Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So gravitational lensing is based on theory alone?

Correct. Everything we do based on science is based on theory. Some have so much evidence for them that we come to regard them as fact, or indistinguishable from fact.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Correct.

Good thing that theory holds water, unlike some others then.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Correct. Everything we do based on science is based on theory. Some have so much evidence for them that we come to regard them as fact, or indistinguishable from fact.

I've mentioned previously that the theory of evolution should see us through the theory of AGW if worst case scenarios are realised.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I can prove gravity typing this.

Nobody can... What you can do is an observation of objects influencing each other in space, but you can't prove it when you don't know what it really is..

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Good thing that theory holds water, unlike some others then.

AGW has mountains of supporting evidence, and more every day.
You can't make it go away by pretending that it isn't happening, and that all the world's climate scientists are part of a huge world-wide corrupt conspiracy theory.

[sobraon]

Tenson.

I am certainly not desperate as you have suggested to quote Tol. In fact his statements further enhance the criticism of John Cook's paper re. 97%
After all was one of your faith.

You obviously want to now distance him from your side of the argument as he isn't sticking to the script.

Some more of Tol's words of wisdom.


He said in March 2014 that he had withdrawn from the writing team of the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC report, citing disagreement with the profile of the report which he considered too alarmist and putting too little emphasis on opportunities to adapt to climate changes.

On May 20, 2014, Tol also wrote that "the IPCC is alarmist because it favors initial scientific papers published on an issue, rather than the follow-up papers, which, he says, tend to "pooh-pooh the initial drama."

So far as the question regarding Carbon Tax, I asked it only to establish your acceptance of the faith. It has as much to do with Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways as anything else written previous.

Garry
Home Page - www.sobraon.com

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by sobraon

Tenson.
...

Originally Posted by Tol, R., Quantifying the global consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis, 2014

There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct

Your self-portrait was spot-on, BTW

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Tensen

A good example of a statement that doesn't actually mean anything. Make a point.

There are actually two points concerning The first is clarified by Marcott, the primary author of the paper that the graph is based on, who publicly stated:

'Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

So the authors of the paper themselves have disowned the uptick in the underlying graph.


The second point is the overlaying of an annual temperature plot at the end of the long duration statistically averaged prior data.

Take that fine resolution data with its dips and peak and statistically average it over the same duration as the "inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure" and those dips and peaks will disappear completely, including the very short duration spike at the end. There may well have been similar dips and spikes in the past, but the paper's smoothing totally erases them if they exist.

In summary, you cannot say anything based on that chart about whether recent warming is or is not unusual.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Post links directly to the original data.

So you don't believe the data?

The 1981 Hansen data direct from NASA:
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

The 2001 data from the Wayback machine archive of the NASA site:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20010...raphs/FigA.txt

The 2014 data direct form the NASA site:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.txt

Please do give us your alternate version of the same graph using this original data.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by sneuman

You can lead a horse to water ... see anything?

Yep, a possible sine wave with a flat top for nearly 20 years. Certainly not an increasing rate of warming and nothing to indicate that there is a threat.

Personally, I'd like to see a degree or so more warmth in most of the temperate zone. Every time I leave the fruitful, lush tropical environment I can't wait to get back to it.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Nobody can... What you can do is an observation of objects influencing each other in space, but you can't prove it when you don't know what it really is..

I declare that force to be
.
.
.
.
.
.
Reefmagnetism ;-)

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

AGW has mountains of supporting evidence, and more every day.
You can't make it go away by pretending that it isn't happening, and that all the world's climate scientists are part of a huge world-wide corrupt conspiracy theory.

Deja vu

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by StuM

There are actually two points concerning The first is clarified...

The point remains unstated.

The second point is the overlaying of an annual temperature plot at the end of the long duration statistically averaged prior data.

That is not a point! What are you asserting?

If you won't actually state your points I can't respond to them.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

No, that isn't proof. It's more evidence that supports the theory.

Climate change also has large quantities of evidence that supports it, and the evidence is growing rapidly.

Not as much as gravity, relativity, evolution or basically everything except AGW, apparently.

Is AGW = climate change? I believe either is possible I just don't believe that it's doom and gloom. Does that make me a bona fide denier?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Nobody can... What you can do is an observation of objects influencing each other in space, but you can't prove it when you don't know what it really is..

It seems easier to demonstrate then co2 forcing atmospheric temps at 0.04% concentrations.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app