Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-17-2018, 10:55 AM   #81
Guru
 
Bigsfish's Avatar
 
City: Miami River
Vessel Name: Gotcha
Vessel Model: Grand Banks. Heritage. 54
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,988
How do we know what is fact and truth? It seems that we can find books, professional studies, and papers to support any view. Recently I read that a paper supporting global warming was found to have mathematical errors on page one, all of a sudden another theory goes up in smoke. So what to believe?
Bigsfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2018, 01:07 PM   #82
Enigma
 
RT Firefly's Avatar
 
City: Slicker?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,565
Greetings,
Mr. m. How true that is! Didn't E.A. Poe say...
"Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see."
__________________
RTF
RT Firefly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2018, 02:47 PM   #83
Guru
 
O C Diver's Avatar
 
City: Fort Myers, FL... Summers in the Great Lakes
Vessel Name: Slow Hand
Vessel Model: Cherubini Independence 45
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustBob View Post
Like if I was in downtown LA, pointed my vehicle NE to drive to Boston, and the scenery never changed for 3,000 miles.
As with so many things, it's not what you see, it's what you don't see. You may not have seen the environmental impact of DDT because you chose not to look. You probably don't see the devastation of over fishing because you never look below the surface of the ocean. You look at a city like New York and think everything looks fine. You choose not to think where the waste of tens of millions go, nor the land used to grow the food. Nor the pollution caused to generate the power.

The environment we live in is changing because of us. The problem is that it changes so slowly compared to the average human life, that we don't see it, or choose not to. One of the best examples is the Chesapeake Bay. 70 years ago the water was still relatively clear and teeming with life. Today it's a murky cesspool. We've managed to kill off 99% of the grasses and deplete the oyster population to <10% of what it once was. Without the filter feeder to clean the water and the grasses to hold the sediment and provide habitat for juveniles, we've managed to eliminate most of the bays aquatic life. Sadly, most people have no knowledge or recollection of the way the bay was just 50 years ago.

Ted
__________________
Blog: mvslowhand.com
I'm tired of fast moves, I've got a slow groove, on my mind.....
I want to spend some time, Not come and go in a heated rush.....
"Slow Hand" by The Pointer Sisters
O C Diver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2018, 08:51 AM   #84
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48 (sold)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,186
OC
A read of Michener's "Chesapeake" gives a good accounting of what used to be.
sunchaser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2018, 11:55 AM   #85
Guru
 
O C Diver's Avatar
 
City: Fort Myers, FL... Summers in the Great Lakes
Vessel Name: Slow Hand
Vessel Model: Cherubini Independence 45
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
OC
A read of Michener's "Chesapeake" gives a good accounting of what used to be.
Thanks!

Another addition to the E library.

Ted
__________________
Blog: mvslowhand.com
I'm tired of fast moves, I've got a slow groove, on my mind.....
I want to spend some time, Not come and go in a heated rush.....
"Slow Hand" by The Pointer Sisters
O C Diver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2018, 03:10 PM   #86
Guru
 
AusCan's Avatar
 
City: Adelaide
Vessel Name: Kokanee
Vessel Model: Cuddles 30 Pilot House Motor Sailer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsfish View Post
How do we know what is fact and truth? It seems that we can find books, professional studies, and papers to support any view.
I tend to trust science. When 97% of scientific studies are pointing to one side of the argument, it is usually found to be true. But some will always cling to the few differing pieces of evidence if it suits their personal beliefs.
AusCan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2018, 06:21 PM   #87
Enigma
 
RT Firefly's Avatar
 
City: Slicker?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,565
Greetings,
Mr. AC. I think Mr. B does have a point, up to a point. I spent my working career in science and was involved in a broad variety of disciplines. The TWO things I learned from my experiences are: question everything and we don't know what we don't know.....yet.



Interesting that Einstein's theories, which supplanted those of Newton, and have been the basis of countless research projects and discoveries has recently been found to be lacking or not 100% correct OR so it seems.
Newton wasn't really wrong, he just didn't go far enough nor did Einstein.



https://www.iflscience.com/physics/s...solutely-real/
__________________
RTF
RT Firefly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2018, 10:40 PM   #88
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by RT Firefly View Post
Greetings,
Mr. AC. I think Mr. B does have a point, up to a point. I spent my working career in science and was involved in a broad variety of disciplines. The TWO things I learned from my experiences are: question everything and we don't know what we don't know.....yet.



