Northwest Passage

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

If what he stated were actually based on any solid science then yes. But they aren't, there really is no significant doubt that the planet is warming very quickly and the only smoking gun in the house that fits the observations (wbich are way over natural variability) is human released greenhouse gasses. That's not a controversial statement.
Unlike Spencer statements...
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
Least he's earning his cash from heartland et al by trying to spread doubt where there is none.

Hmmm, not real sure about that

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

None of your skepticalscience.com characterizations of Spencer's quotes as "climate myths" or "what the science says" cite sources. What part of the "science" says what? There are more objective sources out there if you'd like to become more well-rounded on the issue.

You first need to determine what is "natural variability" before you can conclude that we are "way over." There's no proof that human released greenhouse gases are a direct cause of recent warming temps. That undisputed fact on its own makes the issue controversial. There's even controversy over whether the planet is warming at all. If it is, then there's further controversy over amounts. Jackdale's recently posted "crazy polar bear" article cited a 1ºC avg. increase over the past 140 years, but I recall the IPCC stating it was higher.
..snip

What proof is enough then?
1# There's no doubt about CO2 being a greenhouse gas or is there?
2# Do you think the CO2 measurements in the atmosphere are accurate (or not)?
3# Do you think the temperature measurements from NASA or NOAA are accurate (or not)?

What comes to polar bears I don't believe they being endangered so long there's seasonal ice on the Arctic. Actually with wider spread open water during summer the seal population has more area to grow. However there are and will be further local variation in the population..

[scuttlebooty]

Are people really debating the anthropogenic origins of climate change still? Isn't it 2019?

On a related note, I was contemplating using the Northwest passage as part of my circumnavigation, but put the whole plan on hold when I saw some data showing how the earth is actually flat, and NASA has been lying to us. Don't wanna fall off the edge, you know.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

What proof is enough then?
1# There's no doubt about CO2 being a greenhouse gas or is there?
2# Do you think the CO2 measurements in the atmosphere are accurate (or not)?
3# Do you think the temperature measurements from NASA or NOAA are accurate (or not)?

What comes to polar bears I don't believe they being endangered so long there's seasonal ice on the Arctic. Actually with wider spread open water during summer the seal population has more area to grow. However there are and will be further local variation in the population..

1) co2 is a necessary compound for life on this planet.
The term greenhouse gas is a misnomer.
2) the measurements are accurate as far as that goes however the numbers vary greatly with location.
3) the temperatures have been adjusted to fit the current MMGW narrative
I have posted graphs from various timeframes and they do not matchup with newer ones the temps in the past have been cooled to make the current temps appear even warmer than they are in reference to the baseline .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hmmm, not real sure about that

here this video has more data https://youtu.be/iDZFFObVoPk

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You are still firmly entrenched in Stage Two denialism. Which is that you claim that there is so little scientific agreement about Climate Change that we cannot possibly make educated decisions.

Dr. Hayhoe said Stage 2 was "it’s not humans: let’s witch-hunt the scientists," so not sure which Stage 2 you're referring to. Either way, I don't recall being that definitive about causation, or witch-hunting any scientists, or claiming we can't make educated decisions based on the current state of the science. You and I reading the same thread?

Many, many, many individual scientists and scientific organizations have EXPLICITLY stated that global warming is serious, and that it is caused by the human-mediated release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Below is a list of a few statements by well-known scientific organizations.

Thanks for the reminder, but pretty sure this has all been covered -- what, maybe a 1000x by now? So what about the scientists who say something different? Or are you unaware of any dissent from equally qualified & competent scientists?

Over the last 1/2-dozen years, or so, I've posted the conclusions of hundreds of scientific studies each supporting one facet or another of human-caused climate change. Typically, each of those studies represents the research of a handful to hundreds of different scientists. Collectively, what I've posted might represent the scientific opinions of thousands of scientists, each corroborating AGW. And for every article I posted there are many others that I didn't post for for fear of overwhelming the thread with scientific "cut and paste", which you have complained about regularly. (I wonder why?)

