Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Forum for snow- and landkiters
Pemba
Frequent Poster
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:39 am
Kiting since: 2002
Local Beach: Murrebue
Gear: Eleveight FS, Shinn Bronq
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Pemba » Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:45 pm

Havre wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:44 am
I appreciate your posts Pemba so I don't mean this is in a "passive-aggressive" way, but is it important if there is any consensus among those that hold a "denier" position?

Obviously I can see the point about "consensus", but how do you determine when consensus is a sign of truth and when is it a sign of too many people not being able to properly think of their own?

Most "facts", morals etc. have changed after there has been a "consensus" about something else historically. Maybe it changes the probability of something being right or wrong slightly, but consensus doesn't prove anything to me.

The reason why me wondering is because "consensus" is the argument one will most often hear when one asks how strong the science is among the "non-deniers".
No, a consensus is certainly not "proof" and the presumed absence of it doesn't in my eyes have to weaken the denier position or something like that. You could argue that they are all different ways that the "believer" argument is wrong. But I do get the impression that some of the deniers are equally uninterested in addressing arguments. They might start off by saying there is no global warming. Then somewhere else the same person might say, well any global warming is not caused by humans anyway. And even is it is, it's actually beneficial. And by the way, it's only the bolshies/fake scientists/etc saying that there is global warming. I am not thinking of anybody specific here at all by the way, I might be wrong. Maybe they are all different people. But it results in a disorganized argument. Maybe I'm not so smart but I think that the existence of global warming can only depend on what level (in degrees) is relevant and the time scale that is considered. The rest is statistics. So the argument should be about that, not about the existence or not of global warming. Marlboroughman mentioned some I things about the "man madeness" (or not) of it all which I thought were interesting but nobody replied. The topic itself is important and interesting. I'm trying to learn something but .... Ok, rant over.

But if there were a consensus about AGW, would that not be an argument to act ? Not to stop challenging that consensus off course but things are often difficult to prove (with a 99 or 100% probability).

palmbeacher
Frequent Poster
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:53 pm
Kiting since: 2011
Gear: Lift foils + Cabrinha kites
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby palmbeacher » Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:32 pm

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And yes the observations throughout the world are proof that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.

Pemba
Frequent Poster
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:39 am
Kiting since: 2002
Local Beach: Murrebue
Gear: Eleveight FS, Shinn Bronq
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Pemba » Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:06 pm

palmbeacher wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:32 pm
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And yes the observations throughout the world are proof that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
Well, I guess that's settled then. Just wondering: what's the first page of this thread that you've read ?

palmbeacher
Frequent Poster
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:53 pm
Kiting since: 2011
Gear: Lift foils + Cabrinha kites
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: climate change /unpredictable weather

Postby palmbeacher » Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:12 pm

Matteo V wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:38 pm
slide wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:56 pm
well I am open minded but the proof is there that we are warming still , the oceans , the upper atmosphere and warmer temps give strength to weather patterns and storms, and I recently saw a report on the artic , it was raining and the rain was warmer than the ice and melting it quicker than normal , the jet stream is a good indicator and not as stable with the warmer temps - many scientist's report's in 2018 gave a very damming reports of what to expect in the future,and say we need to be aggressive if we are to make a difference to our kids and our grandchildren's future's but its not happening and I find it hard to believe that some still can't see it

the debate is over we now can see it happening in front of our own eyes , you can ignore it if you want but the warming is continuing and water levels will carry on rising . warmer waters make hurricanes and storms stronger and create more violent weather patterns , fact
surely you can see the massive increase in wild fires as lands dry out to the extreme, and then it rains so hard and you get 2 months of rain in 2 days , its a case of one extreme to the other extreme , and the wild life don't deal well with these extremes of weather at all well , coral reefs are almost gone ,and the warmer sea temps create a lot of confusion for sea life

trolling , you have lost me , I point out and describe what many scientist's have evidence for , this is the truth and a huge amount of proof exists - who is trolling and please explain where you see it , as I see this as a very serious problem for our kids if we carry on this path, and I did think this topic would create some great conversation
Things are changing, and always have been. The cause is absolutely natural. The additional "anthropocentric" change is what is debated. The range of debate goes from religious denial with virtually no evidence to religious belief with demonstrably zero success in past predictions.

I would not necessarily suggest to close the thread. Keeping it open may serve to keep those on the extremes occupied typing instead of doing something else.
Here you go, a post from page 1 ^

Matteo V is right: the debate is over we now can see it happening in front of our own eyes.

Havre
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 853
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:38 am
Kiting since: 2015
Local Beach: Oslo
Favorite Beaches: Jericoacoara (area) & Cabarete
Gear: Ozone Zephyr 17m, Ozone Enduro v1 12m, Ozone Enduro v1 9m, HQ Topaz 7m, Shinn Ronson Player, Mystic Majestic X Harness, Mystic Stealth Bar
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 146 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Havre » Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:18 pm

Pemba wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:45 pm
Havre wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:44 am
I appreciate your posts Pemba so I don't mean this is in a "passive-aggressive" way, but is it important if there is any consensus among those that hold a "denier" position?