Interesting that Einstein's theories, which supplanted those of Newton, and have been the basis of countless research projects and discoveries has recently been found to be lacking or not 100% correct OR so it seems.
Newton wasn't really wrong, he just didn't go far enough nor did Einstein.



https://www.iflscience.com/physics/s...solutely-real/
Well, no. Einstein expressed an opinion about quantum effects relating to entangled particles that was wrong, but he did so long before quantum mechanics, which he didn't work on, was fully developed. Einstein's published theories regarding general relativity have been proven to be 100% reliable in terms of what they predict at the non quantum scales they operate on, and special relativity is well supported by all relevant observations. And FWIW, Newton is also absolutely correct on the scales his observations operate on. You can land a man on the moon using Newtonian physics, just not on Sirius. That takes general relativity, which is useless if what you are navigating to is an electron.

The problem with climate science is that we lack the computing power to model something as complex as the atmosphere, so "simplifying assumptions" have to be incorporated into those models to produce a result. Since the atmosphere isn't simple, the models have all proven to be sufficiently wrong that basing trillions$ of public/private expenditures based on their conclusions is incredibly wasteful.
__________________
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handey
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2018, 10:48 PM   #89
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by AusCan View Post
I tend to trust science. When 97% of scientific studies are pointing to one side of the argument, it is usually found to be true. But some will always cling to the few differing pieces of evidence if it suits their personal beliefs.
Setting aside that the idea of "scientific consensus" indicating truth is unscientific, the 97% number has been repeatedly debunked. Worth remembering that in 1949 Antonio Moniz won a Nobel prize for developing the lobotomy procedure as a cure for a wide range of mental illness. The consensus of medical professionals at the time was that he was quite correct. John F. Kennedy's sister was given one because her parents thought she was a bit slow and spent the rest of her life in an institution. Today if you were an MD and did one you would be locked up. So much for "scientific consensus".
__________________
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handey
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 04:44 AM   #90
Guru
 
AusCan's Avatar
 
City: Adelaide
Vessel Name: Kokanee
Vessel Model: Cuddles 30 Pilot House Motor Sailer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
Setting aside that the idea of "scientific consensus" indicating truth is unscientific, the 97% number has been repeatedly debunked".


Debunked by who?

That is still the number that NASA are quoting. But you can’t believe them. Unless you believe that hoax about putting a man on the moon.
AusCan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 06:16 AM   #91
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48 (sold)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AusCan View Post
I tend to trust science. When 97% of scientific studies are pointing to one side of the argument, it is usually found to be true. But some will always cling to the few differing pieces of evidence if it suits their personal beliefs.
I'm unsure of which scientific studies you are referring. One thing for sure though, all credible scientists agree that studies indicate that the world's climate is always in a state of flux. Secondly, the same group of scientists agree Beijing, Mexico City and New Delhi suffer from severe air pollution. Beyond these two agreement areas, politics and funding steer findings whether NASA, Greenpeace or NOAA - this is a fact.

During the Pliocene era (3.3 million years ago) the sea levels were about 25 meters higher than today with northern temperatures about 3 degrees C higher than today. Florida was very small with no voter fraud possible. Then came the Pleistocene, plunging the north and south extreme latitudes into a severe deep freeze. This deep freeze ended 15,000 to 30,000 years ago with the onset of global warming. The mile deep glacier over Chicago finally melted about 20,000 years ago as global warming intensified.

A noted friend (PhD in Glacial Geology) of mine points to studies finding that global warming will continue for about another 100,000 years. This will mean two things. First, lots of grant money will continue flowing greatly assisting his heirs ongoing inherited business and secondly, waterfront development will move inland.
sunchaser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 06:41 AM   #92
Senior Member
 
BrianSmith's Avatar
 
City: Wherever Smartini is
Vessel Name: Smartini
Vessel Model: 2002 Kristen 52' Flybridge Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
"those people are at least trying to make the world a better place," For who???

Surveys show the size of the rain forest is increasing...
.
If you can point to one single scientific study that shows the world's major rainforests are not shrinking, I will send you a check for $100.
BrianSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 06:51 AM   #93
Senior Member
 
BrianSmith's Avatar
 
City: Wherever Smartini is
Vessel Name: Smartini
Vessel Model: 2002 Kristen 52' Flybridge Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
I'm unsure of which scientific studies you are referring. One thing for sure though, all credible scientists agree that studies indicate that the world's climate is always in a state of flux. Secondly, the same group of scientists agree Beijing, Mexico City and New Delhi suffer from severe air pollution. Beyond these two agreement areas, politics and funding steer findings whether NASA, Greenpeace or NOAA - this is a fact.
No, this is an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
During the Pliocene era (3.3 million years ago) the sea levels were about 25 meters higher than today with northern temperatures about 3 degrees C higher than today. Florida was very small with no voter fraud possible. Then came the Pleistocene, plunging the north and south extreme latitudes into a severe deep freeze. This deep freeze ended 15,000 to 30,000 years ago with the onset of global warming. The mile deep glacier over Chicago finally melted about 20,000 years ago as global warming intensified.

