Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

But in your case, it was data that was outdated.

So you're telling me that not one of the randomly sampled has changed their opinion for or against, or brought the farm in the last 14 years? Have you got the peer reviewed data to support this?

p.s. 'fess up. Who's telling the porkies?

Originally Posted by jackdale

My standard response to the Oregon Petition:

<snip>

Just 39 of the signatories claim to have any expertise in climate science.

Originally Posted by sneuman

Regarding the Oregon petition:

(Wikipedia)
In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

<snip>

"

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So you're telling me that not one of the randomly sampled has changed their opinion for or against, or brought the farm in the last 14 years? Have you got the peer reviewed data to support this?

p.s. 'fess up. Who's telling the porkies?

Changed their minds? Maybe. Changed fields? Doubtful. Come back to life? Also doubtful. Suddenly remembered they'd signed that petition? Hardly.

The petition has been long discredited and it does no credit to you to cite it.

Have a look for yourself: http://www.oism.org/. Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the folks who put out the petition, is a P.O. Box in cave Junction, Ore. Here's a photo of the headquarters:

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by sneuman

I hope you think you're being funny.

Honey, I live on a boat, I'm oddly not worried if the ocean rises 5 feet tomorrow. It will annoy a whole lot of other folks for sure, but me not so much.

I'm still on the fence on the whole AGW thingy. The models for the most part don't model all the variables involved in weather and the IPCC is far more a political committee trying to find ways to get the first world to pay more to the 2nd and 3rd world.

BTW, I'm not saying it's not getting warmer, no "denier" thinks that. but the rate of change is not excessive, why it's just about normal from an epoch standpoint. The earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past. As the climate in the 1400-1800's was overall cooler then average, I don't think that the temperature rise or rate of rise is excessive. The earth is not static.

Yes CO2 does plan a part in warming, but it is not the only player by far in the greenhouse gad issue. Plain old water vapor oddly plays a bigger part. Oddly that was left out of some models

No one is going to sway the other side.

But while I am a "denier" I also use solar to power my laptop and wifi thingy, and lights and fridge. I was a bicycle commuter in the 70's-90's. My carbon footprint is tiny compared to the average USA home owner. So even being a denier, I have reduced my carbon footprint, lots for a rather long time too.

What have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Honey, I live on a boat, I'm oddly not worried if the ocean rises 5 feet tomorrow. It will annoy a whole lot of other folks for sure, but me not so much.

I'm still on the fence on the whole AGW thingy. The models for the most part don't model all the variables involved in weather and the IPCC is far more a political committee trying to find ways to get the first world to pay more to the 2nd and 3rd world.

BTW, I'm not saying it's not getting warmer, no "denier" thinks that. but the rate of change is not excessive, why it's just about normal from an epoch standpoint. The earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past. As the climate in the 1400-1800's was overall cooler then average, I don't think that the temperature rise or rate of rise is excessive. The earth is not static.

Yes CO2 does plan a part in warming, but it is not the only player by far in the greenhouse gad issue. Plain old water vapor oddly plays a bigger part. Oddly that was left out of some models

No one is going to sway the other side.

But while I am a "denier" I also use solar to power my laptop and wifi thingy, and lights and fridge. I was a bicycle commuter in the 70's-90's. My carbon footprint is tiny compared to the average USA home owner. So even being a denier, I have reduced my carbon footprint, lots for a rather long time too.

What have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?

Honey, I live on a boat, too. Have for 8 years. And it has absolutely zero bearing on whether I am on the right or wrong side of this argument -- same goes for you.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

<snip>

The petition has been long discredited and it does no credit to you to cite it.

Have a look for yourself: Our Goal: Your Health and Longevity - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Home of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

<snip>

And lastly, what's your opinion of this:
Global Warming Petition Project

<snip>

I didn't "cite" anything. I asked for an opinion, which I've since received.


And nothing wrong with tin sheds. QANTAS started in a tin shed.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I didn't "cite" anything. I asked for an opinion, which I've since received.


And nothing wrong with tin sheds. QANTAS started in a tin shed.

Take a look at the site. Looks like it was designed by a five-year-old with ADHD.

Did you send them your urine sample?
Send for the CD on how to survive a nuclear war?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Take a look at the site. Looks like it was designed by a five-year-old with ADHD.

Lol, hence why I didn't "cite" it. Apparently old mate that runs that Oregon Institute has 31 domain names registered so he's probably spreading himself too thin to put a polish on them all. And the cad is a Republican to boot!

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Honey, I live on a boat, too. Have for 8 years. And it has absolutely zero bearing on whether I am on the right or wrong side of this argument -- same goes for you.

Hum, seems like the whole who's right and who's wrong depends on which side of the fence, one stands on. The science being settled, only applies if you on the warmist side. Much like a religion. Plunty of really smart science folks think AGW is just bad programing.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So you're telling me that not one of the randomly sampled has changed their opinion for or against, or brought the farm in the last 14 years? Have you got the peer reviewed data to support this?

p.s. 'fess up. Who's telling the porkies?