In case you haven't heard, Spencer corroborates AGW as well, as do most other skeptics. But so nice to hear you refrained from "overwhelming" the thread with blatantly one-sided, mostly alarmist articles that were often rather quickly challenged if not debunked. Images of the large S. Fla. sinkholes being attributed to sea level rise were particularly memorable. Or maybe it was the "sinking" of Tangier Island when nearby Chesapeake Bay islands were not. Speaking of islands, how about the ones in the Indian Ocean that were actually rising while others "sank?" Were the "thousands" that you mentioned all scientists, or were there maybe just a few "science reporters" who sneaked into the mix? Maybe hard to tell the difference? Sorry for the sarcasm but I guess I don't understand what you're so frustrated about. After all, why would you think that after the first few alarmist articles you posted were rejected by many of us as not credible, another 100 or so more would convince? But you apparently think quite highly of your work so by all means keep them coming.

You and Newhaul (and a few other like-minded posters) have only mentioned a handful of dissenting scientists, and often those scientists are commenting in areas beyond their own areas of expertise. Yet you continue to advocate for "equal time" and "too much uncertainty to make any decisions".

Not sure whether me & Newhaul are all that "like-minded" when it comes to his solar output theories, but I'm sure he knows I try and keep an open mind about techy matters I don't fully understand. Then again, I'm also sure we would find a lot of common ground when it comes to boats, sailing, and maybe beer, so who cares? Besides, I've learned stuff from him, along with just about every other frequent poster on these threads (incl. you), and that's all that really matters.

Don't remember any advocacy for "equal time," and would settle at this point for mere recognition that opinions other than the ones you happen to prefer actually exist. I guess after all this time I have low expectations. Now I do remember the uncertainty part, but you'd have to tell me what decisions you have in mind that I can make before I can decide whether I can make such decisions based on all the uncertainty. Does this sound certain enough for you?

Finally, I'm curious which scientists you think were commenting "beyond their own areas of expertise." Astrophyicists maybe? Meteorologists perhaps? The odd geologist who pops up? Or do you really mean any scientist -- with expertise in climate science or not -- who disagrees with the mainstream position that you subscribe to? Yeah, I think that must be it.


The Causes of Climate Change | NASA

Climate Change | NOAA
see also FAQs

Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes | IPCC

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes | jointly produced publication of The US National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society

Causes of climate change | European Commission

The Science of Climate Change | A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

Impressive list. So tell us, do any of these prestigious sources provide definitive proof that humans are the sole cause of global warming, that in its absence we would be in a cooling phase, that Arctic sea ice extent has never been as low as its been recorded in recent years, that temps weren't just as high during the Medieval Warm Period, that the seas have never risen as high as they are now, that the polar bear population is declining as a direct result of CC, or that the odds of warming not being caused by humans is a million-to-one? How about just evidence that warming can not be the result of natural forces? These are, after all, many of the highlights of our ongoing debate, and we've enjoyed reading so much certainty from so many CF experts about how they all point in only one direction, namely that we are all in imminent danger and must act now to eradicate fossil fuels. (Or was it 12 years? ). If the many scientists, academies and institutions you cite can definitively resolve such questions with a credible consensus & convincing evidence in support, then we might just get somewhere. If not, then I guess we'll all have to deal with the uncertainties that persist and act accordingly.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by scuttlebooty

Are people really debating the anthropogenic origins of climate change still? Isn't it 2019?

I know. With all the money spent & research done, it's hard to believe the science hasn't resolved it by now.

On a related note, I was contemplating using the Northwest passage as part of my circumnavigation, but put the whole plan on hold when I saw some data showing how the earth is actually flat, and NASA has been lying to us. Don't wanna fall off the edge, you know.

Not to worry. Those flat earth issues are now long resolved, along with the link between smoking & cancer, btw. But we seem still stumped by all the unknown variables that go into understanding our climate, along with much beyond 3-5 day weather forecasts, of course. So I'd suggest going ahead with your NWP, but definitely watch out for ice. I hear it can still be pretty thick up there, despite what you may have "heard." .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

What proof is enough then?
1# There's no doubt about CO2 being a greenhouse gas or is there?

No doubt. But I just read somewhere that this terminology may be a misnomer.

2# Do you think the CO2 measurements in the atmosphere are accurate (or not)?

Yes, afaik. There seems to be broad consensus on that one, although different regions can vary.

3# Do you think the temperature measurements from NASA or NOAA are accurate (or not)?

Yes. As I understand it, the controversy is not about the accuracy of the temp data but with its interpretation, specifically what time periods and averages are used as baselines. There is also variance between the ground/sea data and what comes from the satellites. The latter shows less of a warming trend that some skeptics opine is more consistent with a natural warming cycle. Other experts disagree.

