Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Never learned how to footnote?

No, only bignote

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You seem to have your finger on the pulse. Can you post graphs with natural variability nulled?

Certainly.

From IPCC:

Models are only correct (bottom graph) when both natural AND man made influences are included.

[sobraon]

Tensen

You are trying to cloud Richard Tol's credentials. He is a is a Professor of economics at the University of Sussex. He is also professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the University of Amsterdam. He was also a co ordinating lead author of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

The fact that you are also trying to cherry pick. I quoted him because he is one of your AGW believers.

What he stated was

"A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested."

Considering you are in favour of taxing our way out of the myth. Would you like to guess at the difference Australia's Carbon tax would have made to the worlds temperature had the models been correct. Less than .001 degree. Hummmm!!! I wonder what else could be done with those billions.

Facts are inconvenient to the truth.


Garry
www.sobraon.com

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So just to confirm, the IPCC aren't certain?

Didn't I say that like 500 posts back?

Science isn't certain about anything. One of the reasons why it's such an incredibly successful system of inquiry.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Completely incorrect. There are mountains of evidence from climate scientists all over the world.

m'kay

That's because they know much, much more about it than you do. They spend their entire lives earning money from it.

fixed!

That's because for scientists it isn't an evangelical matter. It's simply a matter of finding out what is fact, and publishing it. That is goal enough.

...and making a living out of it. Enough to afford this year's Jeep.

Do you know what the top selling car is in the US, and the world, and Australia, and probably a huge number of other countries? The Toyota Camry.

We're saved. • International car sales 1990-2015 | Forecast

Knock yourself out. Here's the evidence mountain peak:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and..._reports.shtml


You can't be serious.
Here, the effects we're already seeing, in a few peer reviewed papers:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1641/0006-3568%282001%29051%5B0723:CCAFD%5D2.0.CO;2
Climate Extremes: Observations, Modeling, and Impacts
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282000%29081%3C0437%3AHFETIL%3E2.3.CO%3B2
Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis
Agrometeorological adaptation strategies to increasing climate variability and climate change

Climate change can affect forests by altering the frequency, intensity, duration, and timing of fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides

bullocks

One of the major concerns with a potential change in climate is that an increase in extreme events will occur. Results of observational studies suggest that in many areas that have been analyzed, changes in total precipitation are amplified at the tails, and changes in some temperature extremes have been observed. Model output has been analyzed that shows changes in extreme events for future climates, such as increases in extreme high temperatures, decreases in extreme low temperatures, and increases in intense precipitation events. In addition, the societal infrastructure is becoming more sensitive to weather and climate extremes, which would be exacerbated by climate change. In wild plants and animals, climate-induced extinctions, distributional and phenological changes, and species' range shifts are being documented at an increasing rate. Several apparently gradual biological changes are linked to responses to extreme weather and climate events.

bullocks

Societal impacts from weather and climate extremes, and trends in those impacts, are a function of both climate and society. United States losses resulting from weather extremes have grown steadily with time. Insured property losses have trebled since 1960, but deaths from extremes have not grown except for those due to floods and heat waves. Data on losses are difficult to find and must be carefully adjusted before meaningful assessments can be made. Adjustments to historical loss data assembled since the late 1940s shows that most of the upward trends found in financial losses are due to societal shifts leading to ever—growing vulnerability to weather and climate extremes. Geographical locations of the large loss trends establish that population growth and demographic shifts are the major factors behind the increasing losses from weather—climate extremes. Most weather and climate extremes in the United States do not exhibit steady, multidecadal increases found in their loss values. Without major changes in societal responses to weather and climate extremes, it is reasonable to predict ever—increasing losses even without any detrimental climate changes. Recognition of these trends in societal vulnerability to weather—climate extremes suggests that the present focus on mitigating the greenhouse effect should be complemented by a greater emphasis on adaptation. Identifying and understanding this societal vulnerability has great importance for understanding the nation's economy, in guiding governmental policies, and for planning for future mitigative activities including ways for society to adapt to possible effects of a changing climate.

bullocks.

