Ocean acidifcation .

[Hardhead]

I generally go with the scientists. They're intelligent, have advanced research training in their subject matter, and employ the well established peer review process. Whatever the vast majority of credentialed scientists conclude, I go with. It's the most logical course of action.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong.

As the saying goes, “science doesn’t care what you think”

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

As the saying goes, “science doesn’t care what you think”

That is correct; try reading some science.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

No, the positive actions of a handful of people are insufficient to solve the problem. For any real success there has to be intergovernmental cooperation. And in democratic countries like ours, that means that the populace has to be onboard -- or at least tolerant of what their governments decide to do. Hence the need to keep arguing about this topic, year after year.

And you might be interested to know that at least a few authoritarian governments appear to be making unexpected progress. It makes the US's infatuation with Trump all the more embarrassing.

China is on track to meet its climate change goals nine years early

didn't they recently get in trouble for under reporting their carbon emissions by something in the neighborhood of a factor of 10.

I'm really going to believe the writings coming from a totalitarian run government propaganda machine .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong.

proof from a non biased source please

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

proof from a non biased source please

Why? You do not do so.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Hardhead

I generally go with the scientists. They're intelligent, have advanced research training in their subject matter, and employ the well established peer review process. Whatever the vast majority of credentialed scientists conclude, I go with. It's the most logical course of action.

when it comes to anything g to do with agw proof the peer review process is poor at best and downright fraudulent at worst.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

when it comes to anything g to do with agw proof the peer review process is poor at best and downright fraudulent at worst.

proof from a non biased source please

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is correct; try reading some science.

Really?
Nothwithstanding the tacit personal attack, before retirement, I was a climate scientist. Perhaps we'd be more productive discussing your expertise discriminating between objective science and biased data manipulation. As we see, there is lots of the latter being perpetuated here by some.



Parenthetically, personal insults are typically an indicator of a weak argument

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Really?
Nothwithstanding the tacit personal attack, before retirement, I was a climate scientist. Perhaps we'd be more productive discussing your expertise discriminating between objective science and biased data manipulation. As we see, there is lots of the latter being perpetuated here by some.



Parenthetically, personal insults are typically an indicator of a weak argument

OK - point me to your "science".

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why? You do not do so.

Roy Spencer, PhD

About as unbiased as it gets wrt global satellite temperature data .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Perhaps we'd be more productive discussing your expertise discriminating between objective science and biased data manipulation.

As a climate scientist, I would assume you have read these. Any comments?

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/u...perature-data/

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/b...perature-data/

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/u...ervation-bias/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Roy Spencer, PhD

About as unbiased as it gets wrt global satellite temperature data .

I agree about the data.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade.

There is a warming trend.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Another set of Fort Dension data.



https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/65.php

1914 looks a lot like a cherry pick. The data base goes back further than 1914.

Fitzhenry's letter: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/...sea-levels.pdf

Looks to me like the time period between 1910 & 1920 has many opportunities for cherry picking for both sides of the debate. Hard to pin down 1914, but maybe your other (170 year) dataset would help. We also don't know why 1914 was chosen as a start date. So as of yet we're dealing with some speculation, not facts.

Fitzhenry's letter not only claims sea level rise is bogus, but also claims surges and other well-documented events resulting from severe storms cause beach erosion, property damage, and loss of life. In other words, it's not due to purported sea level rise which your own graphs show has been merely incremental over the past 170 years.

You have anything else which credibly challenges the 100-year dataset or Fitzhenry's conclusions? As you know, merely comparing datasets with start dates that vary by 70 years doesn't prove anything, at least not without some interpretation and analysis. It might all be there, but you haven't demonstrated it yet. For all we know thus far, the two datasets from Ft. Denison may be completely in accord. Simply citing charts & graphs with cryptic or no analysis is merely proof by insinuation, implication, and oftentimes speculation.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Really?
Nothwithstanding the tacit personal attack, before retirement, I was a climate scientist. Perhaps we'd be more productive discussing your expertise discriminating between objective science and biased data manipulation. As we see, there is lots of the latter being perpetuated here by some.

Parenthetically, personal insults are typically an indicator of a weak argument

Interesting. It seems that the discipline has made rapid progress since you retired. Perhaps correlation is related to causation. You wouldn't mind sharing your CV with us, would you?