Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

From the above, we really seem to be on the same side of these points, with the following exceptions:

- despite the above, you seem to sneer at renewables, or any efforts to develop them

- you've erected this fictional monolithic entity 'the left' which is responsible for all the bad things in the world. This is both inaccurate, and unhelpful, other than to hint at which lever you pull at election time.



- I said it was a game-changer. As you know the grid as it exists cannot store energy, and a storage solution that is 'grid' size seems far-off. The link proposes distributed storage that is house- or small-business-sized, which is closer to doable now, useful, now, reasonably affordable, and could be really affordable in mass production, and will scale well. And could reduce the need to expand or rebuild the current grid.

This proposal changes the approach to the game of storage. I think that's the definition of game-changer....?

You have highlighted the difference between wind and solar and the existing grid. The existing grid has no need to store. It is designed to provide continuous baseload electricity at any demand level. Wind and solar need to store electricity to overcome their inherent erratic supply. A battery storage solution even if achieved would add another layer of cost burden to wind and solar generation. I would suggest a battery solution to provide base load will remain a mirage for decades. Think past generating enough electricity to charge your laptop or run your home. Baseload power is a totally different beast which current electricity generation provides efficiently and consistently. Just as an aside imagine 100 million households in USA replacing their solar panels and batteries every few years. Not sure why the term renewable is applied to solar and wind generation. Neither can exist without a massive manufacturing infrastructure using vast amounts of electricity to keep building replacement solar panels. Try running the New York underground or the London tube on solar panels and batteries. I presume you drive a car, fly in planes and use manufactured products. I presume you use imported products from China. None of this can happen without current baseload power generation and lots of fossil and nuclear fuels.
The debate is larger than you successfully charging your laptop and having lights on in your home.."......hope you don't live in a high rise.........er with a lift.

[lordgeoff]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You need to look at the WMO standard for climate which is 30 years.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

The long term temperature increases are over 10 times that of the PETM which lead to mass extinction. That is significant.

PETM: Global Warming, Naturally | Weather Underground

And Jack you are a great example of those types who embarrass the serious scientists. Keep up the C&P. You are talking to an empty room....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

And Jack you are a great example of those types who embarrass the serious scientists. Keep up the C&P. You are talking to an empty room....

I am talking to a vacuous brain.

You really have no clue about the difference between a link and a quote (C&P in your thinking)

I think Harlan Ellison had you in mind.

“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
― Harlan Ellison

BTW that is a C&P.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Climate change is irrelevant to the underlying problem.

Why? What evidence do you have to support this?

Corporate profits and population growth don't help your argument. Population growth is part of the reason our greenhouse gas output keeps growing.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

You need to research more widely Sailoar. There is considerable angst in the warmist camp re the fact that temp changes recorded for the past 15-20 years are less than the margin of error so statistically are not significant. As the climate models haven't predicted this temp plateau there are many red faces.
But then again we are told daily .....the science is settled.
The biggest problem for the serious scientists is the warmist debate gets hijacked by those who start with a warmist conclusion then scratch around for absurd theories from research twitterati.....then copy and paste as proven fact. Some glaring examples amongst posts here...........
Suggest you research more widely and search with an open mind.

The IPCC predicted a rise of between 0.1 deg C and 0.35 deg C in the last decade. The measured rise was 0.15 deg C, comfortably within projections.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by lordgeoff

And Jack you are a great example of those types who embarrass the serious scientists. Keep up the C&P. You are talking to an empty room....

Which "serious scientists" would those be?

[StuM]

Let me summarize this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU

[GordMay]

Northwest Passage (Arctic) yacht race promises high adventure (July 2017)
➥ Northwest Passage yacht race promises high adventure (and high costs) - North - CBC News

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

97% of climate scientists. You are completely incorrect.

Someone has already since posted one source.

Here are three more peer reviewed scientific publications that state the same about the percentage who agree:

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

97% of climate scientists agreeing is nothing but a simple fact.

I'm not so sure that figure isn't a beat up. This is what I read on a blog about the 97% concensus:

They emailed around 8500 authors with an invitation to rate their own
papers and received only 1200 responses (a 14% response rate).
After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not
climate-related or had no abstract, about 2200 papers received
self-ratings from around 1190 authors. Among self-rated
papers that stated a position on AGW, 97% endorsed
the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a
position on AGW in the abstract, 54% were self-rated as
endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored
a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96% endorsed the
consensus.

Apparently papers had to meet at least one of 6 research categories - including non peer reviewed categories - one of which favoured papers in support of the concept of anthropogenic climate change.

Unless there's only 1200 or so climate scientists world wide, the 97% (magic numbers in red) doesn't seem to add up? I'm also unsure of where the 54% value fits into the final result.

I'm not really that worried about the numbers as such. My concern is why is this 97% figure being bandied around so prominently in the "science is settled" debate as a majority agreement when it appears, on the surface, to be anything but?

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'm not so sure that figure isn't a beat up. This is what I read on a blog ...

Bound to be reliable info then...

My concern is why is this 97% figure being bandied around so prominently in the "science is settled" debate as a majority agreement when it appears, on the surface, to be anything but?

Because there are scientific, peer reviewed studies that say 97% is correct. You just reposted a link to three of them.

[SailOar]

Flood management in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) ranks among the top 10 cities in the world most likely to be severely affected by climate change. The city's flood management system is at the edge of its capacity. During the rainy season residents are confronted with flooding in the low lying areas and also in the central districts. The problems occur between August and December; at spring tide twice a month for several days in a row and twice daily. The main causes of flooding are high tide, heavy rain and high discharge from the Saigon and Dong Nai rivers combined with strong urbanisation. The flooding causes inconvenience and damages and needs a swift solution. Land subsidence and increase of sea level rise and heavy rain due to climate change contribute to an even more difficult situation.


The Client commissioned Royal HaskoningDHV and Deltares for the formulation of strategies for alleviation of the flooding and inundation problems of HCMC. The Consultants proposed an integrated approach to flood and inundation management and strengthening of technical and management capabilities of the HCMC Steering Centre for Flood Control and relevant Vietnamese agencies with the aim to get control over the flooding and adapt to climate change, land subsidence and further urbanisation. Important elements are the assessment of a sewer improvement schedule (JICA) and a flood protection plan comprising over 170 km of dike reinforcement and 12 tidal gates in drainage canals and river mouths. Capacity building was an essential part of the assignment....

Up a creek: A low-lying city must take drastic action to prevent flooding | The Economist

Rotterdam & Ho Chi Minh City: Climate Adaptation Partnership

Vietnam coastal cities and potential impacts of sea level rise

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

Bound to be reliable info then...



Because there are scientific, peer reviewed studies that say 97% is correct. You just reposted a link to three of them.

Well that's an odd way to respond, Tensen. Because it is from one of your own referenced "the science is settled" peer reviewed papers that you place so much faith in for "evidence".

In fact it's from the first paper titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" that you linked (that you boasted I had just relinked ) to prove that the 97% consensus is undeniable. I merely changed a few words without changing the context to hide it from a Google search.

It's taken directly from the "ground zero" paper written by one Mr John Cook - the one and the same as the owner of skepticalscience.com.

Here is the original text:

We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own
papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate).
After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not
climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received
self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of
endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated
papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed
the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a
position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as
endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored
a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the
consensus.

You'll find the paragraph at the bottom of Page 4 of the paper.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/...8_2_024024.pdf


The abstract of this paper is even more damning:

Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate
change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing
a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second
phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of
self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,
97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements
among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that
the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

The criteria in red eliminated a good deal of papers from the analysis including the majority of those that did not fully support AGW, as did a research criteria specifying that the paper needed to discuss "Effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity"

Thank you for participating in my small experiment to test a pro-AGW supporter's willingness to actually make an effort to verify the information they chose to believe. You really should read the stuff you post at least.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) ranks among the top 10 cities in the world most likely to be severely affected by climate change. The city's flood management system is at the edge of its capacity. During the rainy season residents are confronted with flooding in the low lying areas and also in the central districts. The problems occur between August and December; at spring tide twice a month for several days in a row and twice daily. The main causes of flooding are high tide, heavy rain and high discharge from the Saigon and Dong Nai rivers combined with strong urbanisation. The flooding causes inconvenience and damages and needs a swift solution. Land subsidence and increase of sea level rise and heavy rain due to climate change contribute to an even more difficult situation.


The Client commissioned Royal HaskoningDHV and Deltares for the formulation of strategies for alleviation of the flooding and inundation problems of HCMC. The Consultants proposed an integrated approach to flood and inundation management and strengthening of technical and management capabilities of the HCMC Steering Centre for Flood Control and relevant Vietnamese agencies with the aim to get control over the flooding and adapt to climate change, land subsidence and further urbanisation. Important elements are the assessment of a sewer improvement schedule (JICA) and a flood protection plan comprising over 170 km of dike reinforcement and 12 tidal gates in drainage canals and river mouths. Capacity building was an essential part of the assignment....

You should read the stuff you post a little bit more closely rather than just blindly linking, too, SailOar. I've highlighted some inconvenient causes of Ho Chi Min's problems. I'm also not sure that "heavy rain" is purely the result of "climate change". I could do a Tenson and demand peer reviewed evidence, but I'll just go with gut instinct on that one.

Persisting with trying to prove there's some unfolding catastrophe as a result of AGW sea level change is just silly. Sea level rise just aint that great at this time and the only possible AGW influences are thermal expansion or major ice sheet melting - neither of which is happening in significant numbers at the moment.

[Tensen]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well that's an odd way to respond, Tensen. Because it is from one of your own referenced "the science is settled" peer reviewed papers that you place so much faith in for "evidence".

So? I don't see anything odd here. Anything you say is from a blog will immediately be considered unreliable. The blog may be correct, or it may not be, but unless evidence is peer reviewed it isn't reliable enough to base any argument on.

In fact it's from the first paper titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" that you linked (that you boasted I had just relinked ) to prove that the 97% consensus is undeniable. I merely changed a few words without changing the context to hide it from a Google search.

What an utterly bizarre thing to do. Why bother? Why do you think that makes any difference to me?

The criteria in red eliminated a good deal of papers from the analysis including the majority of those that did not fully support AGW, as did a research criteria specifying that the paper needed to discuss "Effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity"

Thank you for participating in my small experiment to test a pro-AGW supporter's willingness to actually make an effort to verify the information they chose to believe. You really should read the stuff you post at least.

How on earth do you expect the study to use data from papers not on AGW, or papers that don't take a stance on it?

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but you aren't making it.
The paper (and the other two papers) very clearly provide evidence: 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW.

Any evidence I supply here is peer-reviewed. In other words it's already been verified by experts in the field.

You're always welcome to supply peer reviewed studies that quote a different percentage, but we both know you aren't able to.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Tensen

So? I don't see anything odd here. Anything you say is from a blog will immediately be considered unreliable. It may be correct, or it may not be, but unless it's peer reviewed it isn't reliable enough to base any argument on.

What an utterly bizarre thing to do. Why bother? Why do you think that makes any difference to me?

How on earth do you expect the study to use data from papers not on AGW, or papers that don't take a stance on it?

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but you aren't making it.
The paper (and the other two papers) very clearly provide evidence: 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW.

Any evidence I supply here is peer-reviewed. In other words it's already been verified by experts in the field.

You're welcome to supply peer reviewed studies that quote a different percentage, but we both know you aren't able to.

Since you don't bother reading even your own stuff, no point in me posting anything.

You're welcome to supply peer reviewed studies that quote a different percentage, but we both know you aren't able to

But if you bother to actually read the first two papers of the three you linked and use that double degree honed mind of yours to analyse the results you will have what you have requested.