ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

Apparently I'm talking to myself; I seem to be the only one listening.

 

You can find the source of the graph by right clicking on it, I would have thought you should know that.

This info is all over various government and universality web sites, that is where I found it in a google search (try it, not hard to do). I do not ever remember any one questioning this data, everyone excepts medeval warming (why don't you cite your source for question it?).

The global warming alarmists always stick with the last 80 or 100 year graphs (or even 40 year graph), but NEVER address long term climate cycle, because they can not. Just like you, you choose to ignore it.

You have to look at long term trends, which area always cyclic. You have understand that process that causes these cycles, yet no one can explain it, but rather commit scientific fraud by data selecting only recent data, and ignore long term trend.

Current climate looks totally normal within the long term trend. Explain how it is not normal please.

 

I did right-click on it. And nothing in the drop-down menu took me outside boatdesign.net.

Don't get snarky. You're simply wrong, or running on outdated information. Even the most cursory check of up to date, unbiased sources would show you that it's been years since scientists in general believed the Medieval Warm Period, as measured in Europe and the North Atlantic, was representative of worldwide conditions at the time.

And I did cite my source: I included a link to an article on the subject, which had internal links to the primary sources used by the author. Don't be so froggy; take a second look at where you're going to land before you leap.

OK, maybe your earlier misrepresentation wasn't simply a mistake. Because you just made another statement that is completely false. Scientists have spent a lot of time, and published reams of scientific papers, on the very subjects you're claiming they choose to ignore.

See above. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you're doing it.

If that's an honest question, you're so woefully ignorant on the subject that I see no hope whatsoever of educating you in a handful of brief internet postings. I recommend you go do some serious studying from genuine scientific sources, instead of just swallowing bs because it's what you want to believe.

If 97% of scientists worldwide agree that something is most likely real, could they all be wrong? That's unlikely, but possible.

Could they all be busy perpetrating a fraud on the world instead? That's utter nonsense.

 

I want to see data, raw unaltered data. I have read many scientific studies on climate, as published in the journals or occasionally the original paper itself (when I can find it). I have probably read more than you in fact, not opinion pieces, but the actual study, or the summary of the study as published in the journal.

You wrote "Scientists have spent a lot of time, and published reams of scientific papers, on the very subjects you're claiming they choose to ignore."

Okay, you say so, show them to me please. not opinion pieces, but actual science.

I find it all interesting, but when the authors, attempt to explain long term treads, always equivocate and express opinion, not data, or never address it. The intellectually honest ones will also go over possible flaws in their own data, problems with their model and usually admit it does not prove anthropogenic warming. But than they feel obligated to go into some religious sophistry explaining why they BELIEVE it is human caused, even through their data is inconclusive (IOW, it is dependent on their underlying assumptions, which can not always be proved or disproved as reasonable).

I think if they do not want to be dismissed or expelled from the community, they have to make such obligatory statements. It is a pretty nasty environment, my sister is a physicist and gives scientific papers on physics research all over the world, the politics become rather aggressive when someone's grant money is at stake. I have seen it first hand. Also, go see the documentary done by Ben Stein called "Expelled", about how good scientists lose their job and get shut out of academics if they do not toe the orthodoxy.

Science is not a pure pursuit of information, but often rather a pursuit of money, and peer acceptance (if they want to keep their grant money coming).

You are a fool if you think there is some such thing as unbiased research.

 

If you've read as many scientific articles and studies as you claim, you've already seen them. And if you haven't, I see no point wasting my time pointing you to anything you obviously won't accept anyway.... I don't have that much time for silly games.

But I'll tell you what. Why don't we look at scientific organizations who have issued joint statements in recent years supporting AGW?

2001, seventeen national science academies: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

2005, eleven national science academies: Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

2007, twelve national science academies: Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Other national science academies and societies over the years: Polish Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, United States National Research Council (through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change), Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Society of the United Kingdom.

Then of course we have the international science academies: African Academy of Sciences, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Science Foundation, InterAcademy Council, as the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences.

In the field of physical and chemical sciences, we have: American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society.

Earth sciences: American Geophysical Union, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, the European Federation of Geologists, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union, the Geological Society of America, Geological Society of London, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, National Association of Geoscience Teachers.

Meteorology and oceanography: American Meteorological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), World Meteorological Organization.

Paleoclimatology: American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research (those are the people you claim aren't looking at the past, even though it's what they do for a living).

Biology and Life Sciences: American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Society for Microbiology, Australian Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology (UK), Society of American Foresters, Wildlife Society.

Human Health: American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Australian Medical Association, World Federation of Public Health Associations, World Health Organization.

Miscellaneous: American Astronomical Society, American Statistical Association, Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia), International Association for Great Lakes Research, Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand.

Now let's be fair, and list the reputable scientific organizations that have published dissenting statements, saying they don't believe AGW is real. Ummm, whaddaya know...there aren't any. The last organization making making such a claim was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and they disavowed that stance in 1997.

Who do you expect me to believe, Petros: all those organizations whose members are actual scientists? Or you, because you've supposedly done more reading on the subject than I have?

What to do, what to do....dum de dum de dum.... hmm. Think I'll go with the real scientists on this one.

add: this information came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

They have 119 links in the footnotes. If you want the original sources, feel free to start going through them.

 

Petros, how do you explain this pie chart of peer-reviewed, published scientific papers on the subject? Where are you getting all those scientific papers that supposedly prove to you AGW isn't real? Are you somehow privy to unpublished research and studies?

 

so you ignore my simple request...again. and point to institutional acceptance rather than scientific data...again.

If they are some common, fine one and show it to me.

 

Asking me to provide you with enough raw data and scientific papers to demostrate AGW is real is hardly a 'simple request.' It could take years -- and you'd reject my conclusions anyway.

Tell you what: why don't you prove it isn't real, instead? After all, you'd only have 24 papers to go through from the last ten or twelve years..... whereas I'd have to summarize 13,926 of them.

 

I did not ask you for conclusions, only data, I want data. You say there are lots of studies that show it, where? Data and rational explanations on long term major climate swings of the past. I ask you to explain and you blow it off.

I can not prove a negative. I have showed you the temp graphs, do you need more? There are lots more. I am not trying to convice you, I ask a simple question, how to you explain the past cycles that have much higher temps than now? You say NOTHING.

Humans likely contribute to some climate effects, the extent of which is hard to isolate from natural cycles, even based on the data of recent changes I can not see that it rises to a crisis level. CO2 is less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere and is a relative minor player in greenhouse effect (water vapor accounts for 90 percent of the effect), so my scientifically educated background tells me that even if we could separate the human component it would be hard to notice much of a difference.

All of the opinions, scientific or others, posted on this thread has expressed opinions and alarm but none have satisfactorily explained how such minor human contributions are significant, nor how they would account for CO2 being much much higher during the last two ice ages.

I have read everything posted on this thread, I rarely comment. Every time I do I get no answers, just more smug dismissals.

Show me the data.

 

http://nsidc.org/data/collections.html
BR Teddy

 

Gee...in two seconds I can bring up a paper... peer reviewed.., soot, aerosols, fossil fuels as " climate forcing " factors linking man made activities to climate change

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract

Perhaps you should spend more time reading

 

Some paper is only fit to wipe with, having been covered with data that was "fudged".

 

I always wondered what happened to your right eye? Now I know. Hope you got proper treatment; they say dry rot can be quite invasive...

 

Skeptical Science | How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

 

Live Science | Does New Tree Ring Study Put the Chill on Global Warming?