Obviously I can see the point about "consensus", but how do you determine when consensus is a sign of truth and when is it a sign of too many people not being able to properly think of their own?

Most "facts", morals etc. have changed after there has been a "consensus" about something else historically. Maybe it changes the probability of something being right or wrong slightly, but consensus doesn't prove anything to me.

The reason why me wondering is because "consensus" is the argument one will most often hear when one asks how strong the science is among the "non-deniers".
No, a consensus is certainly not "proof" and the presumed absence of it doesn't in my eyes have to weaken the denier position or something like that. You could argue that they are all different ways that the "believer" argument is wrong. But I do get the impression that some of the deniers are equally uninterested in addressing arguments. They might start off by saying there is no global warming. Then somewhere else the same person might say, well any global warming is not caused by humans anyway. And even is it is, it's actually beneficial. And by the way, it's only the bolshies/fake scientists/etc saying that there is global warming. I am not thinking of anybody specific here at all by the way, I might be wrong. Maybe they are all different people. But it results in a disorganized argument. Maybe I'm not so smart but I think that the existence of global warming can only depend on what level (in degrees) is relevant and the time scale that is considered. The rest is statistics. So the argument should be about that, not about the existence or not of global warming. Marlboroughman mentioned some I things about the "man madeness" (or not) of it all which I thought were interesting but nobody replied. The topic itself is important and interesting. I'm trying to learn something but .... Ok, rant over.

But if there were a consensus about AGW, would that not be an argument to act ? Not to stop challenging that consensus off course but things are often difficult to prove (with a 99 or 100% probability).
I can relate to your analysis of the human psyche, but I think it applies just as much to "believers" as "deniers". It might have been MM posting showing how historical models of warming consistently predicted rises in temperature higher than what has occurred. In my opinion we see the same happening with Covid-19 at a much higher speed - people not adjusting their principle stands on things, but their story to fit their original stand.

Another digression on that topic. I find it funny how many politicians (this is not true for all) have been member of the same party since they were kids. How is that possible? That so many have the same views as 50 year olds has they had when they were 13? Same effect in my opinion.

As for your last sentence I 100% agree to that sentiment. For me this is mainly a cost benefit analysis under uncertainty. I know you were going to look up Lomborg and please let me know if you find others that are approaching this in a similar fashion as him (not necessarily coming to the same conclusions of course). Lomborg by the way is not a denier (I think I mentioned that before as well), but he is often been treated as one among the "true believers".

User avatar
tegirinenashi
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:29 am
Local Beach: 3rd Ave
Gear: Bates 4000, Dominator MX-10
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby tegirinenashi » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:08 pm

Pemba wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:32 am
Why does Svante Arrhenius keep on coming up ? All respect to him but he has died a long time ago and suposedly science has evolved. Do you feel that science died with him, there are no real scientists among the "believers", only among the "deniers" ?
Because the scientists we admire are individuals, and not some amorphous committee? There is a factor that is rarely mentioned: the "lesser" scientists tend to care about their paycheck little more. And if their paycheck is linked to the report they produced, then you have to be skeptical about the report.
Pemba wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:32 am
With regards to the 1.5 degrees warming being beneficial or not, I'm trying to form a better opinion on the issue. As you indicate the point has been made a few times. I think one problem is that at some point when a certain threshold has been crossed, the process of warming becomes irreversible (permafrost thawing I think). I've taken that to mean that it will continue, that it will spiral out of control. That would obviously be a problem. But maybe that's wrong ?
No, global warming is not going to push the Earth from the Goldilocks Zone.

Pemba
Frequent Poster
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:39 am
Kiting since: 2002
Local Beach: Murrebue
Gear: Eleveight FS, Shinn Bronq
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Pemba » Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:09 pm

Havre wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:18 pm
Pemba wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:45 pm
Havre wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:44 am
I appreciate your posts Pemba so I don't mean this is in a "passive-aggressive" way, but is it important if there is any consensus among those that hold a "denier" position?

Obviously I can see the point about "consensus", but how do you determine when consensus is a sign of truth and when is it a sign of too many people not being able to properly think of their own?

Most "facts", morals etc. have changed after there has been a "consensus" about something else historically. Maybe it changes the probability of something being right or wrong slightly, but consensus doesn't prove anything to me.

The reason why me wondering is because "consensus" is the argument one will most often hear when one asks how strong the science is among the "non-deniers".
No, a consensus is certainly not "proof" and the presumed absence of it doesn't in my eyes have to weaken the denier position or something like that. You could argue that they are all different ways that the "believer" argument is wrong. But I do get the impression that some of the deniers are equally uninterested in addressing arguments. They might start off by saying there is no global warming. Then somewhere else the same person might say, well any global warming is not caused by humans anyway. And even is it is, it's actually beneficial. And by the way, it's only the bolshies/fake scientists/etc saying that there is global warming. I am not thinking of anybody specific here at all by the way, I might be wrong. Maybe they are all different people. But it results in a disorganized argument. Maybe I'm not so smart but I think that the existence of global warming can only depend on what level (in degrees) is relevant and the time scale that is considered. The rest is statistics. So the argument should be about that, not about the existence or not of global warming. Marlboroughman mentioned some I things about the "man madeness" (or not) of it all which I thought were interesting but nobody replied. The topic itself is important and interesting. I'm trying to learn something but .... Ok, rant over.

