Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Try to provide some.

Are you crazy?
I don't have to my friend, see it is YOU that are proposing to change MY way of life, so the burden is you YOU to win the argument (and win the Vote). I get to sit back, relax and watch the Cultists panic when their predictions of doom and gloom don't come true and they lose credibility, all the while inventing new "consensus" to explain away why their models were so wrong. See I already live off the grid with wind and solar and I realize that most people won't make the sacrifices the Cultists say they have to make to change their lifestyle....so it's a losing game you are playing. Even if you are right...it doesn't matter because people won't do what is needed. If you are wrong the economy spends trillions of dollars it doesn't have for nothing. So you lose and I win either way.

It's kind of fun actually....

Boom...page 105.
I just won $5

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I don't have to my friend, see it is YOU that are proposing to change MY way of life, so the burden is you YOU to win the argument (and win the Vote).

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yet the MMGW Cultists can't win the Argument where it matters...ha ha ha...man that must mean you guys are pretty incompetent where it matters....ahem....the ballot Box. Game over....the Deniers WIN.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Yet the MMGW Cultists can't win the Argument where it matters...ha ha ha...man that must mean you guys are pretty incompetent where it matters....ahem....the ballot Box. Game over....the Deniers WIN.

“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

H.L. Mencken

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

H.L. Mencken

Which is a nice way to explain away the MMGW Cultists failures....that's it...name call the American people and voters. oh...that will win the argument all right, call the people too stupid to understand, so lets let the elit run the show. Sorry Amigo...that's not how a Representative Democracy works...us ignorant folks get to vote to keep you smart folks from screwing things up. You know like the Population bomb Paul Urlick was pushing on the First Earth Commie Day back in the '70s

See what you Cultists hate about me...is that I call you out on it and have a Tit for every one of your tats. Sorry....game over.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Milankovitch cycles would have us in a cooling phase.

I so hope we are not though I admit I have some concern that may be a possibility. Though I expect we will have the answer within 5 -10 years or so.

I thought engineering was applied science. I guess you think otherwise.

You guess wrong. I don't need to justify myself or my personal stance on AGW. Much of science is open to revisions as time moves forward. Climate science seems to have a bit too much that is assumption and far less that is hard science. Peer review means so much less nowadays, when the same peers approve papers for each other. Sort of like congress approving their own pay increase. AGW has taken on the zeal of a religion, where non-believers are to be stoned and ridiculed.

Myself, I am an engineer and a autodidact. I look at things from different points of view. sometimes very different views from non engineers. I never accept a statement as fact, until I can personally justify it. That's part of being and engineer. To date I can say that MM Co2 does impact climate. Is it the only driver or the main driver, I remain unsure of. Climate is amazingly complex and so far much that is used to support AGW seems rather inconclusive to me. So I remain a skeptic.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What the IPCC really said
" Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST"
AR5 - page 769

We've already been here, but there's no shortage of doctored, err homogonized, data out there to peruse.

Here's yet another example:

Temperature adjustments in Australia | Climate Etc.

and some more

Breaking: New Climate Data Rigging Scandal Rocks US Government | Principia Scientific Intl

and some more

Homogenisation of Williamtown temperatures, draws attention to hot Newcastle in 1878 - Jennifer Marohasy

and some more

Forget Climategate: this 'global warming' scandal is much bigger - Breitbart

and yet more

C3: Fabricating Fake Temperatures - Charts Documenting Adjustments & Manipulations



And no doubt why every man and his dog knows heating has basically slowed to a crawl except alarmists and the IPCC. At least the IPCC has an excuse. Their trying to keep themselves and a teat sucking multi billion dollar climate "industry" afloat.

Some US expense numbers:

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43227.pdf

What the IPCC is all about for those that don't already know.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principl...principles.pdf

Extract from above:

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Hands up those that think it's no surprise that they'll do everything in their grasp to keep the concept of AGW alive and kicking?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

To date I can say that MM Co2 does impact climate. Is it the only driver or the main driver, I remain unsure of.

Is anyone saying it's the only driver? Don't think so. Sensitivity seems the only real area of discussion within the science. Not if, how much. At the moment there also doesn't seem to be any other smoking gun to suggest why the temperatures (and migration timings, glacier melt, species distribution etc) is changing so rapidly.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Religion....you are trying to tell a member of ISIS that Allah isn't god...once you understand who you are dealing with, you realize they are not dealing with logic, but with faith...

It appears that Godwin's Law (or Reductio ad Hitlerum) has evolved to include gratuitous & irrelevant comparisons to ISIS.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

...

and some more

Forget Climategate: this 'global warming' scandal is much bigger - Breitbart

...

Hands up those that think it's no surprise that they'll do everything in their grasp to keep the concept of AGW alive and kicking?

Truth and Breitbart are mutually exclusive. The fact that you'd cite it confirms our suspicion that you'll pluck any vaguely plausible stuff from about anywhere, even though it ultimately rots in the sunlight.

