Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK



https://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016...1935-2014.html




https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

except its wrong jack .
U.S. DOE charts say otherwise. Yes I just said the chart of arctic sea ice minimum is false.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

except its wrong jack .
U.S. DOE charts say otherwise. Yes I just said the chart of arctic sea ice minimum is false.

Nope.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You could always eat them.

You also need to take the wood they are no longer eating and store it somewhere airtight. Not a problem, right?

Would now be a bad time to point out that I was suggesting that human emissions of CO2, whether classed by yourself as natural or unnatural, in the big scheme of things really aren't that great on a global scale and perhaps there's other issues being ignored?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nope.

then how do you explain the old IPCC sea ice charts from 1995?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

then how do you explain the old IPCC sea ice charts from 1995?

It is an old estimate. Both of the ones I posted are more current.

C is for currency.

Currency

Currency can be more important in some fields, like science and medicine, than in some other fields, like those in the humanities, but having current information is usually recommended. Considering currency is important, though, so you are not using information that has been supplanted with new, better ideas and research.
What is the date of publication?

- Does the source use recent information?

- Are the references and/or links current?

- Does currency matter for this topic? Why or why not?

The CRAAP Test - Information Evaluation - LibGuides at Duquesne University

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Would now be a bad time to point out that I was suggesting that human emissions of CO2, whether classed by yourself as natural or unnatural, in the big scheme of things really aren't that great on a global scale and perhaps there's other issues being ignored?

Using carbon isotope analysis, the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

What are the other factors of which you speak?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Would now be a bad time to point out that I was suggesting that human emissions of CO2, whether classed by yourself as natural or unnatural, in the big scheme of things really aren't that great on a global scale and perhaps there's other issues being ignored?

the average person emits approx 2.5pounds per day just from breathing so about a half ton per year per person x 8 billion people Or 2 billion tons per year co2 from breathing .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Using carbon isotope analysis, the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

What are the other factors of which you speak?

not correct jack at least 1/3 of that is definitely from volcanic activity ( if not more ) same radiographic signature. ) and a small portion is attributed to cosmic rays as well .

Plus there is also the 2 billion tons from human breathing which has the same c12/13 ratio as burning of fossil fuels
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...16703705007556

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It shows an upward trend, which is counter to Exile's and Fitzhenry's claim.

It wasn't my claim, it was the data. Your dispute is with the conclusion Fitzhenry reached about what he believed the data meant, i.e. no sea level rise. With so many known & unknown variables that influence sea levels, I'm not sure anyone fully understands it. Or anyone even knew how to consistently & accurately measure it before the sat data became available.

But in my view, the mere fact that a date from over 100 years ago CAN be "cherry-picked" to show a decrease in 2019 goes to the core of the problem. As Reef pointed out and as I understand it, sea level has been gradually increasing since the last major ice age. Ditto for temperatures, depending on where you start your trend line. So merely shouting about increased levels of CO2 as if that must necessarily account for all warming, ocean acidification, etc. is rather ridiculous when the planet has always been undergoing cycles of warming & cooling in the midst of a long-term warming trend. L-E, are you starting to feel "pointed" in the right direction about these mysterious "natural forces" that you find so difficult to identify?

For non-experts to attempt to draw conclusions from posted data alone, or from reading the endless supply of "studies," is quite absurd. The only difference between myself and several others here who profess to have definitive answers is that at least I know there's a LOT I don't know.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

not correct jack at least 1/3 of that is definitely from volcanic activity ( if not more ) same radiographic signature. ) and a small portion is attributed to cosmic rays as well .

Plus there is also the 2 billion tons from human breathing

Wrong

It's Our Fault | Science and Global Warming

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? « RealClimate

Volcanic CO2 is about 1% of that of human activity.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

It wasn't my claim, it was the cherry picked data.

Touche.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the average person emits approx 2.5pounds per day just from breathing so about a half ton per year per person x 8 billion people Or 2 billion tons per year co2 from breathing .

That is part of the natural carbon cycle.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

not correct jack at least 1/3 of that is definitely from volcanic activity ( if not more ) same radiographic signature. ) and a small portion is attributed to cosmic rays as well .

Plus there is also the 2 billion tons from human breathing which has the same c12/13 ratio as burning of fossil fuels
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...16703705007556

From your link

In particular, the mass 47 anomaly (Δ47) can distinguish between CO2 produced by high temperature combustion processes vs. low temperature respiratory processes.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is part of the natural carbon cycle.

perhaps a hundred years ago but with the population explosion .

You say it is part of the natural carbon cycle please provide proof of that
Considering the radiographic carbon isotope ratio is the same as the burning of fossil fuels .
How can. You be sure ??

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From your link

can but only if that test is preformed and I'm sure it is rarely done.