Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You are still clueless about the difference between trend and variation.

https://youtu.be/e0vj-0imOLw

jack you need to take a new class in reading comprehension .

I stated that the long term trend as of 5 years ago was +.19℃ per decade

But as of January this year that long term trend is down to showing +.13℃ per decade .

There has to have been some significant cooling in the last few years to affect the long term trend by .06℃

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I do not own a boat.

As a I live in a condominium, solar panels are not feasible. I have upgraded the windows and insulation in the past three years.

I respect your lowering of your carbon footprint.

Congratulations, that’s a good start.

Since we last had this same conversation, I now live off the grid and without a car 10 months of the year while aboard, and the total electric bill last month for my home and business came to $5.71. The meter fee, and I walk to work which is directly across the street 70ft away.

I do it all to save money.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Point me.

One of a number of references required in undergraduate curriculum essential to understanding elementary climate science. I don’t know what you don’t know so this would be a good primer for you:

Pai, S. J., Heald, C. L., Pierce, J. R., Farina, S. C., Marais, E. A., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Middlebrook, A. M., Coe, H., Shilling, J. E., Bahreini, R., Dingle, J. H., and Vu, K. (2019), Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-331.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sorry, I wasn't sure if you left this part out because of your usual cryptic writing style, or to deliberately mislead. Either way, leaving it out was misleading.

And yes, we already know about Milankovitch cycles and the minority view which believes we'd be cooling these days but for the human role.

I would rather you not put words in my posts. Adding those words is dishonest.

It's Official: There's Only 1-In-A-Million Chance Climate Change Is Not Caused By Humans

https://www.iflscience.com/environme...sed-by-humans/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

One of a number of references required in undergraduate curriculum essential to understanding elementary climate science. I don’t know what you don’t know so this would be a good primer for you:

Pai, S. J., Heald, C. L., Pierce, J. R., Farina, S. C., Marais, E. A., Jimenez, J. L., Campuzano-Jost, P., Nault, B. A., Middlebrook, A. M., Coe, H., Shilling, J. E., Bahreini, R., Dingle, J. H., and Vu, K. (2019), Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-331.

Since the study has not been published I found it hard to believe that it used in undergraduate programs.

This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).

BTW - I do have some understanding of the role of aerosols in meteorology and climatology.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I cited two data sets that challenge Fitzhenry's assertions, which you seem to blindly accept.

Those are your words. My words were that I have yet to see any reason to reject any dataset, so not being a climate scientist myself, I cannot reject them. Merely presenting your two datasets has not challenged Fitzhenry's dataset from Ft. Denison. Either that or you have been unable to explain how this is so. This has been the problem with your pseudo-expert "analysis" from the get-go. If there are purportedly conflicting interpretations of otherwise valid datasets, merely citing one while ignoring others only proves your completely unscientific bias, not any scientific "truth" of one over the other. At this point your approach could not be more transparently misleading.

Hint: Start/end dates with corresponding sea levels cited for all datasets needed.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ken that was LE not jack .
I stopped asking about solar on lakes boat when I realized he had a sandpaper 565. Which is actually to small for much over a 50 watt panel.

I also asked Jack, he stressed at the time that his community was using “green” electric and trains, and since he was part of the community... therefore, he was green. Something to that effect, so he does deserve extra credit for what he’s done since in my grade book.

But he does have a long way to go before he’ll be able to snatch the pebble from my hand.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You have anything else which credibly challenges the 100-year dataset or Fitzhenry's conclusions?

Dr Spencer was getting lonely on your pedestel; it's nice that he'll have some company now.

Originally Posted by Exile

Pretty sure that a 10-year record of actually reducing emissions beats dramatic increases in emissions over the same time frame, despite "promises" of reductions in 30 years time.

Well, yay. This wasn't supposed to be a one-time thing; the idea was to get emissions down and then keep them down...


Any luck finding those unquantifiable "natural forces"? You might get some useful tips from astrologers or maybe an alchemist.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I would rather you not put words in my posts. Adding those words is dishonest.

It's Official: There's Only 1-In-A-Million Chance Climate Change Is Not Caused By Humans

https://www.iflscience.com/environme...sed-by-humans/

Putting words in your posts is only dishonest if I failed to disclose I was doing so. I always do, but wouldn't need to if you could approach this issue with more honesty & objectivity yourself.

As for yet another one of your specious "1-in-a-million" citations, all I can figure is you post so often across so many different sites & blogs you must forget how thoroughly & severely debunked this comment wound up only a week or so ago in the last CF thread. But it's all good, readers can decide for themselves once again.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please do so. Your mind reading skills must be stupendous.

No mind reading skills that I'm aware of. Just plain reading skills that tell me you're misrepresenting the amount of consensus within the science. Why not just honestly present all sides and let others decide on their own if the "weight" of the evidence you favor is enough? After all, if the science you happen to like is so convincing, it should be all too easy to dismiss the rest. Failing to do so, or falling back on your usual incivility, only undercuts your positions.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Any luck finding those unquantifiable "natural forces"? You might get some useful tips from astrologers or maybe an alchemist.

that is easy to outside and look up its the sun and that is as natural as it gets .

Also it is responsible for 100% of the climate variations that have ever happened on this planet .

And we are cooling.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

jack you need to take a new class in reading comprehension .

I stated that the long term trend as of 5 years ago was +.19℃ per decade

But as of January this year that long term trend is down to showing +.13℃ per decade .

There has to have been some significant cooling in the last few years to affect the long term trend by .06℃

In climate 5 years is variation. 30 years is a trend.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In climate 5 years is variation. 30 years is a trend.

you still missed the facts jack.

5 years ago the 30 year trend was +.19℃ per decade.

Now the same 30 year trend is +.13℃ per decade

If we are not cooling now explain how the trend is .06℃ lower now .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

jack you need to take a new class in reading comprehension .

I stated that the long term trend as of 5 years ago was +.19℃ per decade

But as of January this year that long term trend is down to showing +.13℃ per decade .

There has to have been some significant cooling in the last few years to affect the long term trend by .06℃

Jack seems hung up on the difference between, as you say, "some significant cooling in the last few years to affect the long term trend by .06℃," and the fact that we're still in an overall warming trend. Just less than we were before. As you both know, what constitutes a "trend" is a matter of interpretation, and can be misleading if not presented honestly.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Jack seems hung up on the difference between, as you say, "some significant cooling in the last few years to affect the long term trend by .06℃," and the fact that we're still in an overall warming trend. Just less than we were before. As you both know, what constitutes a "trend" is a matter of interpretation, and can be misleading if not presented honestly.

true and here I thought I was quite clear the first time I posted it.

ULAWUN volcano just erupted to fl450 which is stratovolcano with a large so2 signal .

It is the 10th or 12th this year and the first this month.
All are silica rich magma stratovolcanoes .
Cosmic rays are up as well .
Nature trumps models every time .