sea level where they live to only one factor, i.e. global warming.

    Point being, global warming isn't necessarily the reason for your brother in law's problems.
  13. 04 Sep '16 18:28
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    It doesn't make sense for overall ocean levels to be rising in the east but dropping in the west, so I suspect geological changes are being ignored when someone attributes a rising sea level where they live to only one factor, i.e. global warming.
    Sea levels are rising everywhere. It has been measured in many parts of the globe and is not based on looking out the window at cliffs. It is based on highly accurate scientific measurements.
    Find a chart on Wikipedia:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

    Or if you prefer the NOAA possibly the worlds foremost authority on the oceans.
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8447930
  14. 05 Sep '16 08:19 / 11 edits
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    Geological changes are causing the east coast to sink. And there is also speculation of the possibility of sea levels rising, which of course would exacerbate the problem.

    Over time (a few decades) here in the west I've seen evidence of what appears to be a drop in sea level. This is from my own personal observation of cliffs dropping nearly straight d ...[text shortened]... sn't make sense for overall ocean levels to be rising in the east but dropping in the west, ....
    ...and obviously nobody is saying the overall ocean levels are "rising in the east but dropping in the west". Sea level rise is occurring EVERYWHERE, both 'east' and 'west'.
    If the sea level is dropping relative and locally to the current movement of the coast of the local land because the land is locally rising faster than the sea level rise, then the sea level is STILL rising, even there locally, thus the local rise in land mass is irrelevant.

    so I suspect geological changes are being ignored when someone attributes a rising sea level

    Then you couldn't be much more very wrong. My god you must think we are (all) incredibly thick! I don't know why you assume all these scientists to be incredibly stupid; OF COURSE they take into account geological changes where and when those geological changes are relevant! Given that most of those scientists probability have higher I.Q. than both you and I i.e. are probability smarter than you and I, it would be pretty strange if not absurd that they in general wouldn't think of taking into account local geological changes where and when they need to be taken into account to work out the true sea level rise; do you really underestimate their intelligence so much as to think they would never think of that!?

    However, I should also point out that, just exactly as twhitehead has just said, sea level rise "has been measured in many parts of the globe and is not based on looking out the window at cliffs". Do you really think all these scientists are so idiotic and unprofessional to measure sea level rise by "looking out the window at cliffs"? The measurement of sea level rise has been done properly and scientifically with proper and appropriate scientific measurement instruments and in MANY parts of the world.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=79
    "...What The Science Says:
    Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century. ..."

    Note in particular above where it says one of the way it is measured is by "satellite measurements", which I should point out, give a measurement result that is generally if not totally unaffected by any merely local rise or drop in land masses.
  15. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    05 Sep '16 18:06 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by humy
    ...and obviously nobody is saying the overall ocean levels are "rising in the east but dropping in the west". Sea level rise is occurring EVERYWHERE, both 'east' and 'west'.
    If the sea level is dropping relative and locally to the current movement of the coast of the local land because the land is locally rising faster than t ...[text shortened]... ult that is generally if not totally unaffected by any merely local rise or drop in land masses.
    My god you must think we are (all) incredibly thick!

    Not all of you, but some of you apparently are. I never said water levels weren't rising. I was pointing out to sonhouse how his brother in laws problem may not be entirely due to rising sea levels. For a couple of guys who are always pointing out the importance of context you two win first prize for not taking context into account.
    But seeing as how your focus is on global warming (and nothing else) how is it computer models take into account greenhouse gases as the only factor in projections of overall warming? The sun is beginning to enter a normal cyclical phase of giving off less radiation, and last time I checked the sun is the primary source of the earths warmth. Why don't your computer models take this into account? Or are the projections meant to be entirely based on the rise and fall of CO2 levels in the atmosphere?