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

Global Warming Petition Project

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Hum, seems like the whole who's right and who's wrong depends on which side of the fence, one stands on. The science being settled, only applies if you on the warmist side. Much like a religion. Plunty of really smart science folks think AGW is just bad programing.

2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 5

Which side of the fence you stand on has nothing to do with being 'right'.

In the video below, at 16.40 you can see that most, if not all, oil companies are betting that the 'mainstream' scientists are right (or at least their accountants are betting that way). It's rather dry (the presenter is, after all, an accountant.... apologies to all you exciting accountants out there) but to watch the whole video is to get at least a little window into the thinking of a multi national corporation.

Yes, climate change is real. And yes, renewables are an indispensable part of the future energy mix," Ben van Beurden Royal Dutch Shell CEO 12 Feb 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrGJ...ailpage#t=1001

And in this video, at about 10:30, a spokesman for Munich RE, a reinsurance company (they're who insure the insurance companies) talks about how they're been aware and have been planning for climate change since 1973. Just another way of looking at the conspiracists oft quoted 'follow the money'. And by the way, the video itself is pretty entertaining, giving a relatively balanced view of localized sea level rise, including both sea level rise and land subsidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmW_EQzU_qI#t=596

And once again, if anyone wants to get an idea of what is meant by 'consensus' this is a good read:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

[sailorchic34]

Sorry I don't watch any video's, as the cost in bandwidth is too high.

You know I'm not saying climate does not change. It changes all the time, both short term and really long term, sometimes up and some times down. Yes there is a component to "Climate change that is driven by CO2. All the difference between warmest and "deniers" is the extent of warming that is anthropomorphic and which parts of warming is not.

Please don't tell me you think all warming in the last 175 years was from Anthropomorphic/ man made causes.

Believe it or not, I actually read lots on the subject, both pro and con. I am not for big oil, I don't even own a car and the koch brothers I think are just plain evil.

My question to all the warmests is what are you doing to reduce your carbon foot prints. Judging by the traffic jam on highway 37 today, it looks like the only thing people are doing, is complaining about deniers.

You want to really do something about it. put solar on your house/boat, or at the very least a solar hot water panel or two. Sell the SUV and get a small diesel car or, shudder, a prius. Heck you could even ride a bicycle or just plant a tree.

Otherwise, your just spitting into the wind.

Myself, I've done about all I can to conserve since the 70's. No I'm not worried about global warming. That, overfishing and population growth will self correct, sometime in the future. It will not be pretty when it does.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

2 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 5

Which side of the fence you stand on has nothing to do with being 'right'.

<snip>

And once again, if anyone wants to get an idea of what is meant by 'consensus' this is a good read:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

With all due respect your're confusing climate change with AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Plenty of "deniers" have no argument that CO2 has increased, and just as many have no argument that average global temperature has increased. The pitchforks come out because, regardless of what you read in the media and elsewhere the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and rising temperature is hypothesis. As surprising as it sounds not even the IPCC, and I repeat, not even the IPCC with all the money, time and resources they've invested in collating research claim that climate change is absolutely caused by human activities. Ok, their confidence is high (95% man being the "main" culprit, from the latest report with a six degrees celcius rise-esque "best estimate" of 100% whatever that's supposed to mean) but not only can the IPCC not say with absolute certainty that man did it, they equally can not declare with absolute certainty that atmospheric C02 is responsible for measured warming. It's guilt by association. Is it any wonder that this is such a debated topic?

I'm happy enough to enter the lion's den and provide links for those wanting more information.

Global warming: why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

If you follow the link above, note the headline on top of the stock AGW photo of a factory spewing what is probably mostly steam into the atmosphere with sunset background? Yet another case of a "what if" quoted as fact. With regard to the photo, the irony is that factory could very well be producing the chemicals used in making the capacitors destined to go into your next iPhone whilst keeping the families of 100's of workers fed.

IPCC Working Group I

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

Horsepucky. That's the middle of the melt. Antarctic sea ice extent in late December is around 9 million square kilometers. It continues to decline to around half of that by late February.

Stu, your pretty graph is irrelevant to why the ship got stuck. I was not in any way referring to any argument here or else where about ice thickness anywhere.

I was simply referring to this particular ship getting stuck. The 'weather' change significantly and instead of leaving they stayed put. They got stuck and needed rescueing. Normally at this time if the year that wouldn't happen so early, but this time it DID and they got stuck. No pretty graph changes that fact. Unless you know of some other reason they got stuck.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Lol, hence why I didn't "cite" it. Apparently old mate that runs that Oregon Institute has 31 domain names registered so he's probably spreading himself too thin to put a polish on them all. And the cad is a Republican to boot!

Why are you putting "cite" in quotes?

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Myself, I look forward to anchoring in new and exciting places as the seas rise.

Would that big red bridge make a good pontoon