3 strikes and Yerrrrrrr OUT.

And polar bear numbers are still dropping, FYI.

"Perhaps" in the future, mebbee...
Are Polar Bears Really Endangered? | polarbearscience

Also depends on what you prefer to read too I guess...
The truth about polar bears - Canadian Geographic
Global population of polar bears has increased by 2,650-5,700 since 2001 | polarbearscience

No it doesn't. It comes from peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject. Links to them have been provided on approximately pages 58 to 60 of this thread
.
97% will be discussed in this thread for as long as you and your friends keep denying it.

I haven't researched this but boy, where's there's smoke there's usually fire to be found.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by sobraon

Tensen

You are trying to cloud Richard Tol's credentials. He is a is a Professor of economics at the University of Sussex. He is also professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the University of Amsterdam. He was also a co ordinating lead author of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

The fact that you are also trying to cherry pick. I quoted him because he is one of your AGW believers.

What he stated was

"A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested."

You must really be desperate to be quoting an economist re. the climate
For as long as you wish to bring Tol up, I will reply with this quote from him, from October 2014:

Originally Posted by Richard Tol, October 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

Feel free to have me repeat that as many times as you like!

Considering you are in favour of taxing our way out of the myth. Would you like to guess at the difference Australia's Carbon tax would have made to the worlds temperature had the models been correct. Less than .001 degree. Hummmm!!! I wonder what else could be done with those billions.

Which in no way has even the remotest support for your argument that climate change isn't real. I honestly have no idea why you bothered bringing it up.

[Eumelia]

When a scientist adopts an agenda, their "science" can no longer be trusted.

Sent from my LG-D415 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

Science isn't certain about anything. One of the reasons why it's such an incredibly successful system of inquiry.

Congratulations. We agree. The problem is that "we" don't want our lifestyles and economic and financial systems destroyed based on "uncertain" science.

Because if catastrophic AGW is fact - lock it away Eddie - then returning to the stone age is the only option left.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

m'kay

I'm not going to quote, directly address, nor even read text that has huge font in it. Repost in normal size and I'll reply directly.

I'll leave you with this to chew on. Nothing is a certainty. Even gravity is theory. That doesn't mean we can't identify what is real and what isn't.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

I'm not going to quote or even directly address text that has huge font in it. Repost in normal size and I'll reply directly.

I'll leave you with this to chew on. Nothing is a certainty. Even gravity is theory. That doesn't mean we can't identify what is real and what isn't.

I can prove gravity typing this. I can assure you it exists. The nuances may be in dispute, but gravity isn't.

PS read my post on a tablet, phablet or phone and problem is solved.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Eumelia

When a scientist adopts an agenda, ....

.... if it means they publish work which doesn't stand up to scrutiny then there's a very good chance they'll get caught and have their careers tarnished for life.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I can prove gravity typing this. I can assure you it exists. The nuances may be in dispute, but gravity isn't.

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.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I can prove gravity typing this. I can assure you it exists. The nuances may be in dispute, but gravity isn't.

Quantum mechanics can come up with predictions with extraordinary accuracy as well. Like exactly the wavelengths and amount of IR radiation which CO2 stops leaving the earth , add to that the basic feedback mechanisms with water vapour and you have the bedrock of the physics behind climate change. There is no real argument at that level, it's further up the chain where it gets difficult. How will the planet react to this increase in energy.

[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.

So gravitational lensing is based on theory alone? Ok.

The division on AGW suggests otherwise, as does the lack of 4 cylinder Cadillacs and of course the 4 cylinder Falcon for us Aussies.

Btw the Corolla is the top seller, not the Camry.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

Quantum mechanics can come up with predictions with extraordinary accuracy as well. Like exactly the wavelengths and amount of IR radiation which CO2 stops leaving the earth , add to that the basic feedback mechanisms with water vapour and you have the bedrock of the physics behind climate change. There is no real argument at that level, it's further up the chain where it gets difficult. How will the planet react to this increase in energy.

Where's the hot spot in the troposphere hiding then?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app