Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[StuM]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Be my guest. Type in any parameters you like:

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

And where on that site do I find any evidence of an "increasing threat of climate change", and more specifically global "climate change".The only thing related to "threat" that I can see is the Global Hazards link:

"Beginning with the April 2013 report, and until further notice, NCDC will no longer issue the Global Hazards component of its Monthly Climate report. This will be re-evaluated in September 2013. All previous Global Hazards reports will be maintained online."

Looks like they are having difficulty finding any data on "hazards" or "threats"

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

You see what you want to see. The evidence has been presented in more than just a video, you know. You can find it on NOAA, NASA besides the IPCC and in order for this to be some grand conspiracy to look cool with other scientists or to rake in the research funding, or whatever other ridiculous motivation you might entertain, they would have had to start "faking the data" way back in the 1970s. Now, think about that ... it means that we're not only talking about a global conspiracy across geography (this is climate science, after all, so it spans the globe), but it would also have to span generations, as the first scientists who set about fudging the data are now retired or dead.

Tin foil hat, anyone?

And soooooo much evidence that the best that can be said after spending billions in research is that "man is most likely...".

Righto, case closed.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Real scientists don't start working with politicians to push through changes in behavior to solve a problem when they can't even explain exactly what the problem is and haven't already connected all the dots between cause and effect. REAL scientists are skeptical and can lead you every step of the way through their experiments to prove every word they say and their results are repeatable and that allows them to make accurate predictions ... We need scientists with no political agenda to study climate thoroughly until they thoroughly understand it, and THEN report their meticulously documented findings.

Ergo, a supermajority of the world's climate scientists aren't real scientists, and they have signed onto an ulterior agenda that causes them to deliberately do bad science.

And they're not done studying til YOU decide they're done. At which point you'll agree that more studying is in order.

I think you've summed up your position quite nicely, thanks.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by StuM

And where on that site do I find any evidence of an "increasing threat of climate change", and more specifically global "climate change".The only thing related to "threat" that I can see is the Global Hazards link:

"Beginning with the April 2013 report, and until further notice, NCDC will no longer issue the Global Hazards component of its Monthly Climate report. This will be re-evaluated in September 2013. All previous Global Hazards reports will be maintained online."

Looks like they are having difficulty finding any data on "hazards" or "threats"

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

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Well, if you say so. You're the expert, after all.

In this debate, I appear to be. Could just be that I stick to the facts and leave the fiction to others, too.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

"Maybe", "might" and "could" are the catch cry of the alarmists brigade

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

An alarmist would make statements with 100% certainty. The IPCC has a set of guidelines for discussing certainty.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

for one, have posted without the usual fallback to assumptions, cut and paste and links.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Never learned how to footnote?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I'm sure it was just an honest slip, but you seem to have left out any mention of cap and trade or carbon taxes, and back in the quaint old days of 2005, the alarmists were not yet (openly at least) talking about "punishing" those who dared to disagree with their pseudo science or their agenda.

Alarmist fear mongering.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Nope, sorry the fix is in. School children are already being indoctrinated (brainwashed). Only time will resolve the question.

Alarmist fear mongering.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

As I said, I'm onboard with studying our climate, etc. but NOT OK with someone who sets out to study or suggest solutions to the "problem" because that scientist obviously doesn't have an open mind. Real scientists don't start working with politicians to push through changes in behavior to solve a problem when they can't even explain exactly what the problem is and haven't already connected all the dots between cause and effect. REAL scientists are skeptical and can lead you every step of the way through their experiments to prove every word they say and their results are repeatable and that allows them to make accurate predictions. IF it is eventually proven that something we are doing is causing our climate to change, then we'll need to discuss whether the changes are more negative than positive and a cost/benefit analysis of what we might do to effect positive change OR adapt to them. Right now, we're not even close to that point. We need scientists with no political agenda to study climate thoroughly until they thoroughly understand it, and THEN report their meticulously documented findings.

You might wish to spend some time with Richard Muller of The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study, a used to be skeptic. His first study was parrtilally funded by the Koch Foundation.

[sobraon]

Just checking back after a week or so and the warmists are still raging, even throwing the odd insult or two..

It is sad that after weeks and weeks of debate, the best they can come back with is the 97% rubbish. This was discussed at least 700 posts ago.

