Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Look again. The graph records minimum months of sea ice extent from both hemispheres. (Feb. in Antarctica).

I thought I had deleted that post after I misread the the one to which I was responding.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't understand why so many non-experts feel that ignoring or obfuscating them helps with overall understanding, or with their own credibility.

I assume you are speaking of newhaul.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

If you think it important to add billions of people to the equation, then you also need to subtract the billions of bison, wildebeest, fish, etc, that humans have killed and displaced. Then add all the cows and pigs and chickens that humans keep.

My understanding is that all those factors are taken into account.

I'm not entirely sure it's important to add billions of people to the equation or not, which is why I'm asking rather than asserting. Maybe the net additions/losses of animals associated with humans have been accounted for, along with the net gains/losses of plant life, but I'm not sure how (or if) the 6.3B people from we've added to the planet since 1850 affects the prevailing assumption that the added CO2 is all from fossil fuel emissions. On the one hand I understand why it may not matter, but on the other it's rather critical should we adopt more aggressive policies to try and mitigate the increases in CO2.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

Great point, and another area of the science that is not well understood. Notwithstanding, our very own "experts" here on CF will present it as if it is yet another scientific truth, and use charts, graphs, and "peer-reviewed studies" that they only superficially comprehend to validate their assertions.

I don't think the science world would agree that it isn't well understood.

For 100,000s of years the planet has been in effective balance. Yes, the planet would warm and co2 levels would rise as the warmer ocean outgassed CO2 which in turn would lead to more warming. Then the world would cool leading to the ocean absorbing more CO2 and the world would cool more. Each time the swings would end when balance was restored. The causes of the cycles could be large volcanos injecting vast amounts of areosols into the air cooling the planet, or variations in the solar output. What is very different this time is man has already increased the CO2 concentration by 40% and is on a path to double it in the next 100 years or so. This has completely changrd the balance.

We know that this will increase the energy absorbed by the atmosphere. We can directly calculate how much new energy will be absorbed, no guessing involved. We know from the geologic record this will by itself add more CO2 via outgassing from the ocean as if warms. How warm will it get, lots warmer but experts disagree on if it just bad or really really bad.

I'm intrigued by your posts. You state that you know little about the science but you have been spending years arguing about climate change, seems like a day invested in learning about the actual science would potentially pay large dividends. This is a 6 page description of the science of atmospheric CO2 effects. It will explain that co2 is not saturated in the atmosphere and water vapor doesn't override co2. It is not a warmist point of view it is just the science view. I doubt there is anything in this that Spencer would disagree with; it all just college physics that has been known for 100 years.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I thought I had deleted that post after I misread the the one to which I was responding.

Maybe so. I was quoting posts 355 & 356 from stevensuf, and your post #373. Maybe you want to clarify. It's a fast-moving thread.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe so. I was quoting posts 355 & 356 from stevensuf, and your post #373. Maybe you want to clarify. It's a fast-moving thread.

It is still there. Mea Culpa

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Look again. The graph records minimum months of sea ice extent from both hemispheres. (Feb. in Antarctica).

BTW - the slower melting of Antarctic sea ice is in line with this prediction that I posted earlier.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:

That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

The two regions are quite different. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents; the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by oceans.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/...ifference.html

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Surely the antarctic should be melting as well?

The two regions are quite different. The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by continents; the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by oceans.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/...ifference.html

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is still there. Mea Culpa

Based on discussions from earlier threads about the different influences on Arctic & Antarctica sea ice, looking at the graph alone -- without further explanation & analysis -- doesn't necessarily rule out AGW as a significant factor despite the variances between the two regions. As I recall, one of the more significant factors influencing ice loss in the Arctic is much less land mass, thereby allowing winds & currents to have a much greater influence than in the Antarctic. It might be better to show the effects of polar amplification when it comes to temps in the two regions.

Edit: You beat me to it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Antarctic sea ice below its normal levels.

Sea ice extent below normal levels is consistent with a warming trend. Being abnormally below normal levels may be consistent with a warming trend that is abnormally warm due to man-made influences, namely the increase in CO2. But determining what is "abnormal" requires comparing it to "normal levels" and looking for variation, which in your graph -- and in the science generally -- is a recent period of 30 years (1981-2010).

Can you see any basis for legitimate skepticism based on the constant use of such graphs without expert analysis?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Great point, and [source-sink balance is] another area of the science that is not well understood.

Um, yes it is well-understood? Hint - if the CO2 level can stay pretty steady for thousands and thousands of years prior to the present, then it's kind of safe to assume a balance, no? Or your Natural Forces That Cannot Be Measured maybe took a few tens of millenia off, but came back around 1900?

Originally Posted by Exile

Natural forces cannot be quantified.

...and neither can sources of CO2 while in the atmosphere. But that obviously doesn't mean they don't exist.The issue is how much of each is contributing to warming.

The first issue is where the extra CO2 is coming from. IF you have a system whose CO2 has been in balance for millenia, then start digging up and burning carbon that was sequestered for MILLIONS of years, and the atmospheric CO2 starts going up quickly and markedly... you really don't need to waste too much time looking for "natural" sources of that additional CO2.

Yet some within the science, and significantly more on the internet, claim that all the warming is caused by human forces, and we'd be in a cooling phase without the added CO2.

If you accept that adding CO2 will cause warming, and since as above it's pretty darn safe to assume that the added CO2 is because of human activity (fossil fuel, destruction of sinks, agriculture etc)... then it's inescapable that the warming is primarily, overwhelmingly human-caused.

I have no grounds for choosing which theory I happen to like, but at least I think I have a reasonably realistic handle on what the various theories within the science actually are. I don't understand why so many non-experts feel that ignoring or obfuscating them helps with overall understanding, or with their own credibility.

