Ocean acidifcation .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I saw your horseshoe crab link. All it demonstrates is that mankind has come up with multiple ways to screw up nature. It says nothing to disprove the claim that climate change is very hard on certain organisms.

And it does nothing to prove (aside from misleading beat-up reporting being a thing) that climate change is hard on organisms. Especially those organisms that have been around for 455 000 000 years and that include shallow oceans and coastal shores as part of their habitat.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Hummm.. please give a reference to the abundant science you refer to.

The article you referenced, it would be interesting for you to give a one paragraph explanation of what it is about and why it is relevant to this discussion. Did you actually read it?

It’s a textbook. I stated that twice. It provides a primer on the fundamentals of climate science. Within it are all the answers you seek. I’m sure there are many comparable texts equally educational. Did you read any?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh, they have an agenda.

Correct. They do have an agenda. To present common sense reality as an alternative to the alarmist fantasy of CO2 powered Armageddon.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So let me get this straight: we need to debunk a miniscule table of readings, cribbed from the comments section of another website, without any citations or links to a credible source. And the NOAA graph presented twice won't do the job.

The NOAA and Denison graphs overlap. NOAA goes back 170 years & Denison 100 so there will obviously be different trend lines. If you're trying to make some sort of point then you also have to look at start/end dates. There's been nothing presented thus far that debunks either set of data. One shows a slight increase in sea level over 170 years, while the other shows a slight decrease over 100 years. Without additional interpretation & analysis, I guess you'll just have to get used to what may be a discrepancy and learn to live with it. Save the drama please.




Huh. I see this and my brain says "just about straight line from 2008", but you see "lethargic" to 2016, and MAGA after that... ok .

Now put up some pretty colored graphs that show employment numbers. Or don't, and get used to the reality that increased economic growth, however you'd like to measure it, generally goes hand-in-hand with increased emissions. With only one exception that is, namely the fracking revolution which resulted in the largest reduction in CO2 emissions of any country in the world despite rising GDP. Yes, I know, you're welcome.

We observe warming which correlates pretty closely to the increase in CO2, we have a pretty good idea how CO2 causes warming, we can show where the additional CO2 came from... if you are going to assert that this abnormal warming hasn't been caused mainly by the CO2 from human activity, then you pretty much have to be able to point to the something else that caused the warming.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck...

It might be a duck?? Except you seem to be the only one having a nursery school level discussion. But at least you seem to be starting to understand that the correlation between fossil fuel emissions and the buildup of CO2 is far more "settled" than any correlation between increased CO2 and additional warming (which isn't necessarily "abnormal," btw). Nobody cares what you choose to believe and what internet sources your simplistic assumptions rest on, but the earth has been warming & cooling long before fossil fuels, and so insisting that there cannot possibly be natural influences without "proof" gets the analysis backwards. Short of figuring a way to implement Reefmagnet's experiment, there's no way to quantify the relationship between CO2 and warming, let alone quantify how much natural vs. human-derived CO2 is influencing it. If you prefer to align your beliefs with scientists who believe the added CO2 accounts for "all" the warming which they also believe is "abnormal," then be my guest. But don't represent these beliefs as settled science, or childishly berate other scientists & laymen who believe otherwise.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh, they have an agenda.

ok read this article from the wuwt link and tell me what the agenda is .

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/...s-crying-wolf/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Straight from the horse's mouth...

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.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

It’s a textbook. I stated that twice. It provides a primer on the fundamentals of climate science. Within it are all the answers you seek. I’m sure there are many comparable texts equally educational. Did you read any?

The link you provided is not a text book, it is journal article not yet published on a topic which is hardly relevant to this discussion.

I would guess it would be very difficult to find a textbook which describes an alternative science on the effects of atmospheric CO2 when that has been well understood for more than 100 years.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

If all one correlates are temperature and CO2 variation, the result is meaningless. The climate and the variabilities which affect it is far more complex than the alarmists want you to think. Or more correctly stated, want to prevent you from thinking.

Somebody throws a pretty, multi-colored graphical representation on some obscure web forum as proof of their perception completely devoid of any context, basis, content or methods and others who know virtually nothing about the issue are supposed to be convinced - are people so easily mislead? (Rhetorical question).

From the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study



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

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Here's a "citation" for you.
Climate change affects horseshoe crab numbers
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1004101330.htm


If that doesn't make even you alarmist's cringe, then God help us all.

From your link

"The most decisive factor may be future changes in sea level and water temperature," says Obst. "Even if they are on a minimal scale such changes are likely to have a negative impact on the crabs' distribution and reproduction."

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ok read this article from the wuwt link and tell me what the agenda is .

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/...s-crying-wolf/

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.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From your link

God help us all.

[Reefmagnet]

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.

Have you done any research on the author of that article?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study



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

Interesting. Linear relationship of CO2 to warming.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

Human's are idiots if they think they can change the earth's climate.

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?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

90% of the earths climate is due to the sun the other 10% is due to galactic cosmic rays . Prove me wrong
And yes that includes the percentages of carbonic acid in the oceans.

Solar activity varies 0.1%. Solar activity has been declining as the Earth warms. Cosmic rays have been discounted by the CLOUD experiment at CERN.