There has never been a comprehensive study done. The 97% comes from the discredited cartoonist turned warming evangalist John Cook. Even Richard Tol, who was a lead author for the IPCC bags his report.

Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97 per cent consensus paper on anthropogenic global warming has been a runaway success. Downloaded more than 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t…

Cook and colleagues argue 97 per cent of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable.... In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97 per cent refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about *climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.
Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the 18-year pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of *climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.
The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.
The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter…

Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed on what a paper was about 33 per cent of the time. In 63 per cent of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper… Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist… Time stamps reveal that ... one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman *effort…
Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion… The entire study should therefore be dismissed.
This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency…
If you want to believe climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.

It is hilarious that we, the 'denialists', only ever state facts that refute the 'warmists' predictions. We don't predict anything. That is the way of the Realist.

Warmists on the other hand grasp onto any theory, prediction, 'could be' or 'may be' that they hope will add weight to their hypothesis. The is the way of the Idealist.

The irrefutable fact is that there has not been any significant statistical warming of the earths surface atmosphere in approximately 19 years. This has even been recognised by the IPCC. Sure they have had hundreds of theories why this can not possibly be correct. However; the elephant in the room is the unmanipulated raw data does not lie. Funny that.

Garry
Spirit of Sobraon
Home Page - www.sobraon.com

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I'm a bigger environmentalist then most of the MMGW Cultists posting in the thread.

Knowing that MMGW is real and being an environmentalist are not the same thing (although they do correlate strongly).

MMGW is simply a matter of science and reality, regardless of how you personally treat or care about the environment.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Of course there's no getting away from the fact that cars generate tons of what you seem to think is harmful CO2, but you're right that it makes no difference to climate change, because nobody has proved that CO2 actually drives climate change.

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

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I definitely don't "acknowledge that the threat of climate change is real and increasing" and I don't understand how they could make that statement if they truly were open minded scientists who felt it was important to "Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions."

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

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Btw automakers are in it for the money and the money ultimately comes from the pockets of Joe Public whom want the products they sell. I'm making an assumption (omg) that whilst 97% of climate scientists want to declare Armageddon on AGW, they don't feel quite as much in consensus when it comes to their car buying habits. So go figure.

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.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Does it concern you that the purchase ratio of SUV and performance vehicles has increased over the past 25 years compared to say the 1970's when 4 cylinder Cadillacs were made to satisfy public demand? Why was peak oil more a concern then "fireball earth"?

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.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well if it's not rocket science why is there nothing, or very little. Everything except rocket science is not rocket science, btw. For us where it is not so much self evident, enlighten us from your pool of vast resources.

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

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

My turn to elighten you. Except for those with their snouts in the trough, no one cares. No one cares because there is no disaster presently unfolding no matter how many ice cores get sampled. Twenty five years since the doomsayers started preaching, nothing, repeat no climate disasters attributable to an anthropogenic effect on climate change has occurred. At this time they are figments of over active imaginations. Remember the suffering polar bears, by chance?

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

And polar bear numbers are still dropping, FYI.

Originally Posted by sobraon

There has never been a comprehensive study done. The 97% comes from the discredited cartoonist turned warming evangalist John Cook. Even Richard Tol, who was a lead author for the IPCC bags his report.

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.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by sneuman

they would have had to start "faking the data" way back in the 1970s. Now, think about that ... it means that we're not only talking about a global conspiracy across geography (this is climate science, after all, so it spans the globe), but it would also have to span generations, as the first scientists who set about fudging the data are now retired or dead.

You just don't get it do you? The fudging which has created the current data sets keeps adjusting the past, making early years cooler and more recent ones warmer. When those scientists in the 1970s published their temperature data, they didn't show anything like todays figures.

A classic example from one of the Climategate emails (2009):
"Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer]"

This same pattern of adjusting history has repeated itself countless times, invariably cooling early termperatures and increasing the apparent warming rate through the 20th Century. Here's just a couple of examples (note how the 1940's blip disappears)

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by StuM

A classic example from one of the Climategate emails (2009):

Those emails have long since been explained, and they have no impact on the current data that keeps coming out.

The climate change we're seeing now is unprecedented FYI.


https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...ately%E2%80%9D

The images you posted are from nut-job conspiracy theorist sites, not peer reviewed scientific papers.