You made a pretty poor showing in these CO2 cycle discussions. If you won't take the time to learn and understand what is a core fundamental part of understanding CO2 and warming, then you don't have much business carping at others for not bringing the love to your pet skeptics.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
I don't understand why so many non-experts feel that ignoring or obfuscating them helps with overall understanding, or with their own credibility.

Originally Posted by jackdale

I assume you are speaking of newhaul.

Newhaul hardly ignores other theories he disagrees with! On the contrary, he is rather emphatic about acknowledging them . . . right before he explains why he believes they're wrong! As for obfuscation, it may be more in the typos & delivery than the substance, but none of us are exactly innocent of those sins. But the bottom line is that his solar output theories do have (minority) support in the scientific community. So challenges on those grounds and others are fair game. But dismissing the theories outright or attacking the promoter him or herself? Not very persuasive, nor scientific for that matter. Let readers decide for themselves please.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Um, yes it is well-understood? Hint - if the CO2 level can stay pretty steady for thousands and thousands of years prior to the present, then it's kind of safe to assume a balance, no? Or your Natural Forces That Cannot Be Measured maybe took a few tens of millenia off, but came back around 1900?





The first issue is where the extra CO2 is coming from. IF you have a system whose CO2 has been in balance for millenia, then start digging up and burning carbon that was sequestered for MILLIONS of years, and the atmospheric CO2 starts going up quickly and markedly... you really don't need to waste too much time looking for "natural" sources of that additional CO2.

If you accept that adding CO2 will cause warming, and since as above it's pretty darn safe to assume that the added CO2 is because of human activity (fossil fuel, destruction of sinks, agriculture etc)... then it's inescapable that the warming is primarily, overwhelmingly human-caused.

You made a pretty poor showing in these CO2 cycle discussions. If you won't take the time to learn and understand what is a core fundamental part of understanding CO2 and warming, then you don't have much business carping at others for not bringing the love to your pet skeptics.

Dunning-Kruger. Plus a lot of anger. Only explanations I can see.

Go to your room and let us know when you've calmed down enough to rejoin the adult conversation.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I don't think the science world would agree that it isn't well understood.

For 100,000s of years the planet has been in effective balance. Yes, the planet would warm and co2 levels would rise as the warmer ocean outgassed CO2 which in turn would lead to more warming. Then the world would cool leading to the ocean absorbing more CO2 and the world would cool more. Each time the swings would end when balance was restored. The causes of the cycles could be large volcanos injecting vast amounts of areosols into the air cooling the planet, or variations in the solar output. What is very different this time is man has already increased the CO2 concentration by 40% and is on a path to double it in the next 100 years or so. This has completely changrd the balance.

We know that this will increase the energy absorbed by the atmosphere. We can directly calculate how much new energy will be absorbed, no guessing involved. We know from the geologic record this will by itself add more CO2 via outgassing from the ocean as if warms. How warm will it get, lots warmer but experts disagree on if it just bad or really really bad.

I'm intrigued by your posts. You state that you know little about the science but you have been spending years arguing about climate change, seems like a day invested in learning about the actual science would potentially pay large dividends. This is a 6 page description of the science of atmospheric CO2 effects. It will explain that co2 is not saturated in the atmosphere and water vapor doesn't override co2. It is not a warmist point of view it is just the science view. I doubt there is anything in this that Spencer would disagree with; it all just college physics that has been known for 100 years.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

This was a good overview article which I agree was just a "science view" with no bias or politics. A worthwhile read with a helpful combo of science-speak which I won't profess to fully understand (even though I am on the internet ), to more layman-like explanations & analogies starting with the second full paragraph on the last page. And as you say, I similarly doubt whether Spencer would disagree with any of the basic physics it explains, but then I don't think any skeptics from the actual science would either. Nor any of the lay skeptics frequenting these threads for that matter.

You presented the same material in the last thread in response to Reef's proposed CO2/warming "experiment," but I still fail to see why you think this basic science resolves his questions, mine, or more importantly those of the skeptics in the science itself. IOW, nobody seems to dispute the basic nexus between atmospheric CO2 and global warming, i.e. the basic principles which the article confirms were first uncovered around 1900 and then refined as we understand them today in 1967. Except perhaps for labeling it as the "greenhouse effect" which is a bit of a misnomer, since the earth is not a closed system (as the article also points out), and so has the ability to regulate excess warming to some degree. It also has a huge capacity for absorbing CO2 in its land, plants & oceans, and has always been subject to long and sometimes pronounced periods of warming & cooling for reasons not completely understood.

So while the basic physics answers a question which nobody seems to still be asking, it doesn't answer why many modern-day skeptics believe, for example, that natural forces are more consequential influences on warming than increasing CO2 levels which they otherwise don't deny. This is why the "denier" label is not only disrespectful & insulting, but also deceptive & misleading since it suggests that otherwise valid skepticism amounts to denying the basic physics underlying CO2 & warming. I don't think this is by accident, since it leads to the very type of criticism you and others like to ascribe, namely that skeptics are "ignorant" of the basic science. Maybe this ubiquitous use of the "denier" label is why you seem to be misunderstanding the basis for my skepticism & others.

Btw, what I meant by the science "not being well understood" was a reference to the mechanisms which enable the land, planet, and ocean "sinks" to absorb excess CO2. This was discussed a LOT in older threads, and what I thought Reef was referring to in his post that I responded to. No matter, as it's also part of the broad overview presented in your article. (And yes, I understand why scientists believe the sinks have been overwhelmed by CO2 as a result of the burning of sequestered fossil fuels, thereby resulting in the added CO2 in the atmosphere).

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

I assume you mean baby steps which are realistic. When it comes to China, I don't think there are any, at least none that can come from outside China itself.

Stop selling coal to them would be a good start, can do that all on our own.