Ocean acidifcation .

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

If you're so convinced about the correctness of your "real" science over the science that you categorize as skeptical or denier (dismissive perhaps?), then why not try debating it with actual scientists who have such "fake" views? Jack can help you find their websites, but please do report back to us. I would love to see how it all goes down.

On a number of occasions you've complained when I simply present science (or present a journalist article on science) but don't offer any of my own thoughts.

And on numerous occasions, including this one, you find something about me to complain about, but have nothing to say about the actual science presented. And since the presentation of actual science certainly seems to have no effect on your skepticism, so you might as well bash the person who presents it.

I'm inclined to agree with whomever it was who recently called you a cynic.

cyn·ic
/ˈsinik/

noun

1. a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.

[stevensuf]

If we have an ice age imminent, say anytime from now to 10k years away, would not a few degrees of co2 heating be a good thing , on the assumption it did actually manage to raise the temperature?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, it's recently become apparent that you don't actually understand a fundamental part of the science - the carbon cycle. How can you be a credible skeptic of a position you don't fully understand?

A picture is worth a 1000 words. (I did include some words)



This diagrams illustrates Earth's carbon cycle. It shows how carbon atoms 'flow' between various 'reservoirs' in the Earth system. Reservoirs are shown as rectangular blocks; flows between reservoirs are indicated by arrows. The sizes of reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon (GtC). Flows between reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon per year (GtC yr-1). Red arrows and numbers indicate flows and changes in reservoir sizes associated with human activities such as burning fossil fuel and land use changes. Black numbers and flow arrows indicate typical values prior to major human influence. The values for human influences represent the state of the carbon cycle in the mid-1990s (20 years later, human influences are higher).

https://scied.ucar.edu/imagecontent/...e-diagram-ipcc

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

said the pot to the kettle .

Difference is I don't care I'm not vain

Yes, you do care, and yes, you are extremely vain.

vain
1. having or showing an excessively high opinion of one's appearance, abilities, or worth.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, I may be getting warmer. Or not. Let me ask it this way. Leaving aside the URL controversy for a moment, are the graphs represented as being from NASA accurate? How about the Heller charts? Are they accurate insofar as Heller disputes the adjustments that were made?

look at the point on both charts for 1936 and 1998 you will notice in the old 1999 chart 1936 is 2.5 ℉ above baseline and 1998 is 1.55 ℉ above baseline

In the 2019 version of the same chart the 1936 temperature is listed at approx 1.25℉ above and 1998 is listed at about 1.45 ℉ above baseline

Why did they cool the 1936 temp by 1.3℉ ?

I don't believe it was a proper adjustment I actually trust my grandmother . And my father.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yes, sometimes Newhaul's posts can be a bit hard to decipher. Occasionally frustrating but never ill-intended I don't think.

Mmmm, no, this time he's been lying. Here's the post with the doctored graph he claimes he didn't post.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Mmmm, no, this time he's been lying. Here's the post with the doctored graph he claimes he didn't post.

I posted them and I linked to the originals at NASA.gov webpages .

Get over yourselves .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

As I recall, all data gets adjusted (incl. Spencer's) as part of the process, but suspicions remain -- legit or not.

Yes - all temperature data sets are adjusted. Satellites do not really measure temperatures, they measure proxies. The Remote Sensing Systems web site has a good explanation. Remote Sensing Systems

Ironically, those dismissive of climate science used to use RSS data because it was cooler that UAH data. With Versions 4.0 of RSS and 6.0 of UAH, the latter is favoured.

I use both sites. The RSS has better graphical representations of the atmosphere.

One of the major adjustment for land-based temperatures is Time of Observation Bias. In the US many of the station readings are done by volunteers who are not as rigorous with taking reading at the same time. This requires an adjustment.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

look at the point on both charts for 1936 and 1998 you will notice in the old 1999 chart 1936 is 2.5 ℉ above baseline and 1998 is 1.55 ℉ above baseline

In the 2019 version of the same chart the 1936 temperature is listed at approx 1.25℉ above and 1998 is listed at about 1.45 ℉ above baseline

Why did they cool the 1936 temp by 1.3℉ ?

