Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have not suggested otherwise. Stating I have done is dishonest.

Every time you post a graph showing warming or warming-related events such as sea ice extent, sea level rise, etc., or comment to that effect, without any further explanation or analysis, it implies the warming is the direct result of human-derived CO2 or you obviously wouldn't post them. Citing UAH data to confirm TD's observations, along with dropping Spencer & Christy's names along with, associates warming's impacts on the Arctic with AGW, a correlation which has plenty of mainstream support but does not amount to causative fact, and is certainly not the conclusions drawn by the scientists who produce the UAH data. But such low-level manipulation is hardly new, which is exactly why so much of the public associates any sort of warming-related event with anthropogenic forces alone.

I'm trying to honestly characterize the current state of the science despite my admitted bias, and won't be resorting to sophomoric tactics if someone intelligently and honestly corrects me. In contrast, you are so consumed with your own extreme bias that you are either oblivious to how misleading your posts are, or are doing it intentionally. Not sure which one is in play here, but it doesn't really matter since either way they are misleading, and so a disservice to the science you so rather cynically express such fidelity to.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Nature's (the publication, not the universe) take on the report:

“Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet” ~ by
Quirin Schiermeier, in “Nature" News
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7

Gotta love this quote from the link:

On 8 August, the IPCC released a summary of the report, which is designed to inform upcoming climate negotiations amidst the worsening global climate crisis.

We should have a challenge. Everybody should take a picture of something demonstrating this climate crisis within, say, 1 km of their home and post it here. I, for one, would be interested in seeing personally experienced examples of this crisis in pictures.

Originally Posted by jackdale

The hydroxy-oxidation results in methane being converted to CO2; a bit of a double whammy.

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

True but the concentration of methane is about 500 times less than CO2, so it is a much more significant issue in the form of methane than the CO2 it produces when it decomposes.

Well, this is interesting.


Termites are given a hall pass from being CH4 and CO2 polluters because they're recycling carbon, not adding new stuff. Ditto for human aspiration (and presumably, flatulence). Cows aren't so lucky. Because????



I await with interest the answer.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Gotta love this quote from the link:
We should have a challenge. Everybody should take a picture of something demonstrating this climate crisis within, say, 1 km of their home and post it here. I, for one, would be interested in seeing personally experienced examples of this crisis in pictures.








.


Termites are given a hall pass from being CH4 and CO2 polluters because they're recycling carbon, not adding new stuff. Ditto for human aspiration (and presumably, flatulence). Cows aren't so lucky. Because????



I await with interest the answer.

two things
I would love to see those pictures as well

And as to cows well they are countable therefore taxable .

Can't tax people for their mere existing that would instantly cause a global uprising .

When was the last time they talked about how much water it took to grow a single head of lettuce ?
Not to mention the amount of gas produced lets tax that . Leave my cows alone.

[jackdale]

Try refuting the science I post with science instead of personal attacks.

Originally Posted by Exile

Every time you post a graph showing warming or warming-related events such as sea ice extent, sea level rise, etc., or comment to that effect, without any further explanation or analysis, it implies the warming is the direct result of human-derived CO2 or you obviously wouldn't post them. Citing UAH data to confirm TD's observations, along with dropping Spencer & Christy's names along with, associates warming's impacts on the Arctic with AGW, a correlation which has plenty of mainstream support but does not amount to causative fact, and is certainly not the conclusions drawn by the scientists who produce the UAH data. But such low-level manipulation is hardly new, which is exactly why so much of the public associates any sort of warming-related event with anthropogenic forces alone.

I'm trying to honestly characterize the current state of the science despite my admitted bias, and won't be resorting to sophomoric tactics if someone intelligently and honestly corrects me. In contrast, you are so consumed with your own extreme bias that you are either oblivious to how misleading your posts are, or are doing it intentionally. Not sure which one is in play here, but it doesn't really matter since either way they are misleading, and so a disservice to the science you so rather cynically express such fidelity to.

