Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Exile gets all shirty when I mention the background colour of most AGW denial

CRINGE. I'm now past being embarrassed for you and join fryewe in simple pity. I can't say I've ever interacted with anyone who so overtly judges others based on "color," but we can all see where stereotyping and ignorant assumptions can lead. I take it you mean that, along with the usual bogeymen of party affiliation, religious belief, conservatism, etc., now race & ethnicity drives peoples' positions on a scientific issue??? The only hope is that you are in fact a teenager and not only haven't yet learned how to be an adult, but don't yet know how to even act like one. Given how obnoxious yet another one of your offensive approaches to this complicated scientific issue actually is, I just thought I'd better check. Nobody on either side of this debate resorts to this level of ignorance and incivility, and I can't imagine any of them ever would.

Myself and others have certainly been critical at times towards the approach that Jack and a few others employ to get their message across, but there's no denying their countless positive contributions that have helped many of us learn the many sides of this issue. If after all these posts you still can't figure out how to make a positive contribution or control your emotions, then why not put me and others you don't like on "ignore," or just move to another thread that makes you feel better about yourself? Otherwise I'm starting to think that comments like this are a deliberate attempt to try and close the thread down. You've already acknowledged several times that this is in fact what you desire.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

CRINGE. I'm now past being embarrassed for you and join fryewe in simple pity. I can't say I've ever interacted with anyone who so overtly judges others based on "color," but we can all see where stereotyping and ignorant assumptions can lead. I take it you mean that, along with the usual bogeymen of party affiliation, religious belief, conservatism, etc., now race & ethnicity drives peoples' positions on a scientific issue??? The only hope is that you are in fact a teenager and not only haven't yet learned how to be an adult, but don't yet know how to even act like one. Given how obnoxious yet another one of your offensive approaches to this complicated scientific issue actually is, I just thought I'd better check. Nobody on either side of this debate resorts to this level of ignorance and incivility, and I can't imagine any of them ever would.

Myself and others have certainly been critical at times towards the approach that Jack and a few others employ to get their message across, but there's no denying their countless positive contributions that have helped many of us learn the many sides of this issue. If after all these posts you still can't figure out how to make a positive contribution or control your emotions, then why not put me and others you don't like on "ignore," or just move to another thread that makes you feel better about yourself? Otherwise I'm starting to think that comments like this are a deliberate attempt to try and close the thread down. You've already acknowledged several times that this is in fact what you desire.

Wow. such reading comprehension.

recap:

Exile gets all shirty when I mention the background colour of most AGW denial, so...

freyewe was implying colour as in political stripe. I'm guessing pink. As in lefty.

I responded in kind, and with regards to denial, not deniers.

How you get race/ethnicity out of that...

I'm a little embarrassed for YOU.... Of course you seldom miss an opportunity to push our buttons, do you?

Great work. Keep it up.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You first blogger does have the graph. My craap detector went off bog time. More later.

There is no graph in your second reference.

Of course it would. The blogger is a skeptic.

Originally Posted by jackdale

So here is what set off my craap detector:



1) He makes no reference to which of the data sets at CDIAC he uses.

Aside from telling you exactly where it came from of course. You know,

"come from Law Dome (Etheridge et al., 1998), particularly the DE08 core"

2) THE BIG ONE "The emissions (GtC) were divided by 2.13 to obtain ppmv CO2." Huh? How does Gigatonnes of carbon / 2.13 result in parts per million by volume?

Stu - you are mathematician. Can you help us with this one?

As stated previously, I'm not wanting to participate in a group maths debating session, but it's likely an approximation constant like, you know, as used in formulae such as



...Or to be precise

Q. In terms of mass, how much carbon does 1 part per million by volume of atmospheric CO2 represent?
A. Using 5.137 x 1018 kg as the mass of the atmosphere (Trenberth, 1981 JGR 86:5238-46), 1 ppmv of CO2= 2.13 Gt of carbon

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions

Let me know if you can't find your missing graphs. I'll post the link.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Of course it would. The blogger is a skeptic.



Aside from telling you exactly where it came from of course. You know,

"come from Law Dome (Etheridge et al., 1998), particularly the DE08 core"

As stated previously, I'm not wanting to participate in a group maths debating session, but it's likely an approximation constant like, you know, like used in formulae such as



...Or to be precise

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - Frequently Asked Questions

Let me know if you can't find your missing graphs. I'll post the link.

Thanks for that.

I found the graph, they are from your blogger's website and stored on photobucket.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wow. such reading comprehension.

recap:

Heh. Sometimes the color can't help but bleed through.

Exile gets all shirty when I mention the background colour of most AGW denial, so...

freyewe was implying colour as in political stripe. I'm guessing pink. As in lefty.

I responded in kind, and with regards to denial, not deniers.

How you get race/ethnicity out of that...

I'm a little embarrassed for YOU.... Of course you seldom miss an opportunity to push our buttons, do you?

Great work. Keep it up.

Past experience with your misstatements compels me to go with the entire exchange rather than your "recap."

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect:

The SOMEONE is WE, directly or through government funding and incentives, unless you're content in the knowledge that your wealth, race, or nationality will protect you from suffering any harm or loss. Or some BS about how 'the free market' will solve this, yet opposing any legitimate market tools like carbon pricing.

Heh. Sometimes the color can't help but bleed through.

Exile gets all shirty when I mention the background colour of most AGW denial, so...

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

How you get race/ethnicity out of that...

Here, let me help you again...

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...unless you're content in the knowledge that your wealth, race, or nationality will protect you from suffering any harm or loss...

...states quite explicitly that you think at least some skeptics/deniers/cynics (you choose) have base motivations such as racism, xenophobia, or classism.

