Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have shown precisely none.

then explain how 3 years ago I said it was going to cool and it has

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by geoleo

The history of Science is also the history of so-called Scientists jumping on one monetizing to them bandwagon after another--only to find such bandwagons proven false. For several hundred years "scientists" sold the belief that draining blood from sick people helped cure them. They were paid good money for this.

I believe barbers were actually the ones behind it. That's why the traditional red and blue revolving sign was originally established.

I think scientific analysis has come a long way since the establishment of space travel, and splitting of the atom, though. I generally believe the scientists have a better basis for opinion than I do personally. Many lay people think they are smarter than scientists in their fields, but I don't really.

[Marc1]

All the internet debates about global warming renamed climate change just in case it is not warming (it is not) turn out like this one.

The sympathisers and cheerleaders for the fraud called AGW come out armed with arguments learned on line on websites that train "How to contest a denier", copying and pasting issues they know nothing about, with pretenses of "Science".

The so called science of this so called AGW is junk, false, a fraud, designed to relocate tax money to otherwise non viable industries, fund all the so called studies that push the warmist agenda and silence all dissent with methods that would have made Hitler proud, or the Spanish inquisition.

It will eventually fizzle out when they attack the wrong corporation and they start to fight back using similar strategies.

This global warming rubbish is nothing but a battle for who can steal more of our tax money for their own purposes that are far removed from "the environment" Whoever can not see this is blinded by his own beliefs and doctrine.

Your loyalty is worthy of a better cause. You have chosen the wrong side.

[Hardhead]

I guess it depends on how smart you are. Not everyone is the same obviously.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

then explain how 3 years ago I said it was going to cool and it has

Any imbecile could predict cooling after a strong El Nino.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Any imbecile could predict cooling after a strong El Nino.

And there's the jack we all know .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

By purest chance - they're part of our annual sailing get-togethers - we also know two PhD (biology) researchers, from NOAA. Scientists are people too. It's not all wh0r3 up some grants, milk the taxpayer, pick out marble for the new pool.

Apologies LE. I didn't realise you were Sailor's spokesperson. Be that as it may, even though a bunch of science researchers talking shop at a sailing get together must be a real hoot, it was apparent in your description that your association is that of a casual one and therefore you have no vested interest. I'd suggest this isn't the case with Sailor.

Originally Posted by Exile

In Keno's case, it's courageous humor staring down the face of the impending doom he knows befalls all of us when the fish underneath his boat no longer have the olfactories to congregate around his thru-hull during poop discharge events.

Now THAT is funny.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Both show short-term cooling from a very large El Nino event (variation). Both show long-term warming (trend).





newhaul (and Monckton) are cherry picking their dates.

And yet, for those without short memories, the immediate post 1998 years drivel from the alarmist camp was nauseating to the extreme. To the extent that the post 2016 "The Great Barrier Reef is dead" sky felling was a mere shadow in comparison.

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Not uk sea bass tears though....



Just think how much the uk economy looses from such a commercially valuable fish stock. I think more research will be needed!

Dr Porteus should have studied them instead of an extensively commercially farmed fish having a "LC" (as in "least concern") threatened species rating.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Marc1

All the internet debates about global warming renamed climate change just in case it is not warming (it is not) turn out like this one.

A little history lesson on Climate Change and Global Warming

This paper appeared in 1975

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Wallace S. Broecker https://science.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460

In 1988, with some assistance from Ronald Reagan, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed. How the IPCC Got Started

In 2002 Frank Luntz, a GOP wordsmith and strategist, sent a memo to White House that included the following recommendation"

We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate
complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming
environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming”[/B] and ending
with “environmentalism.” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change”
instead of global warming[/B] and “conservation” instead of preservation.
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group
participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to
Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached
to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/vie...portion17p.pdf

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A little history lesson on Climate Change and Global Warming

This paper appeared in 1975

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
Wallace S. Broecker https://science.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460

In 1988, with some assistance from Ronald Reagan, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed. How the IPCC Got Started

In 2002 Frank Luntz, a GOP wordsmith and strategist, sent a memo to White House that included the following recommendation"

What a crock.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What a crock.

Nope. All true and documented.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nope. All true and documented.

Yes of course it is. Doesn't make it any less crock.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Apologies LE. I didn't realise you were Sailor's spokesperson. ... it was apparent in your description that your association is that of a casual one and therefore you have no vested interest. I'd suggest this isn't the case with Sailor.

I was simply pointing out that one can actually "know" someone who is a scientist, without being a permanent student.

I encourage anyone to go meet a few. As long as you tell them firmly, right off, that you don't have any grant money to offer, they will not bring it up, and you'll find them charming company.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Marc1

All the internet debates about global warming renamed climate change just in case it is not warming (it is not) turn out like this one ...

We see this misguided sentiment expressed quite often.

But, the fact is, both terms are used, in different contexts - Warming being one specific feature of a panoply of Changes.
These include the increased temperature trends described by Global Warming, but also encompass Climate Change phenomena such as:
loss of sea & glacial ice , and sea level rise
changes in precipitation patterns (more floods AND droughts)
shifts in flower/plant blooming, and plant and animal range changes
increasing wildfires
insect outbreaks
more frequent and more intense hurricanes
and other extreme weather events

Said another way, global warming is one symptom of the much larger problem of human-caused climate change.
Climate change is any systematic change in the long-term (at least 30 years as defined by the World Meteorological Organization - WMO) statistics of climate variables such as temperature, precipitation, pressure, or wind sustained over several decades or longer.
With a changing climate come potential consequences for life on Earth.

The earth IS WARMING, and the climate is CHANGING.
Unfortunately, these noxious changes are likely to continue into the near future, due to the number of vocal ideologues among us, blindly opposing any meaningful mitigation efforts (which will become more drastic, the longer we delay).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nope. All true and documented.

walks like a duck quacks like a duck

And smells like a feed lot for steer.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

We see this misguided sentiment expressed quite often.

But, the fact is, both terms are used, in different contexts - Warming being one specific feature of a panoply of Changes.
These include the increased temperature trends described by Global Warming, but also encompass Climate Change phenomena such as:
loss of sea & glacial ice , and sea level rise
changes in precipitation patterns (more floods AND droughts)
shifts in flower/plant blooming, and plant and animal range changes
increasing wildfires
insect outbreaks
more frequent and more intense hurricanes
and other extreme weather events

Said another way, global warming is one symptom of the much larger problem of human-caused climate change.
Climate change is any systematic change in the long-term (at least 30 years as defined by the World Meteorological Organization - WMO) statistics of climate variables such as temperature, precipitation, pressure, or wind sustained over several decades or longer.
With a changing climate come potential consequences for life on Earth.

The earth IS WARMING, and the climate is CHANGING.

yes it is climate change always has always will change.
Except for the fact that it is cooling not warming.