And this IPCC conspiracy stuff...

You're either a consummate troll of 3rd-Day persistence, or you truly believe all that crap, even though it's an inconsistent mess of things that just don't hang together.

Originally Posted by GordMay

It appears that Godwin's Law (or Reductio ad Hitlerum) has evolved to include gratuitous & irrelevant comparisons to ISIS.

I have not completely figured out this 3rd Day guy. The trolling part yes, but I don't know if he's as anti-science as he seems, or whether it's just that greenies and 'liberals' annoy him so much that he'll say anything to try for a reaction.

I tell you this - if retiring relatively young makes someone that bitter and self-centered, maybe I'll keep working a bit longer.

...

Saw a great show on the Hubble telescope last night. One thing that was made pretty clear - the defense contractor that made the main mirror screwed up, and there was even evidence that the contractor knew it had screwed up before the mirror was delivered.

Of course, what were the headlines at the time? NASA are idiots, basically. "$1.5b boondoggle". Nice.

Science is hard, people. It gets harder when people line up to sh!t on it when the public or powerful interests don't like the results.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Myself, I am an engineer and a autodidact. I look at things from different points of view. sometimes very different views from non engineers. I never accept a statement as fact, until I can personally justify it. That's part of being and engineer. To date I can say that MM Co2 does impact climate. Is it the only driver or the main driver, I remain unsure of. Climate is amazingly complex and so far much that is used to support AGW seems rather inconclusive to me. So I remain a skeptic.

Some reading for you

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes » Climate Change at the National Academies

Skepticism is good, I am also a skeptic. Denial is a whole different story.

[jackdale]

New study on water vapour and clouds

Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth - Trenberth - 2015 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian

[conachair]

Originally Posted by jackdale

New study on water vapour and clouds

Climate variability and relationships between top-of-atmosphere radiation and temperatures on Earth - Trenberth - 2015 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online Library

Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian

Beat me to it

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Even if you are right...it doesn't matter because people won't do what is needed. If you are wrong the economy spends trillions of dollars it doesn't have for nothing.

Climate chance aside what bothers me more how we burn in to the air perfectly good raw material for epoxies and such.. Wonder what the price of the goo would be then but certainly a lot less than today.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some reading for you

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

AH I like this. I do not disagree with the measurements taken. I have several takeaways from the above.

1. During the 1990s, further ice core measurements indicated that at the end of the last glacial period, the initial rise of temperature in Antarctica had preceded CO2 changes by several centuries. Some scientists doubted that dates could be measured so precisely, but as as better cores were extracted the data increasingly pointed to a time lag.

I oddly believe that Co2 follows temperature increase as was measured above. Ok you'll point out that co2 has risen to over 400 ppm while temperatures are lagging. Yes, that is true, but the initial warming was due to temperature rising which releases co2 from the oceans and arctic.

2. The new ice cores suggested that a powerful feedback amplified the changes in sunlight. The crucial fact was that a slight warming would cause the level of greenhouse gases to rise slightly. For one thing, warmer oceans would evaporate out more gas. For another, as the vast Arctic tundras warmed up, the bogs would emit more CO2 (and another greenhouse gas, methane, also measured in the ice with a lag behind temperature). The greenhouse effect of these gases would raise the temperature a little more, which would cause more emission of gases, which would... and so forth, hauling the planet step by step into a warm period. Many thousands of years later, the process would reverse when the sunlight falling in key latitudes weakened. Bogs and oceans would absorb greenhouse gases, ice would build up, and the planet would slide back into an ice age. This finally explained how tiny shifts in the Earth's orbit could set the timing of the enormous swings of glacial cycles.

The finding here is that Co2 follows temperature in a feedback loop. This in my mind, simple though it is, would partly explain why the arctic and antarctic are warming faster then populated area, as CO2 is released that has been frozen for many 1000's of years. If man made Co2 was causing warming, I might expect the temperatures over north America and Europe to rise slightly faster then the arctic. But that's not how it's working out. Of course there may be wind shears that explain the faster rise in arctic temperatures.

3. Eventually geochemists and their allies managed to get numbers for the "climate sensitivity" in past eras, that is, the response of temperature to a rise in the CO2 level. Over hundreds of millions of years, a doubled level of the gas had always gone along with a temperature rise of three degrees, give or take a degree or two. That was in startling agreement with the range of numbers coming from many computer studies. Evidently the computer modelers had not missed something huge.

So co2 has risen as high or higher then it is now in the distant past and none of it was AGW.

In any event, I don't see the worlds governments doing enough to make a measurable reduction in co2, so for all practical purposes we are talking about how many angels fit on a pin head. Myself, I've already reduced my carbon foot print to less then a 1/4 of average. Gee I was riding a bicycle to work way back in the 70's. So if man IS the driver for global warming, I'm already doing my part.