And pink was close...but I was thinking more like rojo.

Edit: Oops, I forgot this....:big grin:

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Then I read:

"From 1750 to 1875, atmospheric CO2 rose at ten times the rate of the cumulative anthropogenic emissions…"

So I checked the CDIAC database and found that anthropogenic CO2 emissions had risen from 11 million tonnes per annum in 1751 to 689 million tonnes per annum in 1875, or 62 times higher or a 6200% increase. That is total of about 15 billions of CO2 that has accumulated from 1750 to 1875.

Then I checked the Law Dome Data at CDIAC

1747 276.9 ppm CO2

1877 288.8 ppm CO2

A 16.6% increase.

Since when is a 16.6% increase 10 times higher than 6200% increase.

Some numbers are rounded.

OK Stu - check my math.

The rest who like to jig numbers are welcome to check as as well.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2013.ems

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2...e.combined.dat

Using the 2.13 constant, atmospheric CO2 content increased by 25.347 Gigatonnes. Based on this anthropogenic emissions must have been in the vicinity of 2.5 Gigatonnes, I guess, which seems to be in the ball bark especially if one considers that emissions wouldn't have started to ramp up until around 1850.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Thanks for that.

I found the graph, they are from your blogger's website and stored on photobucket.

There's are link on the CDIAC website(I think) somewhere that shows this data, and other data, as graphs. Unfortunately, they look like they were done on an Atari 2600. Nevertheless the data points are the same.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Here, let me help you again...



...states quite explicitly that you think at least some skeptics/deniers/cynics (you choose) have base motivations such as racism, xenophobia, or classism.

And pink was close...but I was thinking more like rojo.

Edit: Oops, I forgot this....:big grin:

And I forgot the empty chair, in rojo no less.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Past experience with your misstatements compels me to go with the entire exchange rather than your "recap."

Really? That's it? fryewe can use 'color' as metaphor for political leaning and I can't?

Originally Posted by fryewe

...states quite explicitly that you think at least some skeptics/deniers/cynics (you choose) have base motivations such as racism, xenophobia, or classism.

Sorry, I don't see how you got that from the highlighted part of my quote. To attempt a rephrase, the implied motivation for inaction is "this (AGW) won't affect me", for the given reasons, and there has been more than one participant in these threads with pretty much that attitude. Rather a stretch to spin that into accusations of racism or classism. I have no idea how you could pry an accusation of xenophobia out of there. But you did!

Keep trying, though. Keep us on the straight and narrow. Nobody does political correctness like an angry conservative.

And, as usual lately, outstanding work on always making it about me, and totally avoiding the arguments.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nobody does political correctness like an angry conservative.

And, as usual lately, outstanding work on always making it about me, and totally avoiding the arguments.

Sorry, L-E, but it's about you because you choose to make it about you.

And where do you get the impression someone's angry? You don't have enough influence over my disposition, and probably Exile's, to make me crabby, let along angry. Sometimes you amuse me, but that's about it.

And here's a shovel to go with the mirror I offered you earlier.

By the way, if you would ever offer an argument, rather than the childish banter that you think passes for argument, someone might take the time to address it,
Your arguments in this and the related thread are mostly appeals to authority.

Generally, I don't take the time to engage deeply in the banter on here because discussion with the usual suspects here is like trying to piss up a rope, but occasionally an absurdity stands out that needs to be called for what it is. In the past few pages of dialog here, you have been the winner.

Now, for the next couple of days I'm going to be celebrating the people who gave my country the best recipe for social order ever devised by man, and won't have the time nor inclination for much else, but during my celebrations I'll raise a toast to our good northern neighbors despite minor differences.

Sail safe.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Now, for the next couple of days I'm going to be celebrating the people who gave my country the best recipe for social order ever devised by man, and won't have the time nor inclination for much else, but during my celebrations I'll raise a toast to our good northern neighbors despite minor differences.

Sail safe.

The flipside of freedom is responsibility.

Have a nice long weekend.

[StuM]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2157071
Stu - you are mathematician. Can you help us with this one?[/QUOTE]

You're going to love this one!

From Skeptical Science:

"Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. "

The attachment shows the actual math behind this.

(2.13 or 2.14 - rounding errors)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Are you further predicting a continuing downward trend in temperatures following 2018?

We know that 2015 and 2016 were El Nino years and that the following years will most likely be La Nina. The ENSO discussion is currently

So your prediction has a very strong likelihood. Just as the years following the 1998 El Nino were cooler. Of course in 2016 we equaled or surpassed the 1998 record.

Thank you. Much more reasonable that your dismissive comment the last time I said the same thing

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Are you further predicting a continuing downward trend in temperatures following 2018?

We know that 2015 and 2016 were El Nino years and that the following years will most likely be La Nina. The ENSO discussion is currently



So your prediction has a very strong likelihood. Just as the years following the 1998 El Nino were cooler. Of course in 2016 we equaled or surpassed the 1998 record.



But El Nino and La Nina years have tended to the anomalous.

So what is your prediction of the trend? And on what basis do you make that prediction.?

Trends post 2018 are a different matter. I was solely debunking the claim that we would see declines in crop production because of higher temperatures by 2018.

It is worth noting that the difference between the peaks in 1998 and 2016 was about 0.1°C. Which equates to a further rise of around 0.47°C by the end of the century if the current "warming trend" continues.

There could well be a step change following this El Niño similar to the one in 1997/98 resulting in a small increase over the 1999-2015 average. A lot depends on which way the PDO and AMO go.

Based on those cycles and the direction that solar activity seems to be going, I'll stick my neck out and say that slight cooling over the following 20-30 years is more likely than not, despite rising CO2 levels. This could well be followed by another warming cycle.