[stevensuf]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Try refuting the science I post with science instead of personal attacks.

Try looking in the mirror!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

two things
I would love to see those pictures as well

And as to cows well they are countable therefore taxable .

Can't tax people for their mere existing that would instantly cause a global uprising .

When was the last time they talked about how much water it took to grow a single head of lettuce ?
Not to mention the amount of gas produced lets tax that . Leave my cows alone.

I'll start the ball rolling....


sea level rise

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Try refuting the science I post with science instead of personal attacks.

Well, that was convenient. Try learning the difference between a personal, ad hom attack as opposed to a challenge to the substance, credibility, and civility of your posts.

I have little cause nor much ability to refute "the science;" only the misrepresentation of it for reasons that don't lend your posts nor the actual science much credibility.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I'll start the ball rolling....


sea level rise

a little background for the shot ??

Nice boat btw.

[Exile]

Methane emissions. (or was it propane?)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

a little background for the shot ??

Nice boat btw.

That's an old steelie that is built like a tank. It's currently in the process of being solo sailed to Victoria. It only left last week so north of the bad weather at this time.


The peak of the one of the highest tides of the year back in January. About 6.5 m or so.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That's an old steelie that is built like a tank. It's currently in the process of being solo sailed to Victoria. It only left last week so north of the bad weather at this time.


The peak of the one of the highest tides of the year back in January. About 6.5 m or so.

ok so peak of an extreme king tide cool how often does that happen?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ok so peak of an extreme king tide cool how often does that happen?

Never before the onset of the fossil fuel age. Or should I say, never that there is any scientific evidence for. Therefore . . .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ok so peak of an extreme king tide cool how often does that happen?

three or four times a year. A friend of mine has a 64 footer just out of shot from that boat that's been sitting in the same spot for over 10 years. At the end of this month a group of us are helping him move it out of the river on another one of these tides because that's the only time this thing can get out.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

Never before the onset of the fossil fuel age. Or should I say, never that there is any scientific evidence for. Therefore . . .

It's Miami like!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well, that was convenient. Try learning the difference between a personal, ad hom attack as opposed to a challenge to the substance, credibility, and civility of your posts.

I have little cause nor much ability to refute "the science;" only the misrepresentation of it for reasons that don't lend your posts nor the actual science much credibility.

Please provide the evidence that I misrepresent science. For example I provide clear of example of how CO2Science misrepresented one study. Years ago I found other examples and have no faith in that web site.

BTW -I like the data at UAH, I like some of Spencers conclusions on the Sky Dragon Slayers at PSI, his views on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the inability of pressure to explain global warming. I do not subscribe to his views on Creation or natural climate change. Unlike Spencer I would not be a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Declaration on Global Warming.

Likewise I like Curry's take on the role of sea ice in extreme weather, the need for temperature adjustment, and her take on PSI. I have not yet made up my mind on climate sensitivity.

Like I said I do not consider myself an expert, but I can rely on expertise. I taught courses ij environmental studies throughout much of may career. In my Studies of the Future grad program at the University of Houston Clear Lake I worked with both qualitative and quantitative forecasting and the assessment of forecasts. Later in my career I started using the Internet (before the Web) and quickly realized that a lot of disinformation and misinformation was out there, so I used media literacy skills in a quest for crap detection (a term I learned from Neil Postman). My second grad program was in Educational Technology.

I have not published in the area of climate science; but I follow it, partly because in my close to 50,000 miles at sea, I have seen some of the visible havoc we have foisted on our planet.

BTW -As a debate coach and judge I prepared my students for both sides the question. As I am no longer in the teaching world I feel free to speak and act on my convictions. I do read WUWT, Curry, Spencer, Heller, the Friends of Science, NTZ, etc.. None of it is convincing.

Now, please provide some hard evidence for the multiplicity of assertions you have made.