Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

name 3 MMGWC predictions from the last 40 years that have actually happened as predicted and not proven to be well within normal climate variability .

Meanwhile I think I will eat some of those bivalve molluscs
Freshly dug to see if their shells are in any weaker than 20 years ago .

Bet they are the same .

Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Watched it much earlier. Planets save a miniscule effect on tides.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...61-6552/aa7c30

Cherry picked dates. The Fort Denison tide data goes further back that 1914. The whole data set shows a clear increase.

The interesting thing about Fort Denison is that the island, or rather islet, it stands on was basically cut down to around, presumably, HAT in the 1840's because the rocky material was quarried for construction use. As fate would have it, the fort itself was built bang on around the time of that utopian environment of perfect climate and perfect sea levels, that is, within that period encompassing 1850 to 1880.


Now the really cool thing is that since the island was leveled and the fort built, there has been no extraordinary or remarkable sea level increase of the island or it's fort measured or observed since.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

I’m not a teacher. The evidence is everywhere and i have neither the time nor inclination to teach children how to think. If you want to believe climate change is entirely dependent on CO2 or that the oceans are becoming acidic, that’s fine with me but please act more responsibly when it comes time to vote.

Climate change is NOT solely a function of CO2. The major driver of ice ages has been Milankovitch cycles. According to those cycles we reached the Holocene Optimum 6000 years and began a long term cooling period That abruptly ended in the past 2 centuries.



Milankovitch cycles would initiate a warming period resulting in a CO2 release, which would lead to a feedback loop that also involved increased H20, the dominant GHG. That CO2 is a infinite substance. Milankovitch cycles would also initiate a cooling period and CO2 would again be sequestered. This is quite clear in the the following graphic. Notice the initial decline at the end of the graph, which abruptly reverses.



We no longer require Milankovtich cycles to start warming and the resultant CO2 release. We release the CO2 all on our own.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Hmmmmm... reminds me of a question I asked in a recent similar thread.

Indeed. With the difference that I've been a bit more explicit about what I'm after.


Re that earlier question - it later occurred to me that the very first experiment i linked to - the highschool one with CO2 vs air in pop bottles - would be sufficient. If the one with pure CO2 heats up faster under sunlight, then you could also test varying percentages of CO2, make the same comparative measurements, and end up with enough points to make predictions for other percentages. QED. Good enough?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study



The methodologies, context, data, content can be found at Berkeley Earth

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why did temperatures abruptly reverse after 6000 years of cooling when fossil fuels were becoming a dominant energy source of CO2 levels climbed to te levels not recoded to in 3-5 million years?

You've never questioned why the 10000 year chart has error bars substantially less than of the 150 year chart?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Now the really cool thing is that since the island was leveled and the fort built, there has been no extraordinary or remarkable sea level increase of the island or it's fort measured or observed since.

Really?



https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/65.php

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Indeed. With the difference that I've been a bit more explicit about what I'm after.


Re that earlier question - it later occurred to me that the very first experiment i linked to - the highschool one with CO2 vs air in pop bottles - would be sufficient. If the one with pure CO2 heats up faster under sunlight, then you could also test varying percentages of CO2, make the same comparative measurements, and end up with enough points to make predictions for other percentages. QED. Good enough?

Well I'm not stomping over this old ground again ( * cough *, 0.04 vs 100, * cough *), but just before the death of that thread, Teddy Diver hit the nail on the noggin with his reference to land clearing which is not insubstantial on a global scale. Obviously the first thing is loss of habitat and loss of species. It also opens the door to the possibility that there may be other factors not considered as part of the overall issue. For example, termites, as you may or may not know, chow down on dead wood. Would it disturb you to know that termites release between two to ten times more CO2 to the environment (depending on what source you read) than humans emit? And this is inclusive of that produced by our technology like coal fired power stations and 2020 plated V8 muscle cars.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Did you read this? The article is from the Global Warming Policy Forum which clearly has an agenda. The article references research articles but never gives a reference to the actual article. Hard to give much credibility to any of the article.

do your homework and follow the links to where they lead padawan

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really?



https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/65.php

Really. I live a long way from Sydney, but cruised past there earlier this year and can confirm it, and it's jetties, are still above water.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

You've never questioned why the 10000 year chart has error bars substantially less than of the 150 year chart?

Different data sets. And it is a 250 year chart.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

we have been through all of that many times they are also easily explainable via natural means. The models were not accurate in any of that .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Really. I live a long way from Sydney, but cruised past there earlier this year and can confirm it, and it's jetties, are still above water.

That's nice. That is the data.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

we have been through all of that many times they are also easily explainable via natural means. The models were not accurate in any of that .

Nope.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... insisting that there cannot possibly be natural influences without "proof" gets the analysis backwards.

Speaking of nursery schools...


You know that's not what I'm "insisting". There IS abnormal warming which doesn't comport with the different natural cycles and influences we do know about. What we're seeing fits well with the increased CO2. If you continue to assert that it could be from something else, then what's the something else (natural or otherwise)? We need a bit more than your hunches.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Different data sets. And it is a 250 year chart.

Yes it is 250 my bad.


Ok, so why do the error bars get less the further in time in that 10000 year one?