Death knell for AGW

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
no - you've been specifically non-specific! This exchange started out somewhat 'cordial'... when you've been asked for specificity, you suddenly reverted to the comfort of your "religion/truther" labeling. Is there a problem?

The problem is you are a shill for the globull warming industry. That is as I said just like a born again. Your mind is closed to facts.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
who is your "they"... do you have an example of your "they" previously providing a, as you say, "definitive"... one your "they" no longer provides?
From your link

Ocean acidification impacts on marine life will depend on the rate and magnitude of changes in ocean chemistry and biological responses. While the ocean chemistry changes are predictable with high certainty, our understanding of the impacts is still developing. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence emerging for a range of biological effects and changes in the marine biogeochemical processes that affect the carbon cycle. The long-term consequences of this are difficult to predict.

and how does this rise to the level of your initial statement and my resultant request (quoted above)... for you to relate an example of your claimed prior "willingness" to be definitive now usurped by a position/statement no longer providing definitiveness? Unless a representative example can be reviewed it's hardly fair for you to speak of a shift... one you imply hinges on concern over prediction accuracy?

as for the statements you did select, it does speak to "ocean chemistry changes predictable with high certainty"... it does speak to "strong evidence affecting the carbon cycle". And it includes a qualified "difficult to predict" summation on long-term consequences. Of course, you somehow managed to miss the following paragraph after your selection; one that does speak to examples of environmental impacts already being observed; specifically:
Impacts are already being observed in the polar and tropical regions.Coral calcification rates have declined in recent decades, although attributing causes for these impacts among multiple drivers (acidification, warming, pollution, etc.) is a challenge. Fundamental ecological ocean processes will be affected as many marine organisms depend directly or indirectly on calcium carbonate saturated waters and are adapted to current levels of seawater pH for physiological and metabolic processes such as calcification, growth and reproduction. The pH changes expected will exceed the seasonal and regional variations currently experienced naturally

on many levels predictions 'tighten up' as uncertainties are refined... as error ranges are narrowed (say through process improvement). More legitimate predictions are coupled with appropriate uncertainty and error range attachments. I'm inclined to view your reference to "prior predictions" being less forthcoming today as ones more likely associated with statements that didn't have, necessarily, appropriate assessments of uncertainty/error... but, then again, unless you can provide a specific example of your "prior versus today", it's somewhat difficult to say anything else... wouldn't you agree?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
although attributing causes for these impacts among multiple drivers (acidification, warming, pollution, etc.) is a challenge.


really, this is FAR too easy.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
The problem is you are a shill for the globull warming industry. That is as I said just like a born again. Your mind is closed to facts.

when all you've got is prattle about "religion, truther, shill, globull, industry, born again"... are you really looking for discussion or an avenue for you to showcase your overt denial? I've seen the representations of "facts" being pedaled around here... denier facts that reflect upon nothing more than C&P references from blogs and twitter feeds. And these are your declared "facts"? There isn't a single one you 'denier crew' here that actually questions anything... you so-called "skeptics" are anything but. A true skeptic doesn't exclude examination of denier blogs/twitter feed "facts".

although attributing causes for these impacts among multiple drivers (acidification, warming, pollution, etc.) is a challenge.

really, this is FAR too easy.

it's a position statement... I've just re-read it and could pull out many examples of very precise language used. Even without complete context, reading the selective statement you pulled out is, as you say, "easy"... as in, 'amongst a multitude of contributing drivers, definitive attribution... is a challenge'... when there are many contributing influences.

I see you choose to ignore... completely ignore... the pretext you started with; the "prior versus today" statement you made.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
more "might", "perhaps", "possible".


You know why they won't stick their neck out and give definitive anymore? It's because in the past when the climate alarmists gave definitive dates and results they ended up with egg on their face and eating crow as their "predictions" didn't come anywhere near to reality.

No it's because certainty is the realm of faith, not science.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
No it's because certainty is the realm of faith, not science.




No, it's because they don't know. The Global warming proponents have moved beyond science, they are now living in the realm of faith. Their predictions do not and have not proven out.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
No, it's because they don't know. The Global warming proponents have moved beyond science, they are now living in the realm of faith. Their predictions do not and have not proven out.

your prior link is peppered with links from renowned blogging deniers... a quick glance at a few links shows nothing more than claims that have absolutely no substantiation behind them... a statement is made that "someone" claimed/predicted "such and such". There is no context reference, there is no detail, there is nothing provided other than the written word of a denier blogger. This is your measuring bar? Notwithstanding the blog you referenced for the linked list does not have the substance/integrity behind it to even identify ownership of the blog and/or who is running the blog you've tapped into! Well done, indeed!
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
No, it's because they don't know. The Global warming proponents have moved beyond science, they are now living in the realm of faith. Their predictions do not and have not proven out.

