Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Global warming has slowed but our climate models are WRONG | Daily Mail Online

Well well well......

I've been laughing at the climate models for years.
I love it when the MMGW Cultists have to panic on a Friday and it ruins their whole weekend.

Thanks for that

'Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.'
Under the IPCC's middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.
'That matches up well with what we're seeing.'


Read more: Global warming has slowed but our climate models are WRONG | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Global warming has slowed but our climate models are WRONG | Daily Mail Online

Well well well......

I've been laughing at the climate models for years.
I love it when the MMGW Cultists have to panic on a Friday and it ruins their whole weekend.

-yawn-

I bet you felt right at home in their comments section.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why did you leave this out?



Temperature adjustments in Australia | Climate Etc.

I guess it did not suit your agenda?

Back at ya....

Originally Posted by jackdale

Thanks for that

Didn't notice this classic gem almost entirely out of context within that Dm piece?

Infectious diseases, such as Ebola and West Nile virus, will rapidly spread to new areas as a result of global warming.

This is according to zoologist, Professor Daniel Brooks, who warns humans can expect to face new illnesses as climate change brings crops, livestock, and humans into contact with pathogens.

Professor Brooks says it will be 'the death of a thousand cuts' with society unable to keep up with the speed of disease as it spreads around the world.

'It's not that there's going to be one "Andromeda Strain" that will wipe everybody out on the planet,' Professor Brooks said, referring to the 1971 science fiction film about a deadly pathogen.

'There are going to be a lot of localised outbreaks that put a lot of pressure on our medical and veterinary health systems.'

In his research, Professor Brooks has focused primarily on parasites in the tropics, while his colleague, Professor Eric Hoberg, has worked in Arctic regions.

Each has observed the arrival of species that hadn't previously lived in that area and the departure of others, said Professor Brooks, who is affiliated with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

What an absolute crock of equine manure! The only thing being spread is BS.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What an absolute crock of equine manure! The only thing being spread is BS.

People read the Daily Mail for what the Kardashians are up to, and the latest runway nip-slip. Not for science stories. As you're discovering.

Mining the Daily Mail or Breitbart or similar for science stories is like trying to pick peanuts out of ... well, you get the idea.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Regional cooling; global warming.

Originally Posted by jackdale

What evidence do you have that it is dishonest?

Hmmmm. "Regional cooling, Global warming". Have a think about that statement.

You're trying to pass off weather related data as some kind of evidence of climate change otherwise why else include the graphic? I can't speak for the entire world, but that hot spot in Australia is related to trade wind patterns, sea surface currents and drought conditions in North Eastern Australia . Nothing to do with climate change at all (even though the alarmists will pounce on that last statement).

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/a...p_20150303.pdf

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by LekiM

Hmm. Doesn't look like you actually read the article, or the research paper it came from for that matter, did you?

Actually did and laughted all the way through it....you can see the panic in the Cultists trying to explain why all their models are so wrong. First we were all going to be dead and sea coasts flooded by now.....but we are still here and no warming in almost 20yrs....so...if all else fails say it was due to your model being wrong. You know..mthe model used to tell us we will all be dead again.....halarious.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Big Insurance Companies Are Warning The U.S. To Prepare For Climate Change

SailOar. I'm impressed. No skepticalscience quotes today?

Insurance companies love to collect premiums, but paying out not so much. It would be a dream come true for them if the government were to spend billions building stuff that protects their risks during widespread catastrophic weather events.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

People read the Daily Mail for what the Kardashians are up to, and the latest runway nip-slip. Not for science stories. As you're discovering.

Mining the Daily Mail or Breitbart or similar for science stories is like trying to pick peanuts out of ... well, you get the idea.

Just like mining skepticalscience except there's pictures of boobs to make it all the more worthwhile.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SailOar]

America’s preeminent climate deniers are sending “real scientists” to the Vatican to teach the Pope about global warming

You’ll never guess what crazy shenanigans the folks at the climate denying Heartland Institute — I’m sorry, I meant to say “the world’s leading think tank promoting scientific skepticism about man-caused global warming” — are up to now.

