Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That would be "Mackay". We're not in Scotland.


Absolutely glorious, little warmer than average actually.


But that will soon change. Damn you global warming, err, I mean climate change. Damn you to Hell!


https://www.news.com.au/technology/e...5d638f96cfe336

A polar blast will hit large parts of Australia today and last for days, bring severe wind and low temps

yea autocorrect.

I have a friend outside of Sidney up in the hills an off gridder prepper . He is getting a spot of snow so that should give you an idea of where he is in rural Victoria .

He does a you tube weather thing

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

I’m real sorry to ask but can someone explain the fish joke?

What with their sense of small or something?

How do you pronounce "ghoti"?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

yea autocorrect.

I have a friend outside of Sidney up in the hills an off gridder prepper . He is getting a spot of snow so that should give you an idea of where he is in rural Victoria .

He does a you tube weather thing

Cool. He'll have plenty to film over the next few days.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How do you pronounce "ghoti"?

That joke sounds fishy!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

That joke sounds fishy!

Truly.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We're up north now, launched, and now it's raining.

My argument continues to be that IF there were natural factors that have made significant contributions to warming, via CO2 or another mechanism... we'd know already and the majority of the field would not be wasting your time with their concerns about AGW.

Also, there are scientific dissenters, but no solid alternative hypothesis to explain warming. That kind of lends credibility to the dominant hypothesis of AGW

All aspects of a serious issue should be examined, but unfounded skepticism is not a good reason to suppress a well-founded conclusion.

Out of phone range starting tomorrow. Promise.

How do YOU know how unfounded it is, or if it is at all?

Have a good sail. YOU'LL BE BACK!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I don't quite understand why information that opposes aspects of alarmist claims in regards to climate change is somehow discreditable because it comes from a self assessed "skeptical" site???



Does this mean that alarmist sites *cough* skepticalscience *cough* should be similarly discredited?


I think it makes you extremely biased, not skeptical. Which gives me reason to be highly cynical in the extreme of your claim of being skeptical.

Well put . . . errr . . . I think.

If the data that produces the graph (or whatever the wanna-be scientists think shows off their "expertise") is otherwise valid and from a legit primary source, then what does it matter which secondary source it came from? It shouldn't, unless . . . the primary info is being manipulated and the reader is too biased, uninformed, lazy, in a hurry, or otherwise unwilling or unable to do a little critical thinking.

Case in point: the ruling in the Ridd case. The claim is made, citing the first two intro paras., that the ruling had nothing to do with free speech & intellectual freedom. I Google it. Yup, sure enough the first few hits takes me to desmogblog.com which repeats the exact same PR Jack dutifully repeats here, complete with the exact same intro paras. copied verbatim. Doesn't really make sense given all the attention the case has attracted. I look for the entire decision and find it on -- wouldn't ya know it -- none other than WUWT. Go figure.

Bias is everywhere. It can makes things fuzzy but it doesn't mean you have to go blind. Then your bias becomes so extreme you start believing you really can see again! And yes, that's when others become cynical.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

How do YOU know how unfounded it is, or if it is at all?

Have a good sail. YOU'LL BE BACK!

Warming? It's a fact for anyone living up north. Don't need studies or temperature anomalies when living 70deg N, just look out..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Warming? It's a fact for anyone living up north. Don't need studies or temperature anomalies when living 70deg N, just look out..

Not warming. Not CO2. Not natural forces. How all three interact.

[GordMay]

Fighting climate change through better land use
Some may not welcome a new report from that "cabal of corrupt conspirators" on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but here it is. Some of it's recommendations may not be too 'politicized' to discuss politely.

“Climate Change and Land - An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.”

More sustainable food production and forestry could cut emissions and store carbon. The way the world manages land, produces and eats food has to change to curb global warming; or food security, health and biodiversity will be at risk. So says a United Nations report* on the effects of climate change on land, released on Thursday (Aug. 8/19).
The report said global population growth and changes in consumption patterns have caused unprecedented rates of land and water use. It called for big changes to farming and eating habits, but stopped short of explicitly advocating going meat-free (for instance).
Dietary changes, featuring plant-based foods and sustainable animal-sourced food, could free up several million square kilometres of land by 2050 and potentially cut 0.7 to 8.0 gigatonnes a year of carbon dioxide equivalent.
A couple of other interesting ideas, outlined in the report:
According to the IPCC report, agroforesty (farming in forests, as with shade-grown coffee, interspersing fruit trees such as mangos with field-grown crops like vegetables, etc) can reduce erosion. It can also sequester carbon in the trees and boost biodiversity by providing habitat for plants and animals. [Benefits of agroforestry - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)]
Biochar is a special kind of charcoal, that's produced by controlled burning of plant matter, such as agricultural residues or wood waste; and that can be used as a fertilizer (an alternative to nitrogen-based fertilizers), and store carbon in the ground.

Summary for Policymakers ➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...site_FINAL.pdf

Headline Statements ➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...Statements.pdf

IPCC Report - “Climate Change and Land”
* Full ‘Draft’ Version (chapter 7) ➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl-report-download-page/

[GordMay]

Nature's (the publication, not the universe) take on the report:

“Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet” ~ by
Quirin Schiermeier, in “Nature" News
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Nature's (the publication, not the universe) take on the report:

“Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet” ~ by
Quirin Schiermeier, in “Nature" News
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7

sorry not happening I like my steaks and brats to much

[newhaul]

This just in its natural not man
Max is responsible for .01℃ of the warming . And its now back to cooling
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/w...not-supported/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Nature's (the publication, not the universe) take on the report:

“Eat less meat: UN climate change report calls for change to human diet” ~ by
Quirin Schiermeier, in “Nature" News
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7

Well, at least the chair of this particular IPCC committee says they don't want "to tell people what to eat.” But in the face of all the scientific "evidence," I don't understand how we can spend all this money and survive all the disruption of, for example, getting rid of carbon emitting cars only to find out that cows are an even bigger problem.

https://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-wo...919932136.html

And just in case anyone thinks a guy like me with no expert credentials or much scientific "expertise" is capable of producing scientific "evidence" for these threads, this one even has multi-colored pie graphs.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/glo...emissions-data

But even though it's from the EPA, I cut & pasted it straight from EcoWatch so it MUST be suspect if not FALSIFIED, and so I MUST be a LIAR too (just like Newhaul ). Oh how I wish the real experts around here could tell me why fish smell.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

sorry not happening I like my steaks and brats to much

I also! Finally, we're in total agreement.