I guess that's correct. I'm a global warming proponent, and I don't know what the future holds. Some predictions have matched observational evidence to date. For instance, the predicted concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been pretty accurate. and the prediction of temperature increase using radiation modles, and ignoring feedback effects has actually bourne out quite well over longer time scales. And certainly there is evidence of continued warming. I expect that in January we'll see 2014 as close to a record-high year for surface temperatures.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36

from the godfather 'Fred Singer' no less! :mrgreen: Well done, Locutus! As a few here have shown, there is no pause... there has been a slower rate of warming based on surface temperature readings of certain datasets. Your article author's first sentence speaks to the purposeful cherry-pick to align with the anomalous 97/98 ENSO event; one that can be measured against this graphic that shows the BS for what it truly is:



you've also been apprised that some of the surface temperature datasets lack coverage of station data from remote areas of the earth (like the Arctic, like areas of Africa) that are warming the most. In that regard, it was member Tonington that offered a reference to the Cowtan/Way hybridization method to upgrade the HadCRUT4 dataset... one that allows you interactively to bring forward your own results for surface temperature warming... results like the following; results that clearly show there has been no pause. Notwithstanding, of course, that this doesn't even factor the warming of the oceans where more than 90% of all warming goes into:

 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Wadlo , no that's not nice his conscience said, Waldo he admitted, why don't you change your tack and sail on smoother seas, you are feeding the animals in this zoo. And your to rich for their digestive tracks. Adopt a different way, cuz they will grind you like corn until you develope a drinking hobby.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Wadlo , no that's not nice his conscience said, Waldo he admitted, why don't you change your tack and sail on smoother seas, you are feeding the animals in this zoo. And your to rich for their digestive tracks. Adopt a different way, cuz they will grind you like corn until you develope a drinking hobby.

I appreciate your sentiment... (some times) your words are very wise. In this case, I balance the "animal zoo feeding" against the questioning of my personal integrity. I didn't lie... and these fackers have nothing to base their claim on... with one of the animals openly acknowledging he requires no basis to have made the claim. You say 'walk away'... I say, that is not my way.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
from the godfather 'Fred Singer' no less! :mrgreen: Well done, Locutus! As a few here have shown, there is no pause... there has been a slower rate of warming based on surface temperature readings of certain datasets. Your article author's first sentence speaks to the purposeful cherry-pick to align with the anomalous 97/98 ENSO event; one that can be measured against this graphic that shows the BS for what it truly is:



you've also been apprised that some of the surface temperature datasets lack coverage of station data from remote areas of the earth (like the Arctic, like areas of Africa) that are warming the most. In that regard, it was member Tonington that offered a reference to the Cowtan/Way hybridization method to upgrade the HadCRUT4 dataset... one that allows you interactively to bring forward your own results for surface temperature warming... results like the following; results that clearly show there has been no pause. Notwithstanding, of course, that this doesn't even factor the warming of the oceans where more than 90% of all warming goes into:





Nice of you to point out how the global warmists come up with their bullshyte.


First graph, take the lowest temp at the beginning of the time frame you want to use and then take the highest temp at the end of the time frame. Look guys, we have temp rise.


Second graph, .117 degrees centigrade rise in temp over a decade and half time frame. MY GOD, WE'RE ALL GONNA FRY!
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
beav, beav... look, one of the animals has dropped his same furry-rabbit turd again! And you think I should just ignore this... just walk away? :lol:

They are just testing you , walk away pick another subject. I was tempered in their furnace and pounded on their forge and finally beaten into a sword. Take up drinking as a shield. Bend or be broken by the guardians of tinfoil.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Nice of you to point out how the global warmists come up with their bullshyte.

not surprising that you would interpret the post details in the way you've conveyed. Good on ya for truly coming out and showcasing you are a confirmed denier. Only the fringe of the fringe actually challenge warming anymore... you appear to be in fitting company.

First graph, take the lowest temp at the beginning of the time frame you want to use and then take the highest temp at the end of the time frame. Look guys, we have temp rise
.

no - the graph is a visual presentation to showcase the purposeful cherry-pick that deniers have perpetuated for over a decade; i.e. take one of the highest temperature points ever reached (as relates to that 97/98 anomalous ENSO event) and use it as the purposeful starting point in trend estimates. No one with any intelligence and understanding of surface temperature trending would do such a thing... unless an agenda (a denier agenda) was behind it. Proper climate trending is done over the long-term to "even out" variability peaks. I suggest you take a break and do some reading on temperature trending.

Second graph, .117 degrees centigrade rise in temp over a decade and half time frame. MY GOD, WE'RE ALL GONNA FRY!

it's not an absolute... it's a figure based on anomalies... the point of providing you that graphic was to reinforce there is NO PAUSE (even without accounting for ocean warming). But yes, overall, global surface temperatures have risen by around 0.75 °C since the start of the 20th century. You may not think this is significant... but then, you're a denier!

They are just testing you , walk away pick another subject. I was tempered in their furnace and pounded on their forge and finally beaten into a sword. Take up drinking as a shield. Bend or be broken by the guardians of tinfoil.

beav, beav... you talk from both sides of your mouth.
 
Last edited:

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Get that award hung up yet?

No I need someone to do the drywalling first. But in the meantime, which act of cowardice by the Americans do you think was most noticeable in th War of 1812? Was it James Madison leaving his wife to teh depredations of the enemy troops, or was the Kentucky Militia soiling themselves upon seeing massed Canadian troops--all 27 of them?