Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2946931]

Originally Posted by Exile

ut I'll have to look for another resource to learn more about the actual science. /QUOTE]

I suggest you start with the Royal Society of the UK and the National Academies of Science of the United States.

Climate change: evidence and causes

https://royalsociety.org/topics-poli...idence-causes/

Helpful references I'm sure for learning the science, thanks. But to better prepare me for these CF threads I thought I'd start with the free course I saw on skepticalscience.com which trains people how to deal with "deniers." For a little extra contribution they offer anger management courses and even issue certified diplomas.

[jackdale]

No maybe about it.

https://business.financialpost.com/c...all-over-again

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Maybe the oil companies are waiting to make a killing with co2 sequestration, would be ironic.

[newhaul]

The adjustment of temperature readings are well explained but here is the problem I see the adjustments are always to make the present more warm than anything in the past and cooling the past measurements to suit their agenda ..

Explain the following

Wayback Machine

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...ture/graph.png

Cool the past and warm the present sorry but it looks like fraud to me ..

[jackdale]

Judith Curry, Zeke Hausfather and Steve Mosher has debunked Tony Heller's assertions in three part series on Curry's blog.

Originally Posted by newhaul

The adjustment of temperature readings are well explained but here is the problem I see the adjustments are always to make the present more warm than anything in the past and cooling the past measurements to suit their agenda ..

Explain the following

Wayback Machine

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...ture/graph.png

Cool the past and warm the present sorry but it looks like fraud to me ..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No maybe about it.

https://business.financialpost.com/c...all-over-again

Either the oil industry is serious about this or it's a very expensive marketing campaign.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Watch both Lindzen and Emanuel. They are both from MIT.

Yes, I'm aware. A token gesture of fair-mindedness on your part, or have you turned over a new leaf?

[jackdale]

I have watched both already. Not a token gesture, not a new leaf. Just business as usual.

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes, I'm aware. A token gesture of fair-mindedness on your part, or have you turned over a new leaf?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Then I'll come back and post a lot of links to studies rather than reading, writing and thinking for myself. I'm sure that'll make me feel smart!

The "thinking for yourself" thing works best if you start with studying the things you think you understand enough to be publicly skeptical about. But this is CF; you can also just keep up the pseudo-skeptic schtick. It won't make much of a difference either way.


Start with carbon cycles. Yes it will be on the exam.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Judith Curry, Zeke Hausfather and Steve Mosher has debunked Tony Heller's assertions in three part series on Curry's blog.

jack the charts I posted are direct from NASA. I even provided the links to the NASA web pages for them.

Debunk NASA or debunk NASA your choice or just admit they changed the data .

Has nothing to do with tony Heller

Even though he is correct .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The "thinking for yourself" thing works best if you start with studying the things you think you understand enough to be publicly skeptical about. But this is CF; you can also just keep up the pseudo-skeptic schtick. It won't make much of a difference either way.


Start with carbon cycles. Yes it will be on the exam.

with their terms of reference there is no thinking for yourself .

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Marc1

.

And I still want to know.
Tons of CO2 reduction = X degree of "average world" temperature.
how about Tons of CO2 reduction = millimeters (or meters) of sea level reduction.
This last one is very important to me because if you are planning to reduce sea level I will need to dredge the river.

The answer is simply - No correlation exists. Neither has anyone quantified the observed warming caused solely by increasing CO2 emission.

You won’t hear that on TV, read that in print media or from most politicians. And certainly not from academia dependent on grant money from the industry advocating alternative energy sources. Myths are often hard to die.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The "thinking for yourself" thing works best if you start with studying the things you think you understand enough to be publicly skeptical about. But this is CF; you can also just keep up the pseudo-skeptic schtick. It won't make much of a difference either way.


Start with carbon cycles. Yes it will be on the exam.

More of a candid observation than a slight, but of all the CF posters to take advice from on how to think for oneself, you'd have to be my unqualified last choice (sorry SailOar but you were a close runner-up ). The only pretense of originality I've read from your posts is in the nature of childish put-downs, stereotyping, and silly cliches. And of course walking straight down the more extreme ends of the party line when it comes to your overt partisanship.

As I've said many times before, I really could care less about your blindly conformist politics or your opinions on CC, but it's obvious you REALLY care about mine and anyone else's which don't conform to yours. But as unseemly as your intolerance is, I'm not sure I even blame you. As s/v Illusion just noted, "you won’t hear [skeptical views] on TV, read that in print media or from most politicians." Blind, partisan-fueled conformity can only lead to ignorance, regardless of how one comes down on an issue as convoluted as AGW. Did you ever think why it took a CF thread to get you to understand why your preconceived views on No-Discharge Zones were ill-informed, if not outright wrong? My views on CC may be admittedly biased and I have no doubt I could be better schooled on the science, but at least I'm still interested in testing my views through some modicum of debate. Why are you so unwilling to question anything beyond what you've been told to think?

Heck, I bet even Leonardo even questioned whether he might actually be the one occasionally deceived by his own opinions. Given his accomplishments, how could he not?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

[stuff]

I'm open to real science. The pap regurgititated here from denial aggregator sites, even when as well-chewed as yours, doesn't rate.

If you put as much effort into the science as you do in that psychobabble above, you'd have something, I'm sure.

btw S/V Illusion is not correct about quantification of warming caused by CO2.



Cue the standard hand-waving...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

jack the charts I posted are direct from NASA. I even provided the links to the NASA web pages for them.

Debunk NASA or debunk NASA your choice or just admit they changed the data .

Has nothing to do with tony Heller

Even though he is correct .

The graphics you posted are from Tony Heller's blog.





https://realclimatescience.com/2019/...icas-hot-past/

The NASA graphics are not animated and they do not have the red labels.



http://web.archive.org/web/199910030.../1998.fig3.GIF

Tony Heller's Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/clim...2482833811938/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

The answer is simply - No correlation exists. Neither has anyone quantified the observed warming caused solely by increasing CO2 emission.

From The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study

Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions.

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/...th-forcing.pdf

Berkeley Earth