According to their latest press release, the crew is heading to Rome, to “advise Pope Francis on climate policy.” Yes, that’s actually how they put it. It seems the Pope’s upcoming encyclical on climate action is rubbing the group the wrong way, probably because he’s expected to argue, at a Vatican summit next week, that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a moral and religious imperative. It’s a statement that’s going to be hard for Christians to ignore, which is why it’s up to Heartland’s anti-science “real scientists” to show the Pope the error of his ways before it’s too late.

“The Holy Father is being misled by ‘experts’ at the United Nations who have proven unworthy of his trust,” Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast said in a statement. “Humans are not causing a climate crisis on God’s Green Earth — in fact, they are fulfilling their Biblical duty to protect and use it for the benefit of humanity.” Did you hear that, Your Holiness? The overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong about climate change, and you don’t understand the bible.

“Though Pope Francis’s heart is surely in the right place,” Bast continued, “he would do his flock and the world a disservice by putting his moral authority behind the United Nations’ unscientific agenda on the climate.”

“People of all faiths have a moral calling to continually seek the truth. That is why Heartland is sending a contingent of real scientists to Rome next week. We are bringing the Vatican a message of truth for all with open ears: The science is not settled, and global warming is not a crisis. The world’s poor will suffer horribly if reliable energy — the engine of prosperity and a better life — is made more expensive and less reliable by the decree of global planners.”...

[SailOar]

Thawing Permafrost: the Arctic's Slow, Giant Carbon Release | Inside Climate News

Permafrost—a vast, frozen subsurface layer of soil—covers nearly a quarter of the land in the northern hemisphere. It contains centuries worth of carbon in the form of plants that have died since the last ice age but remained frozen rather than decomposing.

Now scientists are learning that the "perma" part of its name may no longer be accurate.

As the Arctic heats up at a rate twice that of the rest of the globe and as sea ice and glaciers turn to water, the permafrost is also thawing. A recent review article in the journal Nature found that as the unfrozen organic matter decays, vast stores of carbon in the permafrost could be released into the atmosphere. This will trigger an irreversible feedback system and nullify existing calculations of just how much carbon humans can burn and keep the globe within a relatively safe degree of warming.

Kevin Schaefer, a permafrost scientist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder and an author of the article, calls the thawing of the permafrost a "true climatic tipping point." Scientists are still trying to pinpoint when it will happen, but Schaefer said that a likely point is around the middle of this century, when the Arctic changes from a carbon sink to a carbon source. When that happens, it will trigger a centuries-long, unstoppable feedback system, in which warming will release carbon, which will trigger more warming, which will release more carbon....




And that's only part of it. The authors reported that 59 percent of total permafrost emissions would occur after 2100.

The scientific understanding of the permafrost is new—so new, in fact, that it wasn't ready in time for the latest round of climate assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's largest scientific body on global warming....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Just like mining skepticalscience except there's pictures of boobs to make it all the more worthwhile.

I have no problem agreeing that skeptical science has a pro-AGW stance. Of course, most of the science points to AGW as a real thing, so their stance is a fairly safe one.

But if you think you'll get better science from right-wing echo chambers or UK gossip-rags, don't let me discourage you.

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Good, independently verified and peer reviewed science free from bias and influence. Not just anything labelled as science.

The problem science has in the global warming debate is the overall system complexity. Emergence has both benefits and disadvantages. It depends on your viewpoint.

Its not the planet that cares about global warming. Warming and cooling is a natural part of the planets cycle. Much greater changes are part of our past. We wouldnt have oil or mineral resources without massive sea level change and temperture variations.

The problem is twofold.

Firstly many humans and nations will benefit from global warming while others lose out. For example; if we ignore the impact on sea front property then the impact of global warming is financially trivial.

Secondly many species will be negatively impacted by humans and our persistence in trying to control and exploit nature. Many species cant migrate to adapt. We humans have built so many barriers to nature.

The planet will be fine if we limit our footprint and impact. Unfortunately wall street and the endless consumption and waste that drive our economies are what need to change. It's simple math. It's we humans that aren't sustainable.


Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

Good, independently verified and peer reviewed science free from bias and influence. Not just anything labelled as science.

Sure, of course there's such a thing as bad science, or poorly-done science.

It's a bit less likely that the vast majority of one branch of science are all doing bad science, and not calling each other out on it.