I don't believe it was a proper adjustment I actually trust my grandmother . And my father.

If you are referring to these charts --

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2946955

I notice that one is in F and the other is in C.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The adjustment of temperature readings are well explained but here is the problem I see the adjustments are always to make the present more warm than anything in the past and cooling the past measurements to suit their agenda ..

Explain the following

Wayback Machine

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/g...ture/graph.png

Cool the past and warm the present sorry but it looks like fraud to me ..

BTW - Heller's graphics are also in C and F and are identical to newhaul's

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, it's recently become apparent that you don't actually understand a fundamental part of the science - the carbon cycle. How can you be a credible skeptic of a position you don't fully understand?

And of course the over-reliance on so many non-scientific modifiers to give the small amount of actual scientific skepticism more heft.


Just my opinion, of course.

Don't just make accusations, explain (if you can) what you believe I don't know about the carbon cycle. I've already read both Allen's & your articles about the relationship between CO2 & warming, among others. I understand about the burning of carbon that's been sequestered for 1000s of years. My only qualm is over science's inability to quantify how much measured CO2 actually produces an amount of measured warming. Same qualm as Reef highlighted, and the dilemma every other mainstream & skeptic scientist who doesn't opine that all of the added CO2 contributes to all of the warming. Your position reflects the mainstream which is fine, but it relies on assumptions not scientific truths. That would be the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the amount of warming that CO2 produces.

I'm not sure but I think you may have missed the basic logic train here. The different theories about "how much" are disputed but not the basics of the carbon cycle we were all discussing. Don't just try and dismiss honest discussion with superficial accusation & mischaracterization. Explain what I don't understand about the carbon cycle (in your own words not just another link). If you can it will benefit me and others, but if you can't then, well, that speaks for itself.

Ditto for your accusation over my claimed over-reliance or inflated representation of the skeptics. I am mostly just trying to counter the false impression that the mainstream positions are the only positions, and that disputing them is akin to a doctor disputing the link between cancer & smoking. When you come up with the same number of skeptical doctors on that issue as there are skeptical scientists on this one, then maybe you guys will finally have an analogy that isn't so ridiculous.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Heller's temperature adjustments missives have been refuted by none other than Judith Curry, Zeke Hausfather and Steve Mosher in a three part series on Curry's blog.

Yes, I remember quite well the debate over the adjustments, and also know that controversy remained from a minority of scientists. It's highly complex and not something I can fairly evaluate on my own, but I'm aware of the majority view (incl. Curry) and don't think I've tried to push it one way or the other.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

BTW - Heller's graphics are also in C and F and are identical to newhaul's

as are the originals I linked to just without pointing out the in acceptable extreme doctoring of the physical temperatures .

But then I'm not trying to get people to give up trillions of dollars that won't do any good just make me poorer than I already am .

Give they all of your money.

[stevensuf]

Forget about it.....
During the PETM, the global mean temperature seems to have risen by as much as 5-8 °C (9-14 °F) to an average temperature as high as 23 °C (73 °F), in contrast to the global average temperature of today at just under 15 °C (60 °F). Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle, while much of the continental United States had a sub-tropical environment.[5]



Sounds good to me, what you worried about?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Forget about it.....
During the PETM, the global mean temperature seems to have risen by as much as 5-8 °C (9-14 °F) to an average temperature as high as 23 °C (73 °F), in contrast to the global average temperature of today at just under 15 °C (60 °F). Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle, while much of the continental United States had a sub-tropical environment.[5]



Sounds good to me, what you worried about?

it sounds good to me but it ain't profitable so gotta fight it . Even when its not going to happen we are back to cool I f and yes we are still in an ice age ( an interglacial period)
it is getting colder and will continue to do so .