The Reef Ain't Dead

[StuM]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Great questions.
1. Of the slow, geologic time scale changes, nil. Of the rapid, recent steep changes, essentially all.

That presuppose that the climate has never had periods or natural rapid steep changes.
That supposition relies on two false premises;
1. That long term proxy reconstructions have a granularity similar to recent data.
2. The Younger Dryas did not happen.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Time not important, only life important! That goes for all species!

https://youtu.be/DrB9ciZTxyo

Now that's quite funny. A couple of posts up I quoted from another outstanding s-f classic.


The moment I have read yours, I did not even need to click the link to know where you are coming from.


What a day.


Cheers,
b.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

To keep it civil we need to keep the term "deniers" out of the debate. It was deliberately coined by AGM/CC zealots to equate sceptics with Holocaust deniers and consequently has no place in civil discourse.

I would be respectful of such a request from a moderator, but not from a partisan in the debate. I respectfully disagree - I think it is a perfectly good and precise term and not an ad hominem disparagement.
Just curious why you think it is ok to call your opponents 'zealots' but not OK to use the label of 'denier?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

That presuppose that the climate has never had periods or natural rapid steep changes.
That supposition relies on two false premises;
1. That long term proxy reconstructions have a granularity similar to recent data.
2. The Younger Dryas did not happen.

There are theories about what caused the Younger Dryas change. All of those proposed causes, if they had occurred now, would be obvious. But no, despite the very tight fit between the additional CO2 we've put into the atmosphere and current warming, we're told by "skeptics" that the warming could be natural... but no one is able to identify and quantize this natural cause.

Also, YD was not global, it was in the northern hemisphere; the southern hemisphere warmed a bit over the same period. AGW is being experienced globally.

Finally AGW is just one reason for reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. There are 999 other good reasons to do so. We have options.

[Dave_S]

Climate Change or Man Made Climate Change ?

For me this graph answers that question beyond reasonable doubt.

Can anyone explain why this isn't 99.99% proof of natural cycle. This is one of the few pieces of data that isn't manipulated.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but it looks pretty convincing to me.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Can anyone explain why this isn't 99.99% proof of natural cycle. This is one of the few pieces of data that isn't manipulated.

That graph does not accurately show the last 500 years, and so it doesn't show the rapid heating of the last 200 years.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That graph does not accurately show the last 500 years, and so it doesn't show the rapid heating of the last 200 years.

Do you have one that does from a respected source.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Climate Change or Man Made Climate Change ?

For me this graph answers that question beyond reasonable doubt.

Can anyone explain why this isn't 99.99% proof of natural cycle. This is one of the few pieces of data that isn't manipulated.

I'm happy to be proven wrong but it looks pretty convincing to me.

Because you appear to be looking for confirmation instead of information.

If any of you deniers want to be taken seriously, why not do some of your own research instead of making others do it for you?

A good start, for instance might be understanding the 'information' one posts,as well as verifying it's source. See below for the answer to the question you should be perfectly able to answer for yourself, though it could take
anywhere from 10 minutes to a couple of hours, depending on your search techniques.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That graph does not accurately show the last 500 years, and so it doesn't show the rapid heating of the last 200 years.

Most likely that graph doesn't show the last 70 years at all, because 'present' (as in years before) in these old graphs deniers use to try and bolster their account is 1950. That's right 70 years ago. If we had the source for the chart we could be sure; sadly it (I'm sure quite innocently [not being facetious]) wasn't provided...but most likely the current warming is literally off the scale of that graph

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Because you appear to be looking for confirmation instead of information.

If any of you deniers want to be taken seriously, why not do some of your own research instead of making others do it for you?

A good start, for instance might be understanding the 'information' one posts,as well as verifying it's source. See below for the answer to the question you should be perfectly able to answer for yourself, though it could take
anywhere from 10 minutes to a couple of hours, depending on your search techniques.



Most likely that graph doesn't show the last 70 years at all, because 'present' (as in years before) in these old graphs deniers use to try and bolster their account is 1950. That's right 70 years ago. If we had the source for the chart we could be sure; sadly it (I'm sure quite innocently [not being facetious]) wasn't provided...but most likely the current warming is literally off the scale of that graph

Best form of defence is attack, try to be civil. I don't have my thoughts set in concrete, as I said happy to be proven wrong.

The source of the chart is EPICA, it is written on the chart. I have not seen any credible or otherwise arguement with the data on it, it seems to be widely accepted.

The warming since the start of the industrial revolution has been 1°c even if you add the whole 200 years in full to the chart it still places us well within the expected range.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by lestersails

I would be respectful of such a request from a moderator, but not from a partisan in the debate. I respectfully disagree - I think it is a perfectly good and precise term and not an ad hominem disparagement.
Just curious why you think it is ok to call your opponents 'zealots' but not OK to use the label of 'denier?

I am partisan but it's not because I'm pro or anti the greenhouse theory it's because I am against the mass ussumptions of political fashions because of the harm they do.

