Larson Ice Shelf.

Refer to one piece of research that suggests AGW is nothing to worry about. Good luck!

 

Most research. It is the tabloid media that inflates it with alarm.

 

Provide one example of research that concludes AGW is nothing to worry about. Don't let me down (again), I'm relying on you!

 

I see you are not very familiar with how research is done or the many papers that are inflated by the tabloids as dire.

Now, back to the OP. Why do you think the Larson ice shelf calving is 'disasterous'?

 

Don't hide! You've made the claim that AGW isn't anything to worry about. Why can't you support that position with evidence?

 

Don't try and derail the thread. Why do you think the calving is 'disasterous'?

 

There's no derail. We have evidence which can be referred to the uncertainty over the speed of the disaster of climate change (thus the reference to actuary). You either accept the increased risk or you pretend AGW isn't a problem. Which one is it?

 

So tell us how this applies to the Larsen ice shelf.

 

Already referred to the issue and its neatly summed up via the OP: "much more common than previously thought". Can you refer to how speed of change isn't an issue for the disaster associated with climate change?

 

You will have to be more specific than that. Which rate change? Early 1900s warming, middle 1909s cooling or late 1900s warming or the current slowdown?

 

I was clear. The OP is used to refer to how change may be underestimated. I combined that with the obvious: reference to actuary. If you want relevance (and you haven't ever managed it), you have to refer to one of two: (1) Speed of change isn't actually an issue, with the OP ignoring evidence elsewhere and that things look more rosy than we thought; (2) AGW isn't a problem. We know you can't do (2), good luck with (1)!

 

Underestimated how? You mean like the overestimation of the computer models that all of this hysteria is based on?

I am sure, since you think you are superior, that you can tell us exactly how much of the change is natural variation.

 

Don't hide now. For a change, actually respond: If you want relevance (and you haven't ever managed it), you have to refer to one of two: (1) Speed of change isn't actually an issue, with the OP ignoring evidence elsewhere and that things look more rosy than we thought; (2) AGW isn't a problem. We know you can't do (2), good luck with (1)!

 

Translation - you believe in the hype instead of the science.

If you do not know how much change is natural you cannot know how much is influenced by man. Don’t worry, no one can tell you how much is natural. It is one of the known unknowns and the reason such a wide range is used for CO2 sensitivity in the models all the hype is based on. That is if you ‘believe’ CO2 is a control knob. Throughout the Holocene since the Holocene optimum CO2 has risen while temperatures cooled to the present day.

 

I've asked you again after again to refer to science that supports your position. You've given nothing more than "the sun matters too". I'm happy for you to reference anything pertinent to the choices posed: (1) Speed of change isn't actually an issue, with the OP ignoring evidence elsewhere and that things look more rosy than we thought; (2) AGW isn't a problem.

Stop dodging. Conspiracy theorists are supposed to be more cunning

 

Your demand, yours to prove they are problems.

 

We know AGW is a problem and we know that there is uncertainty over speed of crisis. You can't dispute the obvious.

 

We? You got a mouse in your pocket?

The obvious is you believe in the hype and are not aware of the debate.

 

If you want to dispute the consensus then refer to evidence to show it. Is AGW a problem? Is speed of crisis uncertain?

 

Ah, the political consensus, of course not the actual debate.

 

I don't suppose you've stopped to consider how many icebergs went unrecorded in the millennia before satellite data became available.

 

Can you offer any evidence? Or are you always going to play conspiracy theorist?

 

Historically mankind has had a better go of things in warm eras. You are paranoid.

 

"Speed of crisis" another meaningless bumper sticker slogan from the alarmist.

 

If you believe that then why are you using an electrical fossil fuel guzzling grid system to post your thoughts on it? Shouldnt you turn off your device to help stop the warming? Or is it ok for you to use fossil fuel but not others?