A noted friend (PhD in Glacial Geology) of mine points to studies finding that global warming will continue for about another 100,000 years. This will mean two things. First, lots of grant money will continue flowing greatly assisting his heirs ongoing inherited business and secondly, waterfront development will move inland.
And every peer reviewed scientific study of our atmosphere shows a very clear direct relation between the recent rise in global temperatures and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're talking about natural rising and falling of global climate that has happened over cycles lasting tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of years. The increases we've experienced over the past 100 years are unlike any that have been discovered in the earth's history, and to deny that human-produced CO2 is a major cause is simply absurd. I don't mean to be disrespectful, sir, but I'm confident that your sources of data are not valid - not peer-reviewed studies. I am unaware of a single peer-reviewed study showing otherwise, but if you know of one, please provide us with a link to it.
BrianSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 07:03 AM   #94
Senior Member
 
BrianSmith's Avatar
 
City: Wherever Smartini is
Vessel Name: Smartini
Vessel Model: 2002 Kristen 52' Flybridge Trawler
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsfish View Post
How do we know what is fact and truth? It seems that we can find books, professional studies, and papers to support any view. Recently I read that a paper supporting global warming was found to have mathematical errors on page one, all of a sudden another theory goes up in smoke. So what to believe?
Scientists developed the concept of peer review a long time ago. In order for a scientific study to have any validity, it must be peer reviewed, and stand up to that scrutiny. If it does, that generally means it's a good study, with good methods, valid assumptions, appropriate sample sizes, etc., etc., etc. If a study hasn't been through peer review, it's just someone's opinion. (Like the one "study" that showed vaccinations caused autism. The guy later admitted he simply made up the data. That wouldn't have lasted five minutes under peer review.)
BrianSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 07:59 AM   #95
Enigma
 
RT Firefly's Avatar
 
City: Slicker?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,565
Greetings,







Like everything else, the body of scientific "knowledge" is evolving. Since day 1, man has been attempting to explain and understand. In spite of what may or may NOT be current scientific "fact", so much is unknown that a great deal of what is accepted as "fact" is still only a best guess. A fairly well documented guess but a guess, all the same, IMO. So far, "close enough" has worked in sufficient cases to the point where we are, where we are, today.




While studies, papers and reports stating cause and effect may be in question, the empirical data is there for all to see.
As mentioned, the Chesapeake is in pretty bad shape. Weather patterns appear to be shifting and as the OP posted, species are being lost.
__________________
RTF
RT Firefly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 08:46 AM   #96
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48 (sold)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSmith View Post
No, this is an opinion.



And every peer reviewed scientific study of our atmosphere shows a very clear direct relation between the recent rise in global temperatures and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You're talking about natural rising and falling of global climate that has happened over cycles lasting tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of years. The increases we've experienced over the past 100 years are unlike any that have been discovered in the earth's history, and to deny that human-produced CO2 is a major cause is simply absurd. I don't mean to be disrespectful, sir, but I'm confident that your sources of data are not valid - not peer-reviewed studies. I am unaware of a single peer-reviewed study showing otherwise, but if you know of one, please provide us with a link to it.
And herein lies an interesting problem Brian, claimers rise to their well entrenched positions very quickly for the strangest of reasons. Nowhere did I say that man is or is not causing a rise in CO2 atmospheric levels. In fact I noted dirty man caused air in several places. My geologic world 101 ice age short note provoked the typical alarmist response. I might as well have been talking about the snail darter and someone would have raised a stink.

Or maybe it was a comment about chasing grants and funds? Nothing the matter with that, a man's gotta eat.

So Brian, is there a peer reviewed study about the perils of an exploding world population? Yes there are. But many peer reviewed contrary studies saying more people are OK if certain (unattainable) assumptions are used. BTW, where did the Aral Sea go and why? So many issues.
sunchaser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 09:24 AM   #97
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by AusCan View Post
Debunked by who?

That is still the number that NASA are quoting. But you can’t believe them. Unless you believe that hoax about putting a man on the moon.
Ah, well thank you for not associating a reality you disagree with to not believing in the holocaust. Just not believing we landed on the moon.

Regarding who debunked this bit of data fiddling by climate alarmists, Legates, et al, published a peer reviewed paper in Science and Education that used the commonly held falsehood you base your opinion on as a good example of "Agnotology", which is the study of culturally induced ignorance to shape opinions among people who don't have good information otherwise. In this case, the bit of misinformation used to shape opinions is

"that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus (on human induced global warming) exists".

