BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 4:40pm:

You accuse others of getting their rocks off by denigrating others whilst you are actively participating in THE WAR MACHINE and think no one but me notices the disconnect perhaps?? 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 3:33pm:



Always use them when driving???

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 5:15pm:


And that is the operative question on CC/AGW as well.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 6:04pm:



The uncertainty of Scientific Principle

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:52am:


Does it?!?!  Where?

Here is the link to the Summary for Policymakers - tell us which page

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

No.  It isn't.  Please don't tell lies.


What the IPCC AR5 says is:
The average rate of ice loss from glaciers around the world, excluding glaciers on the periphery of the ice sheets, was very likely 226 [91 to 361] Gt yr−1 over the period 1971 to 2009, and very likely 275 [140 to 410] Gt yr−1 over the period 1993 to 200910

the World Glacier Monitoring Service says:
The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.6 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2012. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at 16 m w.e.

http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum12.html


Please apologise for lying to the forum.

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

Yes - Kiribati would be sinking.  The islands of Kiribati are atolls.  They are sinking by definition.

If you really want a discussion on the islands of Kiribati - I would be happy to engage.  I lived there for many years and know them well.

lee wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

I see an ignorant fool telling lies.

And so does everybody else.

Why do you do it?

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 10:49pm:

fud !!

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 4:58pm:



So up to your usual standard, slander someone and then just run away like a coward. No wonder people treat you with such contempt.




You set set yourself low standards and continually fail to meet even those.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:



Try the second bottom footnote on page 21.

'Calculated from projections as 5−95% model ranges. These ranges are then assessed to be
likely
ranges after accounting for additional uncertainties or different levels
of confidence in models. For projections of global mean surface temperature change in 2046−2065
confidence
is
medium
, because the relative importance of natural
internal variability, and uncertainty in non-greenhouse gas forcing and response, are larger than for 2081−2100. The
likely
ranges for 2046−2065 do not take into
account the possible influence of factors that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016−2035) global mean surface temperature change that is lower than the
5−95% model range, because the influence of these factors on longer term projections has not been quantified due to insufficient scientific understanding. {11.3)

Re Kiribati - the furore was about Climate Change/AGW was causing sea level rise- not about atolls sinking.