Ocean acidifcation .

[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.

rereading your post this will explain everything.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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.

What makes you think I haven't?

[GordMay]

[Reefmagnet]

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.
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).

In yet another case of the tail wagging the dog, and as much as I like the word "panoply", it is more than apparent that warming is the root cause of "climate change" if the fossil fuel driven CO2 imbalance theory is to be religiously adhered to.


Not only that, the term "climate change" is less descriptive than "rain fall" or "sun rising". At least the latter pair indicate a direction. Perhaps that was the intention as Jackdale's memo was written at the peak of the there-never-was-a-warming-pause period.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

*cough* Fort Denison *cough* Maldives *cough* Tuvalu *cough*

[JC Reefer]

I’m curious to understand the logic. Why would a climate scientist push global warming and source it to humans if they didn’t see evidence in their studies?

I’d think most climate scientists are aligned with the theory (hypothesis maybe) that the globe is warming and that human created green house gases are to blame. Probably a simplification but the point stands.

What is in it for the climate scientists?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

I’m curious to understand the logic. Why would a climate scientist push global warming and source it to humans if they didn’t see evidence in their studies?

I’d think most climate scientists are aligned with the theory (hypothesis maybe) that the globe is warming and that human created green house gases are to blame. Probably a simplification but the point stands.

What is in it for the climate scientists?

Ask the scientist who couldn't get a job until she figured out a way to test a fish's sense of smell.

[JC Reefer]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ask the scientist who couldn't get a job until she figured out a way to test a fish's sense of smell.

Are you saying that the majority of climate scientists out there are lying about their studies and research in order to keep their jobs?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

What makes you think I haven't?

Because there are NONE that ascribe to any skepticism, denialism, or even doubting about the official IPCC et al. pronouncements on GW MMGW AGW CC, so if you had met any then, like osmosis, their thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and even political orientation would transfer over to you. But if you actually go sailing with them, you'd be assured of never getting exposed to anything other than real science ever again.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

*cough* Tuvalu *cough*

I suppose you're implying a reference to:
“Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations” ~ by Paul S. Kench et al.
“... Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1).
Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

If accurate, how do Kench's observations negate Climate Change/Global Warming/Ocean Acidification?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

Are you saying that the majority of climate scientists out there are lying about their studies and research in order to keep their jobs?

No, that's not what anyone's saying.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

I’m curious to understand the logic. Why would a climate scientist push global warming and source it to humans if they didn’t see evidence in their studies?

I’d think most climate scientists are aligned with the theory (hypothesis maybe) that the globe is warming and that human created green house gases are to blame. Probably a simplification but the point stands.

What is in it for the climate scientists?

ok here is the fact of it the scientists have to operate within certain rules written at the start of the studies called terms of reference. Which tells them what they can and can't do or look at .
The IPCC's terms say to only look for man causes ignore all natural forcings.

So they obviously found man made warming ( to be taxed) .

As to what's in it for them well follow the money a bit ..their poster child Michael Mann. He is a multi millionaire. Bet if you check you will find several if not many others that got their PhD by writing their doctoral thesis about MMGW they are guaranteed to get accepted and published .

Go against the IPCC and you will likely get sued out of existence.
Interesting most of the climate science professionals that are against the MMGW are mostly retired individuals.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I suppose you're implying a reference to:
“Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations” ~ by Paul S. Kench et al.
“... Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1).
Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1

If accurate, how do Kench's observations negate Climate Change/Global Warming/Ocean Acidification?

due to one of the cornerstones of the MMGW is sea level rise and if that is not happening it calls into question all science that is associated .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ask the scientist who couldn't get a job until she figured out a way to test a fish's sense of smell.

Basically, the effort and data behind the conclusion of warming from human activity, particularly the use of fossil fuels, is so solid that about the only way the denial machine can get any traction is to portray scientists as weak, ethically challenged careerists, prostituting themselves for grants, going along with a weak hypothesis in order to eke out a living. On top of this foundation, the deniers can then claim that the scientific work is flawed or inconclusive and so it is not sufficient to justify taking any action against AGW.

And the cretins lap it up.

Thanks to Reefie and Exile for providing such a vivid demonstration.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, that's not what anyone's saying.

no they are not telling any lies they are following the terms to the letter.