Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

How hard is it to trim 0.04 of the data? NASA did way much more than that for the 1930's.

real easy just say its within error zone and it disappears, or gets added depending on what they want to show.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, I got hung up on the "government expressing the will of the populace", large-scale power generation, planning for the future, transitioning from burning all we can get our hands on as quickly as possible, to meeting all our energy needs for the foreseeable future... trivial stuff like that.

So you want a government to exercise the will of the people that, in turn, require the government to mandate that will before exercising that will.


m'kay.

Ok, let's use equilibrium. More letters. MAYBE the earth will reach a new equilibrium. Maybe that equilibrium will initially be mostly desert and weeds because the rapidity of warmup was more than most established biomes could either adapt to or pack up the station wagon and head for the hills.


Are you confident that the new equilibrium will be at conditions you'd want to call home?

Yes I am. In fact, I already live in a climate that's the business-as-usual year 2100 version of yours.


You should come visit. You might enjoy your stay.

Kinda worried about it, yeah. We both agree that humanity hasn't been a terribly great thing for the rest of the planet's tenants in any event. Stuff's already f'ed up. Still, hell of a bet you're placing.

You sound like you're batting for the other team. Just wait until you find out that beyond that urban enclave in which you reside, every living thing that crawls, flies or squats in the mud wants to kill you and eat your eyes for jujubes.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

real easy just say its within error zone and it disappears, or gets added depending on what they want to show.

I'm waiting for Jackdale to regale me with the details of error bars before making further comment.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Just went to the Heller site. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they appear to be the same exact graphs from NASA. The 2019 version even references NASA on the bottom right. Not sure the 1998 version is any longer available direct from NASA since it's been adjusted. Then Heller's got links to the WaybackMachine site which show the graphs again, and they in turn have links to the NASA site as well. Those links didn't work down to the page, but they definitely got you to the NASA website. The 1998 graph just looks like pre-adjustment data.

So I'm not getting where the big fraud is here, or what Newhaul's lying about. Did he not provide the direct links to the NASA site for you to confirm?

when comparing the two don't look at any of the data from 1999 on due to the older graph ending in 1999 . 1936 was cooled to make everything else appear warmer so they get their steep upward trend line .

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Do I need to repost all the links from old threads about how a slightly warmer atmosphere will almost double the co2 sequestration capability of the various forests around the planet. ..

Yes, it is ALWAYS best to post corroborating links when making statements not generally accepted.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Look carefully at the diagram. Some excess ends up in the atmosphere, resulting in warming, some in the ocean, resulting in acidification or de-alkalinization () , some goes into sinks (soils, plants, etc.)

The system was balanced. A cursory look at the ice core data for the past 800,000 years makes that clear. It is no longer in balance and CO2 levels are increasing.

We're saying the same thing. I got it, and get it (mostly). I'm moving along here to the makeup of the excess atmospheric CO2 that is man-made and, as you say, puts the system out of balance. The assumption is that it is all from fossil fuels, but what about all the human-produced excess that may not be fossil-fuel derived? Presumably the fossil fuel age produced a lot more CO2 than just what was produced from burning fossil fuels alone, or is this an incorrect assumption?

In case this doesn't work . . . what was the rough date or time period that the science estimates the carbon cycle got out of balance?

(you finally getting the gist of the discussion now L-E?)

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually they have figured all that out and if the united states stopped all co2 emissions today it would have less than .001℃ effect at a cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars and a huge toll in human lives.

As to the effect of different co2 levels look up co2 thermal saturation ( btw its logarithmic)
it will take a near doubling of co2 to increase its ir heat retention by 10% .

You are right.
In fact if the whole of humankind goes to live on the Moon, the effect would still be zero in practical terms.
I propose we send all the people who came to the Google camp to live on the moon. That would certainly make a huge difference even when not precisely in the temperature department.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

#2 - Either CO2 in the atmosphere influences warming, or it does not. Make up your mind.

Better if the science makes up IT'S mind, even though you would clearly prefer to do it for everyone's behalf.

My #3 needs a citation? No it's the complete lack of a counterfactual that makes it pretty solid.

It appears we have a new test for scientific certainty announced here folks!

# 3 & 5 - If you believe that there are natural forces capable of raising the CO2 level by 40% in 200 years, it's incumbent upon you to reach up your own fundament and pull it out. Otherwise, ya got nuttin. Except your political bias still floundering around for a plausible scientific rock to sun itself on.

No, actually, there's little or no dispute over the rise in CO2, regardless of politics. That one is pretty downright factual. It's the relationship between CO2 and warming that everyone's been shouting about the past umpteen posts. You're long past starting to waste everyone's time with your robotic thinking. Get off your soapbox and try to keep pace with the discussion.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

We're saying the same thing. I got it, and get it (mostly). I'm moving along here to the makeup of the excess atmospheric CO2 that is man-made and, as you say, puts the system out of balance. The assumption is that it is all from fossil fuels, but what about all the human-produced excess that may not be fossil-fuel derived? Presumably the fossil fuel age produced a lot more CO2 than just what was produced from burning fossil fuels alone, or is this an incorrect assumption?

In case this doesn't work . . . what was the rough date or time period that the science estimates the carbon cycle got out of balance?

(you finally getting the gist of the discussion now L-E?)

don't forget the #1 human co2 producer Concrete.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So you want a government to exercise the will of the people that, in turn, require the government to mandate that will before exercising that will.

Not what i said...

Yes I am. In fact, I already live in a climate that's the business-as-usual year 2100 version of yours.

You think that 2100 we'll be at equilibrium?

You should come visit. You might enjoy your stay.

I'm certain it's lovely. But I'll miss Ontario. You should try some, before it becomes the northern Outback.

Just wait until you find out that beyond that urban enclave in which you reside, every living thing that crawls, flies or squats in the mud wants to kill you and eat your eyes for jujubes.

Nah that's just Oz


Here, the worst thing is blackflies (up north) and deer ticks.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here, the worst thing is blackflies (up north) and deer ticks.

And conservatives, don't forget them. Like blackflies & deer ticks, they often make their homes outside major urban areas (so as to avoid much of the monotonous groupthink), and they're now starting to bite. Used to mind their own business, but now there are too many thoughtless, annoying pests around.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here Dr Spencer says otherwise and even explains why including several different datasets

Roy Spencer, PhD

Even Spencer admits this past July was the 4th warmest on record. So we're quibbling over certain details, but agreeing on the trend --- except for you deniers who claim we're cooling.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Even Spencer admits this past July was the 4th warmest on record. So we're quibbling over certain details, but agreeing on the trend --- except for you deniers who claim we're cooling.

and July was still technically El Nino .

now what year was the warmest July , the second warmest , the third ?
See where I'm going ??

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Here, the worst thing is blackflies (up north) and deer ticks.

We've got blackflies in the northern US, too. Slapping black flies in upstate New York is humorously known as the "Adirondack Wave".

And I found out that the fearsome Kiwi sandflies are a close relative of the North American black fly.

Pests, all.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

and July was still technically El Nino .

now what year was the warmest July , the second warmest , the third ?
See where I'm going ??

It would be highly unusual to have a long, unbroken string of successively hotter years. But we now have a many-decade trend of warmer years.

I'll consider you to be clairvoyant if you happen to call the precise point at which a warming trend reversed and became a cooling trend. In the meantime I'll call you a charlatan.