ocean conditions are changing due to Rapid Global Climate Shift

¿Por qué?

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-03/scientist-endorse-report-that-says-climate-has-shifted/4606372

 

Hoyte knows better than all those scientists.

 

Of course he does. That's because he has a direct pipeline to Republican Party headquarters, where they keep on tap the latest and greatest simple bullet points from corporate lobbyists.

Those are so much simpler to understand and repeat than real science is.... and he doesn't have to waste time reading all those pesky scientific journals.

 

The Heartland Institute puts out Scientific journals !!!

MAD magazine is well respected. George Bush frequently consulted it when forming policy

 

"Top scientists agree climate has changed for good: The nation's top climate scientists and science bodies have for the first time endorsed a major report that says Australia's climate has shifted permanently in some cases."

without reading any further that article on the link above lost me. the climate is ALWAYS CHANGING. The history of this planet's climate has been change, it is either warming or cooling to further extremes than we have now. The climate has been warming since the last minor ice age about 4000 years ago, and the overall trend has been a steady rise in average temperature increase over the last 5 million years. these are historic facts with which no one disagrees.

So how it that anyone can make the claim in that article? Are they just stating the obvious? Or are they ignoring historical fact and just seeking government grants?

 

123 records broken in 90 days.......

 

If you've been reading the SkepticalScience.com website, which is where your graph came from, then either you're asking a rhetorical question which you can answer yourself, or else any answer we might give would be totally incomprehensible to you.

 

Looking at that graph - the other peaks, peak and drop - why the fuzzy squiggle and no drop? Technical question that one hey?
Predict what it will do next?

 

Well, based on the previous model, they will do what they did before.
Without the imput of man and his co2 imput.
With the extra co2 imput, will they behave as they did before?
I guess that's the question.......
While both sides argue, do we really want to find out on the not so good result side of things?
What will the deniers say when things go wrong?
Oops.

 

Not only can one see the drop, the presence of more data(greater thickness of the red region) to support it is visible.

Republican party is in the grip of progressives. I am not a progressive party loyalist because they rob us of our freedom and civil rights a little at a time, like Death by 1000 cuts.

 

that is the point. to say the "climate has shifted permanently" means what? That it will keep changing, or that it has changed and will not change any more?

So now the scientists are also clairvoyant? Or are they just asking us to believe they car clairvoyant, and hiding behind their credentials?

Without being clairvoyant, there is no telling what the future holds. As can be seen it has been both warmer and colder in the past. There is no way to asses the human impact.

If we go colder as previous cycles have done before, than everything living on the earth is in trouble, food production and habitable land areas will drop drastically. If it gets a little warmer, than food production and habitable land area goes up. So slight warming is better than cooling.

That is my point. No one knows. I neither deny it nor accept it, I want data. I have no axe to grind nor will my career be affected either way, I have no horse in this race. I can not find any hard evidence that they can predict the future. I can not find any evidence that what we are seeing is no different than a normal cycle. less than one degree change in the last 150 years does not make a trend nor indicated the cause.

I am trained in science, I make my living reading and analyzing data. I also have many family members and relatives who are science professionals. Everything I see posted here and written by the so-called climate "professionals" (those paid by the government to monitor climate) write stuff that appears to me written to obviscate the issue to non-science trained people.

 

Petros,
The SkepticalScience.com web site has about the best explanations of AGW for the lay person that I know of (and if you're not a trained expert in climatology or a corollary field, you're a lay person). If you've read all the relevant information on that web site and are still unconvinced, then nothing that we lay persons can say on this thread will be more informative or more convincing.

There certainly is more data available than what is on the SkSc website -- boatloads more -- but you will have to dig it up yourself and not expect us to spoon-feed it to you.

 

Maybe if you had read the article you would know what they were actually saying, instead of having to ask. You could've found out what changes they were talking about, and why they consider them significant and newsworthy....

You might as well quit reading an article about an uptick in cancer deaths or a new serial killer because it starts out 'people are dying....', and people are always dying.