Of course, the fix for poorly-done science is more science - doing better, finding and eliminating errors, getting more data. The truth won't be coming from lobbyists or the denier websites they fund.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I have no problem agreeing that skeptical science has a pro-AGW stance. Of course, most of the science points to AGW as a real thing, so their stance is a fairly safe one.

But if you think you'll get better science from right-wing echo chambers or UK gossip-rags, don't let me discourage you.

And just in

Sure, of course there's such a thing as bad science, or poorly-done science.

It's a bit less likely that the vast majority of one branch of science are all doing bad science, and not calling each other out on it.

Of course, the fix for poorly-done science is more science - doing better, finding and eliminating errors, getting more data. The truth won't be coming from lobbyists or the denier websites they fund.

I know the IPCC and it's charter are unbiased . However, this what happens "out there in the real world" when "climate denial" is even suspected of being funded with public money.

Australia seen as 'public enemy No.1' on climate, Peter Doherty says

Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty says Australia is being seen internationally as "public enemy number one" on climate change and risks being isolated as China seeks to reduce its reliance on coal.

Professor Doherty, who is in Hong Kong for an Asia Society symposium on making cities more sustainable, said there was a perception that Australia was not playing a constructive role in the lead-up to the United Nations climate change conference in Paris later this year, which many see as the world's "last best chance" for global action to reduce carbon emissions.

"Australia is being regarded as public enemy number one," said Professor Doherty, who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine in 1996.

"That's a statement that's been made to me by a couple of people – so that's obviously a kind of buzz that's going around the climate change community."

He said the Abbott government seemed to have "firmly popped themselves into the climate change denial camp".

"I don't know if that's necessarily the position of the Environment Minister [Greg Hunt] but you can't say that you accept the realities of climate change and then want to maximise the sale of coal - it just doesn't make sense."

He said Australia had gone from being seen as a global leader in addressing climate change under the former Labor Government, to being "behind the game," under Mr Abbott's leadership.

He said he was concerned Australia could be isolated internationally as China reduced its reliance on coal and made greater use of solar, wind and nuclear power.

"What worries me is that Australia will kind of be seen as the fall guy for this – the guys that didn't do anything and really behaved irresponsibly – and we're pretty vulnerable."

"I would worry about tariff barriers, that's being discussed – you wouldn't want to put Australia in that position."

Professor Doherty attacked the government for its decision to allocate $4 million to establish a think tank headed by "sceptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg.

"It's in character, but it's a pretty extraordinary thing to do, after all the talk about the need to constrain resources," Professor Doherty said.

"To hand our that sort of money, presumably on the basis of no peer review whatever for what is really a blatantly political exercise – well, you know they're the government and they can do it, but it certainly doesn't cause you to have any great respect for them."

He said Australia needed to do more to foster the use of renewable energy and sustainable building technologies, and said massive continued urbanisation in Asia offered enormous opportunities for Australian companies that excelled in these fields.

"The next revolution is to make the industrial society work in a way that's sustainable within the boundaries of our planetary resources," he said.

"It can be done, but you have to have the will, and you have to engage with it, you don't turn your back on it and say this is nasty for us, it has to go away."

"There's this perception that we can just hold on to the world as it was, and I don't think the world is ever like that."

"You can't hold on to the world as it was, it's gone"

Who is this Prof. Peter Doherty I hear you ask?

Well he's a Veterinary surgeon who later starting specialising in research on the body's immune system, the field in which he won his Nobel prize. Hardly a climate expert by any stretch of the imagination.

Peter C. Doherty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be fair, Pete probably works out of the same office block as John Cook so he probably relies on Cookie's similarly qualified insights either directly or via his skepticalscience or theconsensusproject websites.

[Lake-Effect]

another mostly inscrutible post, mate.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Australia seen as 'public enemy No.1' on climate, Peter Doherty says

Australia, like Canada, has bet the farm on resource extraction, particularly fossil fuels. (You don't need a degree in climate science to know this) So Australia's kind of dependent on selling coal to Asia, which makes your government somewhat less than welcoming to the message of AGW.

You already know that the fossil fuel lobby funds the majority of "institutes" that provide anti-AGW propaganda... and it's working, so I'm not surprised that a pro-coal government would want to beat back the climate science, too. Even a veterinarian can figure that out.