What comes to polar bears I don't believe they being endangered so long there's seasonal ice on the Arctic. Actually with wider spread open water during summer the seal population has more area to grow. However there are and will be further local variation in the population..

Consistent with my understanding as well.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here this video has more data https://youtu.be/iDZFFObVoPk

Depending on cell coverage in and around Victoria, BC, I foresee a Tony Heller roast coming soon to a CC thread near you.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Depending on cell coverage in and around Victoria, BC, I foresee a Tony Heller roast coming soon to a CC thread near you.

oh yes I can just hear the grinding of teeth now

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

...Your analysis assumes it's even possible to identify and quantify those natural forces since it depends on accurate historical data which largely doesn't exist. So according to Spencer anyway, most scientists believe CO2 is responsible for the warming...

I'm understanding better why you feel so ambivalent about accepting Climate Change science. At a fundamental level you really don't understand how scientific information is collected and analyzed.

No, it is not necessary (though it would be nice) to have accurate historical data. There are many pre-historic proxies that are used to collect all sorts of relevant data. Here are just a few that come to mind:

Ice cores (~130,000 years in Greenland; 800,000+ years in Antarctica)
Lake and ocean sediment cores
Fossil coral cores
Tree cores
Deep rock boreholes
Loess deposits by glaciers
Limestone cave deposits
Flora and fauna distribution (fossils, pollen, etc)
Sea Level changes
and many, many more

Here are a few sources for you to update your knowledge, though it's becoming more and more apparent that additional information is not finding a receptive mind.

Paleoclimatology | Wikipedia

Climate Reconstruction | NOAA

Past Climate | NOAA

Paleoclimatology Data | NOAA

Originally Posted by Exile

Impressive list. So tell us, do any of these prestigious sources provide definitive proof that humans are the sole cause of global warming, that in its absence we would be in a cooling phase, that Arctic sea ice extent has never been as low as its been recorded in recent years, that temps weren't just as high during the Medieval Warm Period, that the seas have never risen as high as they are now, that the polar bear population is declining as a direct result of CC, or that the odds of warming not being caused by humans is a million-to-one? How about just evidence that warming can not be the result of natural forces? These are, after all, many of the highlights of our ongoing debate, and we've enjoyed reading so much certainty from so many CF experts about how they all point in only one direction, namely that we are all in imminent danger and must act now to eradicate fossil fuels. (Or was it 12 years? ). If the many scientists, academies and institutions you cite can definitively resolve such questions with a credible consensus & convincing evidence in support, then we might just get somewhere. If not, then I guess we'll all have to deal with the uncertainties that persist and act accordingly.

It's clear you didn't actually read all the information. Like Newhaul, you're just arguing around and around in circles. It's simply become a game of wack-a-mole. You're clearly a denier, but you so hate that term that you play games with pseudo-scientific arguments to try and disguise your true colors.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Dr. Hayhoe said Stage 2 was "it’s not humans: let’s witch-hunt the scientists," so not sure which Stage 2 you're referring to. Either way, I don't recall being that definitive about causation, or witch-hunting any scientists, or claiming we can't make educated decisions based on the current state of the science. You and I reading the same thread?

There are a number of different Climate Denial Stages lists.

Taxonomy of climate change denial | Wikipedia

1. Trend sceptics/deniers (who deny there is global warming), [and] argue that no significant climate warming is taking place at all, claiming that the warming trend measured by weather stations is an artefact due to urbanisation around those stations ("urban heat island effect").
2. Attribution sceptics/deniers (who accept the global warming trend but see natural causes for this), [and] doubt that human activities are responsible for the observed trends. A few of them even deny that the rise in the atmospheric CO2 content is anthropogenic [while others argue that] additional CO2 does not lead to discernible warming [and] that there must be other—natural—causes for warming.
3. Impact sceptics/deniers (who think global warming is harmless or even beneficial).

In this list, Newhaul is a #1 and #3, and you are a #2

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it's too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

In this list both you and Newhaul fit at least two of the characteristics.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1. Allegations that scientific consensus involves conspiring to fake data or suppress the truth: a global warming conspiracy theory.
2. Fake experts, or individuals with views at odds with established knowledge, at the same time marginalising or denigrating published topic experts. Like the manufactured doubt over smoking and health, a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, some of them the same individuals.
3. Selectivity, such as cherry picking atypical or even obsolete papers, in the same way that the MMR vaccine controversy was based on one paper: examples include discredited ideas of the medieval warm period.[138]
4. Unworkable demands of research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the field or exaggerating uncertainty while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models.
5. Logical fallacies.