A political party in Europe propagated the theory that a certain race of people were responsible for the social and economic problems experienced by the country. The subject party managed to assume power and embarked upon a program of extermination of those they held responsible. This program of extermination became known as The Holocaust. Following a world war the culprit regime was destroyed and many of the perpetrators punished by the victors.

The physical evidence of their crimes was so extensive as to render any reasonable doubt of the occurrences impossible. However this did not prevent certain historians from attempting to deny the occurrences. Some human behaviors are considered so abhorrent as to have them defined as totally immoral and denial of The Holocaust falls into this category.

Some of the more zealous adherents of the AGW/CC climate theory wish to both propagate the theory and silence those not willing to uncritically accept and support it. These climate zealots wish to have their protagonists branded as morally deficient in the same way The Holocaust deniers were hence my objection to the term.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Do you have one that does from a respected source.

If you haven't looked at such a graph before, it's kind of odd for you to be claiming to be skeptical about it.

And I can't begin to imagine what you would consider a respected source, if the IPCC or most climate scientists aren't that.

Maybe start here. Just about all skeptical arguments are listed, together with their rebuttals.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

I am partisan but it's not because I'm pro or anti the greenhouse theory it's because I am against the mass ussumptions of political fashions because of the harm they do.

I believe you're partisan because you've mentioned that you are/were part of the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure you have some insights to give us from that experience. Maybe you understand better than most that it's not a limitless resource.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you haven't looked at such a graph before, it's kind of odd for you to be claiming to be skeptical about it.

And I can't begin to imagine what you would consider a respected source, if the IPCC or most climate scientists aren't that.

Maybe start here. Just about all skeptical arguments are listed, together with their rebuttals.

Your link goes to a click bait How to talk to a skeptic page. Is that what you meant for me to read ?

What I was hoping might happen is that you might go looking for some solid information to support your position and realise that regardless of what ever credible information you found it could not put a temperature increase dot on that graph that was outside of reasonable expectations.

I am 100% impartial, I would like to know the truth regardless if it is man made or not. It is the core data on that graph that works for me because it seems conclusive and it tells me the temperature is well within normal expectation. If anything we are a little below probability.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Your link goes to a click bait How to talk to a skeptic page. Is that what you meant for me to read ?

Yes. They're quick summaries, and each has links back to the sources of information. Lots to satisfy genuine intellectual curiosity.

What I was hoping might happen is that you might go looking for some solid information to support your position and realise that regardless of what ever credible information you found it could not put a temperature increase dot on that graph that was outside of reasonable expectations.

I don't think you have a handle on what "reasonable expectations" would actually be. Until the human addition of CO2 from fossil fuel, the natural trend for the present would have been for a slowly lowering average temperature. AGW has swamped that.

I am 100% impartial, I would like to know the truth regardless if it is man made or not. It is the core data on that graph that works for me because it seems conclusive and it tells me the temperature is well within normal expectation. If anything we are a little below probability.

Then keep looking. Don't stop at such an uninformative graph.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I believe you're partisan because you've mentioned that you are/were part of the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure you have some insights to give us from that experience. Maybe you understand better than most that it's not a limitless resource.

I became and was part of the fossil fuel industry because I was a very adventurous youth and loved the big machines. An interesting aspect of the drilling side of the industry is that the drillers tend to be predominately country boys and as such are quiet often deep appreciators of the natural world. Compared to say farming or grazing the oil industry is far less damaging to the natural world. Had I not became an oilman I would probably have gravitated towards earth moving or mining or something else which kept me outdoors with big equipment. You folks give up putting it in your vehicle fuel tanks, using plastics and cooking with gas and the drillers will stop drilling for it.

If I'm partisan it's because I tend towards the a scientific and technical and have a good understanding of scientific methods and am fairly proficient in their use. In science and engineering prudence demand scepticism.

As to fossil fuel depletion it's bound to happen and burning coal to produce electricity is a dirty and dangerous business. I favour electrification where practicable and nuclear for generation as from a mortality viewpoint, it is one of the safest ways to generate electricity and has one of the lowest environment impacts. However I tend to the opinion that the giant, centralized, PWR and uranium reactors should be replaced with small modular reactors. From a number of viewpoints the LFTR types appear a very desirable technology. Unless fusion can be miniaturized it's never going to eventuate and in spite of the massive investment in research we have yet to initiate and sustain it for more than a few seconds and it's a technology which appears to attract centralization and giantism.

The so called renewables are a dead end, I have lived on a boat for eighteen years now and fully understand it's limitations. You just cannot run a modern civilization on a restricted, unreliable power source.

The next rock in towards the sun clearly demonstrates what occurs from a greenhouse effect however the earths atmosphere once had about 7,000 ppm of CO2 so there must be strong compensating processes at work to have bought it down to where it is now rather than take things the other way. The earth has had a lot of geologically recent ice ages which are not yet fully explained and statistically we are more likely to have one of those than turn into another Venus.

There's a fair chance I'll see my life out as a climate agnostic and sceptic and I have an excellent command of blasphemy, profanity, and belittling and diminishing and demeaning language and don't mind a bit of a tussle but we should try to keep the conversation civil and avoid emotive adjectives.