Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

properly sized air cooled refrigeration is better than water cooled :-):-):-):-)

We need to talk . . . .

Originally Posted by newhaul

my keel is superior to yours :-):-) I'm fully encapsulated no keel bolts

Me too! All of the Bristol's I think. But I hear it could be big trouble if we get water infiltration into our keels.

But then no offense to those with water-cooled reefers or keel bolts. I'm just one of those frustrating kinda guys who doesn't like to pretend expertise along with strong opinions about areas I have insufficient knowledge about. Not sure why, but I hear it makes some people angry & frustrated.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Only because he can't responsibly attack Spencer's opinions. A page out of the "play the man not the ball" playbook. We read it recently from L-E too.

it shows up at least every 50 or so pages in some form .
Kind of the Goodwin's law of MMGWC

[GordMay]

"The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter? ~ Union of Concerned SAcientists
➥ https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...kgrounder.html

INCLUDING (For those who chose not to read the entire article, linked above):
Overview: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-0
IPCC history and mission: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-1
The assessments and climate action: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-2
IPCC structure: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-3
Authors, contributors, and reviewers: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-4
The peer review process: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-5
Representing a range of expert opinions: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-6
Consensus building within the IPCC: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-7
The role of governments: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-8

Another interesting take on
“How the IPCC Got Started” ~ by Michael Oppenheimer
➥ How the IPCC Got Started


And from the IPCC ”Documentation IPCC Procedures ➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/documentation/procedures/

Quoting from “PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK”
➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...principles.pdf
2. ROLE:
"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."

[Lake-Effect]

Spencer, Spencer, Spencer, Spencer...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ah yes, you merely implied it by suggesting that all scientific bodies represent the opinions of all scientists.

I did no such thing. In fact I pointed out that APS did not represent Ivar Giaever position.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

"The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter? ~ Union of Concerned SAcientists
➥ https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...kgrounder.html

INCLUDING (For those who chose not to read the entire article, linked above):
Overview: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-0
IPCC history and mission: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-1
The assessments and climate action: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-2
IPCC structure: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-3
Authors, contributors, and reviewers: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-4
The peer review process: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-5
Representing a range of expert opinions: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-6
Consensus building within the IPCC: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-7
The role of governments: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin....html#bf-toc-8

Another interesting take on
“How the IPCC Got Started” ~ by Michael Oppenheimer
➥ How the IPCC Got Started

I have read all of that several times in the past .

Here is the most relevant part of it all as far as I'm concerned .

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

Read the last part again in till the lightbulb clicks on .
All they want to look at is what has man done . Why is that?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Only because he can't responsibly attack Spencer's opinions. A page out of the "play the man not the ball" playbook. We read it recently from L-E too.

I actually agree with many of Spencer's opinions:

his views on the folks at PSI
his views on atmospheric pressure as a source of warming
his views on the Second Law of Thermodynamics
his views on the GHE


I quite like this web page: Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water « Roy Spencer, PhD

I use UAH data.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I actually agree with many of Spencer's opinions:

his views on the folks at PSI
his views on atmospheric pressure as a source of warming
his views on the Second Law of Thermodynamics
his views on the GHE


I quite like this web page: Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water « Roy Spencer, PhD

I use UAH data.

But since you cannot attack his interpretation of that same data you attack him personally, trying to link his religious beliefs with his professional opinions about the science. And in doing so, you have only insinuation and none of the "evidence" you so implore others to produce. In contrast, other scientists (like Mears @RSS) disagrees (in friendly fashion) with Spencer reaching opposing views on what amounts to the same satellite data. This is the difference between honest controversy amongst professional scientists and ideologically-based bias from partisans.

Btw, you "use" UAH data for what???

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Btw, you "use" UAH data for what???

that one has me head scratching as well considering how often he refutes that exact data when I produce it for all here .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have read all of that several times in the past .

Here is the most relevant part of it all as far as I'm concerned .

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.

Read the last part again in till the lightbulb clicks on .
All they want to look at is what has man done . Why is that?

Indeed.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

But since you cannot attack his interpretation of that same data you attack him personally, trying to link his religious beliefs with his professional opinions about the science. And in doing so, you have only insinuation and none of the "evidence" you so implore others to produce. In contrast, other scientists (like Mears @RSS) disagrees (in friendly fashion) with Spencer reaching opposing views on what amounts to the same satellite data. This is the difference between honest controversy amongst professional scientists and ideologically-based bias from partisans.

Btw, you "use" UAH data for what???

I did not attack him personally; he is a proud creationist.

The Evolution Crisis: Dr. Roy Spencer

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01...google-search/

Katharine Hayhoe is an Evangelical Christian whom I respect.

The two use their faiths to take different paths in their views of climate change.

I am an agnostic.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.

However, in reality the IPCC does examine natural forcing in Chapter 8 of AR5.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.

why not climate change in general

Why just the " human induced" component?
Then the next thing you know they are demanding money based on that .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

However, in reality the IPCC does examine natural forcing in Chapter 8 of AR5.

but they are not a required part of any study .
Show one published study that is approved by the IPCC that actually uses natural forcings in its conclusions .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I did not attack him personally; he is a proud creationist.

The Evolution Crisis: Dr. Roy Spencer

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01...google-search/

Katharine Hayhoe is an Evangelical Christian whom I respect.

The two use their faiths to take different paths in their views of climate change.

I am an agnostic.

of course you do wrt Hayhoe she is soundly in the MMGWC hierarchy .