Simply looking at the data in the "study" that first floated this nonsense, the proposition that most warming of the planet since 1950 was caused by humans was in fact, only believed by 64 of 11,944 papers, or .3% of respondents. Pro tip" .3% is not the same as 97%.

https://link.springer.com/article/10...191-013-9647-9

Now, if the question is not whether humans are mostly responsible for impacts on climate, as the 97% consensus falsely asserts, but whether humans have an impact, then you would likely have nearly 100% agreement - the so called Butterfly Effect. Now ask the same group whether a warmer climate is bad or not, and you'd get another answer. Then ask whether there is anything we could do to impact current warming short of killing 3/4 of the people on the planet and going back to the culture of the 1500's and you would get another answer.

As I said, the idea that "scientific consensus" is a meaningful concept as applied to any topic is dubious, but in the case of AGW, it's a complete fraud.
__________________
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handey
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 09:42 AM   #98
Enigma
 
RT Firefly's Avatar
 
City: Slicker?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,565
Greetings,
Mr. s. "...where did the Aral Sea go and why?" To irrigate the cotton fields in Uzbekistan evidently. That old pair of BVD's at the back of your drawer? Yup, could be.



97 posts so far and as yet, NO mention of anchors. Tread softly gentlemen.


__________________
RTF
RT Firefly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 09:52 AM   #99
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianSmith View Post

And every peer reviewed scientific study of our atmosphere shows a very clear direct relation between the recent rise in global temperatures and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Sorry Brian, but this is an example of scientific reasoning at its worst, by implying you know which is the cause and which is the effect. Correlations are never assumed to imply causation, and that is what you are referring to. Is increased CO2 a cause of atmospheric warming, or is it an effect? Those who believe that it is a cause do so on the basis of computer models that are not based on observational data, but on programmatic inputs. The most important of which is the value for "climate sensitivity", which the IPCC says is how much warming you'll get in response to an increase in atmospheric CO2. In other words, the conclusion that warming is caused by CO2 is assumed, so is it surprising that models conclude it is a fact. A bit like my assuming you like asparagus, then asserting that there is a scientific consensus that you like asparagus.

Don't get me wrong - I certainly believe that if you increase CO2 it will have an effect on climate. How much of an effect, and whether that effect is good or bad, or even realistically preventable if bad is completely unknown.

Without getting into the weeds too much, if you refer to any IPCC report in the section on water vapor you'll find a pretty remarkable assumption that is key to the all important climate sensitivity value input to their computer ensembles. That assumption is that water vapor is uniform throughout the atmosphere. The reason they make this assumption is because we don't have the computing power to model water vapor at the thermosphere, upper troposphere, lower troposphere, etc. with sufficient granularity to determine what effect increased water vapor might have. It appears that the oceans are warming, so more water vapor should be formed from evaporation, as well as CO2 being outgassed. Is that CO2 increase the cause or an effect? Sure looks like an effect, doesn't it? When wind blows over a moist surface you get cooling. When cloud cover increases you get temperature moderation. What is the effect of all of this on a global scale? No one knows, so we should by all means continue to study the question, but spending trillions$ on making energy more expensive and thereby killing some number of poor people or shortening their lives on the basis we know the answer seems pretty irresponsible to me.
__________________
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handey
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 11:20 AM   #100
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48 (sold)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,186
[QUOTE=RT Firefly;715946]Greetings,
Mr. s. "...where did the Aral Sea go and why?" To irrigate the cotton fields in Uzbekistan evidently. That old pair of BVD's at the back of your drawer? Yup, could be. /QUOTE]

Now for the rest of the story.

Yes indeed, the Aral Sea was used to irrigate cotton crops. Until a century or so ago it was a flourishing fishing sea albeit shallow. As the shoreline quickly receded due to irrigation, the fishing went bust but not the dust storms caused by the exposure of the drying lake bed sediments .

These dust storms blew to the east, head waters for the Aral Sea, with some regularity. The headwaters to the east are in the Tien Shen mountain range in Kyrgyzstan. This range was covered with snow fields and glaciers. The Aral Sea dust landed on white coverings and began heating up the snow and ice and increased runoff.

The Russians loved it, more water for cotton for its masses and world sales. But then, the water flow was not sustainable and the Aral Sea virtually disappeared.

My points are two fold. First, the rapidly increasing world population loved the very cheap cotton. Damn the after effects. Secondly there is another elephant in the closet with similar issues. Imperial (an accident) Lake in California which now irrigates hundreds of thousands of acres in CA for feeding the ever increasing CA population. Dare I mention 3 Gorges in China?

So RT, water diversions for ever increasing world populations are blithely ignored by all governments as they pursue the one thing we need ever more of, clean water. With after effects galore. Now, why do we need more fresh water?
sunchaser is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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


» Trawler Port Captains
Port Captains are TF volunteers who can serve as local guides or assist with local arrangements and information. Search below to locate Port Captains near your destination. To learn more about this program read here: TF Port Captain Program





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012