But if there were a consensus about AGW, would that not be an argument to act ? Not to stop challenging that consensus off course but things are often difficult to prove (with a 99 or 100% probability).
I can relate to your analysis of the human psyche, but I think it applies just as much to "believers" as "deniers". It might have been MM posting showing how historical models of warming consistently predicted rises in temperature higher than what has occurred. In my opinion we see the same happening with Covid-19 at a much higher speed - people not adjusting their principle stands on things, but their story to fit their original stand.

Another digression on that topic. I find it funny how many politicians (this is not true for all) have been member of the same party since they were kids. How is that possible? That so many have the same views as 50 year olds has they had when they were 13? Same effect in my opinion.

As for your last sentence I 100% agree to that sentiment. For me this is mainly a cost benefit analysis under uncertainty. I know you were going to look up Lomborg and please let me know if you find others that are approaching this in a similar fashion as him (not necessarily coming to the same conclusions of course). Lomborg by the way is not a denier (I think I mentioned that before as well), but he is often been treated as one among the "true believers".
Agree, believers, deniers, not much difference in general. Politicians, agree completely. Why is it seen as such a failure by the way if a person in general admits they were wrong and change their mind about something ? Or to apologize ? Very rare these days. I guess with a politician an evolving opinion would be seen by many as a compromise on certain principles. Yes, there seems to be little space in the middle. If you're not with one group you're against.

prop_joe
Frequent Poster
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:34 pm
Gear: twin tips
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby prop_joe » Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:56 pm

palmbeacher wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:15 am
The ocean absorbs about 90 percent of the excess heat produced as climate change warms the earth. https://earthsky.org/earth/study-oceans ... -questions. As a result coral reefs are dying, fish migration patterns are changing and the oceans are acidifying.
Okay, so why did i find a video about a reef scientist(forgot the name sorry, it's posted here somewhere) who had just successfully won a lawsuit against a university for wrongful dismissal after he had said that the reefs are in fact not dying due to global warming? I don't know enough to say who's right but when there are experts on both sides disagreeing surely you can forgive folk for being unsure. From what i have seen/read on climate change this seems to be an occuring theme within most aspects of climate change.

prop_joe
Frequent Poster
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:34 pm
Gear: twin tips
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby prop_joe » Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:07 pm

palmbeacher wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:17 am
Havre wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:24 pm
You remind me of Nelson.

An undeniable truth that is not final? Funny.

What have I denied? Lying again are we? Slide must be so proud. Finally found someone that agrees with him in that same odd aggressive way and then that person is a lier and lacks any sort of logic in his argumentation.

Also I wonder what kind of scientist wouldn't be interested in discussing the science? The Catholic type we found in Europe 1000 years ago?
Do you have a PhD in stupidity by any chance?
I was wondering how you can keep insulting your fellow kiters so freely but then i remembered your moral superiority is so much higher that you must have bags of insults to get through before you even get close to being down on my level. :thumb:. I'm envious, i find i have to treat folk the same way i want to be treated to get by... it's f**king irritating :lol:

Pemba
Frequent Poster
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:39 am
Kiting since: 2002
Local Beach: Murrebue
Gear: Eleveight FS, Shinn Bronq
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Pemba » Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:29 pm

tegirinenashi wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:08 pm
Pemba wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:32 am
Why does Svante Arrhenius keep on coming up ? All respect to him but he has died a long time ago and suposedly science has evolved. Do you feel that science died with him, there are no real scientists among the "believers", only among the "deniers" ?
Because the scientists we admire are individuals, and not some amorphous committee? There is a factor that is rarely mentioned: the "lesser" scientists tend to care about their paycheck little more. And if their paycheck is linked to the report they produced, then you have to be skeptical about the report.
Pemba wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:32 am
With regards to the 1.5 degrees warming being beneficial or not, I'm trying to form a better opinion on the issue. As you indicate the point has been made a few times. I think one problem is that at some point when a certain threshold has been crossed, the process of warming becomes irreversible (permafrost thawing I think). I've taken that to mean that it will continue, that it will spiral out of control. That would obviously be a problem. But maybe that's wrong ?
No, global warming is not going to push the Earth from the Goldilocks Zone.
I'm sure that Svante Arrhenius deserves lots of respect. But I was referring to his scientific "opinion" which you quoted. I assume it has been taken into account and built, maybe even improved upon by more recent scientist individuals ? With regards to lesser paid scientists, assuming that the paycheck comes from somewhere that already has an opinion, sure, I'd certainly agree with you there.
"Global warming is not going to push Earth from the Goldilocks Zone", ok since you know this, where is it going to be then ?


Return to “Snow / Land”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest