Climate Change, Deux

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

... You might want to spend a moment going through this thread for a look at current Arctic conditions. Then get back to me with how this fits into the current AGW delusion.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...-a-108962.html

What is so surprising about having more trouble making a North-West passage this year compared recent years? Both last summer and the summer before were record-setting in the amount of ice that was lost. In fact, as I pointed out a few posts back (and below) in response to one of your posts (which you have conveniently chosen to ignore), climate models of summer Arctic Sea-Ice extant have underestimated the actual amount of sea ice loss. Losing Arctic sea ice is very serious. Dark-colored open water absorbs far more heat than reflective ice-covered water.


Figure 5: Observed (red line) and modeled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km2, the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

[Coops]

This may be an important topic, apparently, but the way it is being promoted by both sides leads me to a severe disinterest in the whole subject. Think that I will go for a sail. The wind will be windy and the water will be wet, that's enough for me.

Coops.

[Teknav]

Hiya Coopsy! I thought that you were going to do the right thing, and deep six this thread...ashes to ashes...dust to dust...but I guess this thread gets to live another day full of turmoil!

Mauritz
The mule is not for sale!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Coops

This may be an important topic, apparently, but the way it is being promoted by both sides leads me to a severe disinterest in the whole subject.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you don't agree with the near-unanimous consensus of the subject-matter experts, you're a Denier.

Hope that helps.

"When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands...."

Please help me Mr. Preacher man to understand the teachings of the climate scientists and your Lord Al Gore. And be sure to send the carbon credits received in your offering tray to me so that I can forward them on to Al.... I'll make sure he gets them.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Good grief. So according to this analysis, the 96% of natural CO2 emissions are neatly absorbed by the environment keeping everything in perfect balance (except for all that observable climate change in the past), but the 4% of total CO2 from man made sources is special somehow and resistant to absorption like the other 96%?

This is why no one is listening anymore, but carry on if you like.

Does equilibrium not mean anything to you? The extra from human activities isn't immune, there's just more going into the atmosphere than ggetting removed.

By 4%.

Which is a lot.

Isn't it obvious?

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This is a great thread. Although I have not (yet) read all the posts, I was amazed to learn there are actually some people who still believe climate change neither exists or isn't man made.

In a time where the objective scientific peer-reviewed evidence is overwhelming, I wanted to thank some of you for reminding me how eagerly some people seeminglt enjoy public displays of total delusion.

Refreshing to see we agree at least on one issue, and a very important one too.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Climate models are based on the proposition that 4% of total atmospheric annual CO2 emissions cause global warming. Since these models predict things that haven't happened, they can't be taken seriously. When you use the term 'denier', you are regurgitating a slur first put out by the odious Al Gore, who likened, and continues to liken AGW skeptics as deniers just like Holocaust deniers. As such, it is a simple ad hominem advanced only because you don't have a good scientific argument. If you did, the models would predict climate. They don't. So you resort to attacking the character of your opponents. If calling people who reject science that produces a model that doesn't work deniers, then you won't mind if I call you a fool. After all a denier rejects that which is true and a fool believes that which is false. Since you believe in a climate model that doesn't work, I guess the label of fool is a fair one.

I don't want to get in an academic discussion of what you do or don't consider an appropriate label for someone who denies, despite overwhelming scientific evidence (repeatedly and willfully ignored) that climate change is occurring. Even when you cite one of the few climate scientists who considers himself a "skeptic" of sorts, you ignore and lift his statements from context in an effort to bolster your argument.

Certainly the models are not perfect, everyone on both sides acknowledges that. Everyone. In other words, this is a controversy that a) you've invented in your head or b) worse, you intentionally pitch because you know how weak and unsubstantiated your um, denial, of AGW is. Sorry, it's hard to get around using that term.

But I get it. You don't like Al Gore, and your personal dislike for the man trumps any science or data you could be shown. You aren't alone. In fact, you are part of a disturbingly significant minority.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Teknav

Hiya Coopsy! I thought that you were going to do the right thing, and deep six this thread...ashes to ashes...dust to dust...but I guess this thread gets to live another day full of turmoil!

Mauritz
The mule is not for sale!

It occurs to me that quite frequently people enjoy exposing themselves to stuff discussed here on CF they find annoying. Then they complain, exclaiming 'it' should be shut down. Amazing! Boggles the mind.

[scoobert]

No significant warming for 17 years 4 months | Watts Up With That?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by scoobert

No significant warming for 17 years 4 months | Watts Up With That?

Watts up with that? It's that Watts is a tv meterologist, and not a climate scientist, whose made his reputation pitching half-truths and outright distortions (such as "Climategate"). That's Watt.

The writer is Christopher Monckton, a thoroughly discredited denier, who used to call himself "Lord Monckton" before that was exposed as a lie.

This ought to give you a flavor for the guy: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/lo...nly-a-forgery/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rizvaJyA-GM

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...cience.comment

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_art.htm

[goboatingnow]

Deniers always deny, lets move on.

Dave

[Group9]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This is a great thread. Although I have not (yet) read all the posts, I was amazed to learn there are actually some people who still believe climate change neither exists or isn't man made.

In a time where the objective scientific peer-reviewed evidence is overwhelming, I wanted to thank some of you for reminding me how eagerly some people seeminglt enjoy public displays of total delusion.

I know exactly what you mean.

I, too, am frequently amazed (and dismayed) at how many people view the same information as me and come to a different conclusion than me (or even worse, wait for more facts before agreeing I am right).

Disagree-ers and open-minders, are even worse than deniers.

Juries I have been have been on have been the worst about this.

[scoobert]

I was going to reply again, but forge the earth, i don't care.
if it gets warmer, then i will sail the new tropics above 30 degrees. we will adapt.

now ssshhhh i am doing something important, i am eating ice and converting it to pee.

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by Teknav

Hiya Folks! It's time for some laughter and forgetting the climate, for a change...

Ha! I've got one related to climate change:

City Person said to a New England Farmer:

"Farmer your field sure is full of rocks"

Farmer: Yep!

City Person: How'd they get there?

Farmer: Glacier.

City Person: Glacier ya darn fool I don't see no Glacier!

Farmer: It went back for more rocks!