What Do We Think About Climate Change

Well, this is the 'missing link' between climate-change and boats:

Climate Change & Naval War

"Large-scale anthropogenic weather modification and climatic changes resulted from two destructive sea wars."

http://climate-ocean.com/

Wow...!

Nobody can now say we shouldn't be discussing climate change at Boatdesign.net forums!

 

yah you kinda been a flaming *** to more than a few folks in this thing so Im pretty unlikely to send you much personal information and I'd be surprised without it if the university would release any records to you

I was thinking more along the lines of Massali although I haven't asked to see if he would like to play yet

your not looking to good on this one there G
once again you have your foot in your mouth and all your going to do when you've once again been proven wrong is ignore it, and continue quacking away
its kinda your MO at this point

it does look like you have another game of find the flaw going though
should keep us amused until I can get a hold of something from the university.

Guillermo
your just to easy

cheers
B

ok just read the drivel you have posted this time around
yikes you are quacking nutty as it comes
easy pickings for another round of "find the flaw"

lets take a look at the graph you are trying to foist off on the readers and then lets take a look at the actual temp anomalies worldwide over the last 1000 years

here's the one G posted which is of extremely limited scope regionally

and here's a compilation of multiple studies showing in every case that the graph G presents to us is a complete misrepresentation of the actual global or hemisphere temp over time
once again G is trying to foist weather off as climate

the study he is looking at is a regional study not a worldwide on nor even representative of a complete hemisphere


this is one of the northern hemisphere over the last 1000 years

this one below is pretty well defined


here is another one that pretty well defines a number of temp studies none of which resemble the graph Guillermo has presented



now granted its difficult to tell exactly what G is trying to say or what his graph actually represents cause the graph and the study are of a limited geographic area. The error in using it as representative of world temp anomalies is obvious when much more thorough studies are so readily at hand and show such dramatically differing results

ps
hows my spelling so far G

in a nut shell its the same deceptive manor of presenting information we have come to expect

strike one

shall I check the rest of that quackery for strike two and three

love
B

pps
is debunking the deniers diatribe synonymous with insulting them?
I dont think so
typically people appreciate being informed of an error however when it comes to deniers they react so badly that it soon becomes obvious they are in some state of
well
denial
thus the term used most often in association them
deniers

cheers

 

You keep saying it, and the vast majority of real scientists continue to disagree with you. Why is that, Guillermo?

 

Cause it's another wildly unsupported statement from the G man

 

The Royal Society has released today a Summary of the Science of Climate Change available here.

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

Whatever your views on this topic, challenging their educational qualifications would not be an option.

 

Appreciate all the help here brothers, but please just let me deal with it, cause frankly
It's just another meal of crow for the deniers in the pile. If Massali will agree I will send him my info soonest and get this settled.

Cheers
B

Ps
I'm not suggesting that I publish any personal info
I'm just sayin that we find a neutral third party that we all trust to confirm my status
But
If Mass is not interested in playin then maybe Troy, who seems a descent sort to me
Will do

What do you say G

Mass is ok by you

 

I predfer Mass because he seldom posts on the climate change thread and he is a known and respected entity

What do you say g is he a fair and impartial judge cause frankly
I'm not sending you **** for personal info

 

Who is Massali? There is not such member in these forums. You are probably misspelling, as always.

I do not want you sending your "****" (using your own words ) to a third party, strange to this conversation and who will become embarrassed, and bother him/her.

I doubt such party will be available to carefully check the validity and scope of your titles/credentials (if they exist at all) with the issuing organizations, which I will gladly do.

Once again: I do not believe you because you have been proved here to be a compulsory cheeky liar several times, so I believe you can even falsify documents if necessary. If you choose to send whatever to a third party, I will make him/her aware of this.

Why am I being so beligerant with you on this matter? Because you have allowed yourself to doubt about my universitary formation and scorned it, so you are now experiencing your own medicine. Do you like it?

So, send the information to me. I will not publicly display it, promised. I just will respectfully check it with the issuing universities/entities and recognize my error if I'm proved wrong.

To be fair, as I need to hide nothing, you can check who I am and my formation by calling or writing to the Colegio Oficial de Ingenieros Navales de España, contacts here: http://www.ingenierosnavales.com/

I'm chartered member #1173. Serve yourself.

Cheers.

 

Comparison of Lohele, Mann, Moberg and Ljungqvist, Northern Hemisphere reconstructions, with uncertainty bands.



Loehle’s reconstruction out runs highest for most of the period, and Mann et al ’08 CSP CPS series runs considerably lower than other NH reconstructions for 800-1100 AD. Only the Loehle et al reconstruction shows the medieval warm period close to as warm (e.g. within the uncertainty bounds) of the modern instrumental land/ocean temperature record. Bear in mind, of course, that this is only a Northern Hemisphere reconstruction, and thus only half the picture. Unfortunately, long-term Southern Hemispheric proxies are few and far between, though there has been a concerted push in the last decade to collect more.

The person whose result is most in line with Ljungqvist ’10 is Moberg, though Mann’s EIV series is close:



Credit: The Blackboard (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-proxy-reconstructions/)

 

even my ducks don't respect me

 

It's Boston's call to make, obviously. But after seeing the way you deliberately misrepresent studies and graphs, make completely unsupported claims as though they're settled scientific truth (not to mention your rabid personal attacks on anyone who tries to correct you), I personally wouldn't trust you with my mint julep recipe.

 

Sorry, didn't notice your comment.. The source=> http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

 

Thanks, latestarter.

I do not agree with many aspects of the summary, because they give for good matters on which there is strong disagreement, particularly (but not only) the sensitivity of the system to CO2 increases and some of the feedback mechanisms and forcings, specially with water vapour which they say it is "expected" it should be increasing with the warming (and doubling the climate sensitivity), but the fact is that it is not, as per the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). If something, it has been decreasing since at least 1983. It is amazing how then they state: "There nevertheless remain uncertainties in how much water vapour amounts will change,..."

It's interesting to me to realize how they mention the two equal magnitude warming periods in the 1850-2010 instrumental record I have been highlighting here (1910-1940 and 1975-2000). It's also interesting to note they do not comment at all on the 1910-1940 warming -similar to the 1975-2000 one- and its causes, but focus only in this last asuming it's likely from anthropogenic origin. Why? They also avoid to comment the 2000-2010 lack of warming and the 1940-1975 slight cooling.

They recognize the poor knowledge effects of particles originating from both human activities and natural sources (i.e. cosmic rays) which have the potential to strongly influence the properties of clouds, with consequences for estimates of climate forcing. I'm surprised to see how they have a high confidence in models when this crucial aspect is not properly taken into account. A variation of only a 1% in cloud cover can have as much influence as all the allegued anthropogenic forcings.

In my opinion the document is quite an exercise of the absurd, contradicting itself in several aspects and ignoring proven facts.

We'll keep on debating.

Cheers.

 

The first time I've clicked on this thread.....out of idle curiousity,has anyone here overlaid the solar cycle -max and mins- on any of these charts to see if there's any correlation??

http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/cosmos/solarwind/Sunspot Cycles & Human History.pdf

Have at 'er boys.....life is short....going fishing and ocean kayaking around Saltspring Island..

 

At least they can read and understand what they read( for you red ).