I think Newhaul subscribes to all of this list. You mostly go for #3, #4, #5.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

No, it is not necessary (though it would be nice) to have accurate historical data. There are many pre-historic proxies that are used to collect all sorts of relevant data. Here are just a few that come to mind:

Ice cores (~130,000 years in Greenland; 800,000+ years in Antarctica)
Lake and ocean sediment cores
Fossil coral cores
Tree cores
Deep rock boreholes
Loess deposits by glaciers
Limestone cave deposits
Flora and fauna distribution (fossils, pollen, etc)
Sea Level changes
and many, many more]



It's clear you didn't actually read all the information. Like Newhaul, you're just arguing around and around in circles. It's simply become a game of wack-a-mole. You're clearly a denier, but you so hate that term that you play games with pseudo-scientific arguments to try and disguise your true colors.

No the big problem is that those proxies are not being interpreted correctly all the time .
There is also the bias of those doing the interpretation .
Such as the " holy trail " of temperature and drought proxy the tree rings . Many interpret the small rings in hard growing years to hot dry when it has been proven the fact of cold being a much more significant factor in minimizing growth. ( think about the Stradivarius violin ) .


Now as to your last paragraph the personal attacking is just another sign that you know you are losing the debate.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

There are a number of different Climate Denial Stages lists.

Taxonomy of climate change denial | Wikipedia

1. Trend sceptics/deniers (who deny there is global warming), [and] argue that no significant climate warming is taking place at all, claiming that the warming trend measured by weather stations is an artefact due to urbanisation around those stations ("urban heat island effect").
2. Attribution sceptics/deniers (who accept the global warming trend but see natural causes for this), [and] doubt that human activities are responsible for the observed trends. A few of them even deny that the rise in the atmospheric CO2 content is anthropogenic [while others argue that] additional CO2 does not lead to discernible warming [and] that there must be other—natural—causes for warming.
3. Impact sceptics/deniers (who think global warming is harmless or even beneficial).

In this list, Newhaul is a #1 and #3, and you are a #2

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it's too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

In this list both you and Newhaul fit at least two of the characteristics.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1. Allegations that scientific consensus involves conspiring to fake data or suppress the truth: a global warming conspiracy theory.
2. Fake experts, or individuals with views at odds with established knowledge, at the same time marginalising or denigrating published topic experts. Like the manufactured doubt over smoking and health, a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, some of them the same individuals.
3. Selectivity, such as cherry picking atypical or even obsolete papers, in the same way that the MMR vaccine controversy was based on one paper: examples include discredited ideas of the medieval warm period.[138]
4. Unworkable demands of research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the field or exaggerating uncertainty while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models.
5. Logical fallacies.

I think Newhaul subscribes to all of this list. You mostly go for #3, #4, #5.

again with the personal attacks real scientific of you .
But that's what is expected now days .
If you can't beat them with science. Berate them into silence with rhetoric.

By the way the entire list bit is not scientific . It is media and politically based.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

Spencer's comment on the impact of the human-caused additions to atmospheric CO2 (yes, I botched it):

"The total amount of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere in the last 100 years has upset the radiative energy budget of the Earth by only 1%. How the climate system responds to that small “poke” is very uncertain. The IPCC says there will be strong warming, with cloud changes making the warming worse. I claim there will be weak warming, with cloud changes acting to reduce the influence of that 1% change. The difference between these two outcomes is whether cloud feedbacks are positive (the IPCC view), or negative (the view I and a minority of others have).

So far, neither side has been able to prove their case."

Spencer is approximately correct about the 1% change due to co2 at present levels. Most of the science community would strongly disagree that this a small poke. Just calculating the difference in temperature from a 1% increase in energy gets to more than 1 degree C, remember the base line is absolute zero when figuring what 1% means energy is calculated. Also the effects of CO2 are magnified by increased water vapor. And finally the average temperature is world wide, 77% is ocean which strongly moderates temperature increases, so over land it will be much more. I'm sure Spencer actually knows this, as a Cornwall signer perhaps he believes that God will save humanity (that is what the declaration he signed states)