Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Ah...the Famous weather hype of El Nino...I'm glad you brought that up.
El Nino fizzled and fell far short of all the expert prediction and models.

The most recent Ocean Nino Index peaked at 2.3. The same as 1998 which had been the strongest in the previous 50 years. Some fizzle.

Climate Prediction Center - Monitoring & Data: ENSO Impacts on the U.S. - Previous Events

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Newhaul claimed that the Sahel was greening; I showed that it is in a drought condition.

The article I posted was written BEFORE the start of the El Nino.

OK, I stand corrected. I thought the back & forth btwn. you & Newhaul was about new developments in the science, not the Sahel. I also thought that parts of Saharan & sub-Saharan Africa were experiencing greening, but apparently not the area referred to in the article.

But back to the main point, there's nothing in the article that blames MMGW for the extended dry spell, and explains that the region is one which "faces frequent drought and inadequate rain seasons." If there's scientific evidence and counter-evidence in this regard, then maybe you should present it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

New science comes out on a weekly basis -- almost a daily basis.

Any new & meaningful scientific developments you care to share, or is the mere publication enough? I suspect many of us have already had our fill of skeptical science. Even Jack says he only rarely consults.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, I stand corrected. I thought the back & forth btwn. you & Newhaul was about new developments in the science, not the Sahel. I also thought that parts of Saharan & sub-Saharan Africa were experiencing greening, but apparently not the area referred to in the article.

But back to the main point, there's nothing in the article that blames MMGW for the extended dry spell, and explains that the region is one which "faces frequent drought and inadequate rain seasons." If there's scientific evidence and counter-evidence in this regard, then maybe you should present it.

Newhaul was trying to claim the Sahel was greening, I was simply responding that he was wrong.

The graph I presented shows historical data.

I made no attempt to say it was AGW.

There is some evidence of CO2 fertilization but it generally regarded as short-term and beneficial to some only types of plants. I have already pointed out the issues of increased predation and declining nutrition.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The Sahel is suffering from a series of droughts.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Once again data that is many (7) years old and in drought calculations that makes it irelevent to what is happening today.

Those numbers reflect 110 years...so 7 years makes it irrelevant(correct sp)?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
You acknowledge that clouds are not well understood, but then won't acknowledge more fundamental scientific debate over ocean subduction/carbon sinking, disparities btwn. levels of CO2 & warming, and controversy over the correct way to take the earth's temperature.

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have actually acknowledged all one side of that.

I have looked and can't find where you acknowledged that your pronouncements on one side of the issue were controverted, let alone highly theoretical as is the case with subduction and carbon sinking. Given your obviously vast repertoire of well-organized information, this is misleading.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Any new & meaningful scientific developments you care to share, or is the mere publication enough? I suspect many of us have already had our fill of skeptical science. Even Jack says he only rarely consults.

I received notification from:

Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

I also follow up on science, climate change and global on Google News.

Nature - Climate is also a good source.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I have looked and can't find where you acknowledged that your pronouncements on one side of the issue were controverted, let alone highly theoretical as is the case with subduction and carbon sinking. Given your obviously vast repertoire of well-organized information, this is misleading.

Look harder.

The controversy around temperature data.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...rs#post2102993

And I use RSS data.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Then why do you insist on coupling politics and science?

It's the most obvious explanation for someone of your learning's unbalanced approach to the issue. Please tell me that after all the pages of Happer/Exxon/Heritage Found/Inhofe/Smith quips you're not trying to back away from this one too. Or is the infusion of politics on your side only all that is OK?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Newhaul was trying to claim the Sahel was greening, I was simply responding that he was wrong.

The graph I presented shows historical data.

I made no attempt to say it was AGW.

There is some evidence of CO2 fertilization but it generally regarded as short-term and beneficial to some only types of plants. I have already pointed out the issues of increased predation and declining nutrition.

OK. Fair enough.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I received notification from:

Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

I also follow up on science, climate change and global on Google News.

Nature - Climate is also a good source.

I have no doubts about your follow-up and keeping current!

But the question was whether climate science had produced any significant new developments of late.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Look harder.

The controversy around temperature data.

Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years - Page 228 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

And I use RSS data.

Is this the post you meant (#3418 on p. 228)?

Here's how you responded there to a couple of the fundamental controversies in CC science, namely (i) the temp disparities btwn. sat vs. surface data, and (ii) ocean subduction as a theory for explaining those disparities:

Carl Mears of RSS believes that surface temperatures are more appropriate. Ask him why. Personally I live on the earth's surface, not in the troposphere. I suspect some here do inhabit the troposphere.

Mears also contends that the oceans are absorbing more heat energy.

Give him a thorough read.

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems

I've given this a thorough read, at your suggestion, at least twice. I understand completely that it's one side of a theory that attempts to reconcile the temp disparities from the two data modes. I also understand, quite thoroughly, that there is credible, contrary science that ALSO says the troposphere IS in fact an accurate measure of surface temps, and that ALSO discounts the ocean subduction theory based on, among other things, the failure to account for the "missing heat."

SO THERE ARE CONFLICTING BUT VIABLE THEORIES BUT YOU ARE ONLY PRESENTING ONE SIDE!!

As a more credible alternative, you could say . . .

1. Dr. Mears is smarter and better credentialed than his colleagues who can't find the missing heat;

2. The missing heat in the oceans is dissipated leaving only acidification behind;

3. My scientist is better than your scientist;

4. 49 scientists agree with Mears and only 47 with the others, so therefore;

5. Everyone & his dog knows ocean subduction is the only explanation so why bother;

6. The confusion is all Inhofe & Smith's fault, with help from Happer; and/or,

7. Christy & Spencer are religious nuts (oops, you've already said that).

But instead, you ignore that THERE ARE CONFLICTING BUT VIABLE THEORIES AND YOU ARE ONLY PRESENTING ONE SIDE!!

Sorry to say, but that is propaganda, not honest analysis nor critical thinking.

[TurninTurtle]

Maybe we should re-introduce high sulfur fuels since that is what they were blaming for global cooling.

Apparently we did too good a job at stopping the cooling.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some new science dated yesterday.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0427150902.htm

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2959.html

Both of these articles discuss the same development, namely a new method for dealing with uncertainty over climate models through the use of statistics. So nothing new in the climate science, only a potentially new way of analyzing existing model data. So far it appears that Newhaul's bus rides with climate scientists have proven to be a credible source.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Any new & meaningful scientific developments you care to share, or is the mere publication enough? I suspect many of us have already had our fill of skeptical science. Even Jack says he only rarely consults.

Apparently either you are too lazy to click on the link, too illiterate to read it, or too dense to understand it. The article is from the New York Times, dated April 7, 2016, and reported on a study from Science, which is one of the foremost science-reporting journals. The report is about the albedo effect of clouds, which was relevant to part of the recent discussion in this thread.

Edit to Add:
It's pretty clear why you wish to avoid seriously considering what I posted from Skeptical Science. StuM's sneering not withstanding, the science behind each of the 10 arguments is sound, and you and the rest of the deniers will have a very difficult time making a good case against them.