Changes in Atlantic currents

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You're certainly hung up on this paper and graph thing,

It is called evidence. You should try some time.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From the Stanford Solar Center



Global Warming -- Research Issues

What error?

Hosting pre-revisionist 2003 essays that don't agree with your world view.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is called evidence. You should try some time.

I look out the window for my evidence, as even the climate of a century ago is irrelevant to me.



You should try it sometime.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That possibility exists if we continue down tis current path.



https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2018PA003379

The possibility exists that you'll be hit by a vehicle when crossing the street, of which I'd suggest the probability being higher than the end of humanity due to a shift in climate.


Also, the author of that paper would seem to be clutching at straws.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The possibility exists that you'll be hit by a vehicle when crossing the street, of which I'd suggest the probability being higher than the end of humanity due to a shift in climate.


Also, the author of that paper would seem to be clutching at straws.

Read the extreme right side of the graphic you posted. It contradicts your suggestion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I look out the window for my evidence, as even the climate of a century ago is irrelevant to me.



You should try it sometime.

Your backyard is a very small part of the world, and you are myopic.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hosting pre-revisionist 2003 essays that don't agree with your world view.

That 2003 paper was was hosted by GSA as was the 2004 paper I posted that refuted your 2003 paper.

Where did Stanford get mentioned?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Read the extreme right side of the graphic you posted. It contradicts your suggestion.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your backyard is a very small part of the world, and you are myopic.

My backyard is your Dante's Hell. Yet here I am.

Originally Posted by jackdale

That 2003 paper was was hosted by GSA as was the 2004 paper I posted that refuted your 2003 paper.

Where did Stanford get mentioned?

The document I referenced is located on their domain, as per my link.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

My backyard is your Dante's Hell. Yet here I am.



The document I referenced is located on their domain, as per my link.

You have no clue about Stephen Schneider. He would not support the assertions in that article.

Check to see where the article was published. GSA Today

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You have no clue about Stephen Schneider. He would not support the assertions in that article.

Check to see where the article was published. GSA Today

You appear to be arguing with yourself.


All I can keep doing to help is referring to the domain name from which that article is served.


https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/


https://stephenschneider.stanford.ed...-veizer-03.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You appear to be arguing with yourself.


All I can keep doing to help is referring to the domain name from which that article is served.



https://stephenschneider.stanford.ed...-veizer-03.pdf

Stephen Schneider - who is at the root of that URL would not support the assertions in that article. https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Stephen Schneider - who is at the root of that URL would not support the assertions in that article. https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

\

In any event, perhaps you should contact Stanford.eu and advise them of the error of their ways. You could also advise them on which authouritive sources to limit themselves to in future based upon your self assessed lists.

Stephen Schneider of Stanford, in his own words:

In the past few centuries, as the figure Indicators of human influence shows, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30 percent. According to King, 2004, the annual atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is currently about 372 parts per million (ppm), higher than at any other time over the last 420,000 years. The reality of this increase is undeniable, and virtually all climatologists agree that the cause is human activity, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels, which themselves were created through a very wasteful process (see “Buried losses”); to a lesser extent, deforestation and other land-use changes, along with industrial activities like cement production, also contribute to climate change. Although water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, its concentration, for the most part, is affected only indirectly by human-induced warming via enhanced evapotranspiration when the Earth’s surface is warmed. Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas that results directly in global warming, although there are some other significant heat-trapping gases and particles that can both cool and warm (see the figure Global mean radiative forcing below).

https://stephenschneider.stanford.ed...diativeforcing

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Stephen Schneider of Stanford, in his own words:



https://stephenschneider.stanford.ed...diativeforcing

Considering the article is c2003 and he shuffled off this mortal coil c2010 I can only assume he was happy enough to be associated with the content. Why wouldn't he have been?

He was also a self declared skeptic, a point noted even by your beloved desmog blog:


"All good scientists are skeptical: I changed my mind from cooling to warming in 1974 when the preponderance of evidence shifted—and is now well established. I changed my views on nuclear winter making it “nuclear autumn” in 1984, incurring the wrath of the peace movement—again because the preponderance of evidence shifted with study. That is a skeptic—what all scientists should be. But real skeptics still accept a preponderance of carefully examined evidence even when some elements of a complex systems problem remain unresolved—and do not pretend that when there are loose ends some well-established preponderances don’t exist—that is beyond skepticism to denial—or political convenience often. So a skeptic questions everything but accepts what the preponderance of evidence is, and a denier falsely claims that until all aspects are resolved we know nothing and should do nothing—often motivated by the latter. If you deny a clear preponderance of evidence, you have crossed the line from legitimate skeptic to ideological denier. —STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER”

It's interesting to note that he clearly delineated skeptics from deniers. Something a few on these kind of threads should take heed of.

Now, instead of having such a closed mind, it might be worthwhile to take a leaf out of that same book and stop and consider once in a while that not everything is black and white.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Considering the article is c2003 and he shuffled off this mortal coil c2010 I can only assume he was happy enough to be associated with the content. Why wouldn't he have been?



He was also a self declared skeptic, a point noted even by your beloved desmog blog:





"All good scientists are skeptical: I changed my mind from cooling to warming in 1974 when the preponderance of evidence shifted—and is now well established. I changed my views on nuclear winter making it “nuclear autumn” in 1984, incurring the wrath of the peace movement—again because the preponderance of evidence shifted with study. That is a skeptic—what all scientists should be. But real skeptics still accept a preponderance of carefully examined evidence even when some elements of a complex systems problem remain unresolved—and do not pretend that when there are loose ends some well-established preponderances don’t exist—that is beyond skepticism to denial—or political convenience often. So a skeptic questions everything but accepts what the preponderance of evidence is, and a denier falsely claims that until all aspects are resolved we know nothing and should do nothing—often motivated by the latter. If you deny a clear preponderance of evidence, you have crossed the line from legitimate skeptic to ideological denier. —STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER”



It's interesting to note that he clearly delineated skeptics from deniers. Something a few on these kind of threads should take heed of.



Now, instead of having such a closed mind, it might be worthwhile to take a leaf out of that same book and stop and consider once in a while that not everything is black and white.

That you can interpret that quote as supporting you in any way and not actually contradicting everything you’ve said shows how far off the mark you are. He clearly shows that he’s changed to warming based on evidence, that you deny, and that if you deny that evidence you’re not a sceptic you’re an ideological denier. That’s you.

You don’t even realise you’ve hoisted yourself with your own petard

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by tp12

That you can interpret that quote as supporting you in any way and not actually contradicting everything you’ve said shows how far off the mark you are. He clearly shows that he’s changed to warming based on evidence, that you deny, and that if you deny that evidence you’re not a sceptic you’re an ideological denier. That’s you.

You don’t even realise you’ve hoisted yourself with your own petard

In jackdale parlance, please provide the evidence where I denied it was warming. Good luck!