Ocean acidifcation .

[Hardhead]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Its fairly easy actually, who controls the grant money for scientific research?

A whole bunch of different people, I believe.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

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.

the upward trend has changed . In 2015 Dr Spencer showed it to be +.19℃ per decade
And now he lists it as +.13℃ per decade takes a significant cooling over the last 5 years to change that trend by -.06 per decade .

Just my observations ( for now )

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

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

Wrong as usual.

From https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/n....1751_2014.ems

Year Total Gas Liquids Solids Production Flaring Capita

2014 9855 1823 3280 4117 568 68 1.36

Cement production 568*100/9855 = 5.8% of total carbon emissions.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the upward trend has changed . In 2015 Dr Spencer showed it to be +.19℃ per decade
And now he lists it as +.13℃ per decade takes a significant cooling over the last 5 years to change that trend by -.06 per decade .

Just my observations ( for now )

+0.13 is still warming, just at a slower rate. Cooling involves negative numbers.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

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

Some look at the lower range of error bars, some look at the higher range.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

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 .

The US and most of North America was warmer, not the entire world.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Every commercial plant grower supplements co2 where possible for far increased
yields and have been doing so for longer than any nancy wancy study some
undergrad student could do in on season.


I call complete and utter bull on this one..

Great - let us enclose all arable land under a greenhouse.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Its fairly easy actually, who controls the grant money for scientific research?

Skeptics are also government funded. Spencer and Christy get all of their funding from DOE, NASA and NOAA. Lindzen spent $3,000,000 in National Science Foundation funding trying to prove his Iris Theory. Curry, Legates, Pielke (both of them) all received NSF grants.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not what i said...
You think that 2100 we'll be at equilibrium?

Unlike most, it appears, I do not possess a crystal ball

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

What makes you think I haven't?

Nah that's just Oz


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

Actually, it's Pandora.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The US and most of North America was warmer, not the entire world.

FYI Australia had very hot decade in the thirties

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...-forests-20407

How could you miss the second paragraph? Right, you only read the headline

But there’s an asterisk: the study’s authors said their projections could be skewed by a lack of data on methane emissions from lakes throughout northern Alaska, which could factor into how much carbon is ultimately stored by the forests.

BTW - you did not link to the study, but to a secondary source.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

FYI Australia had very hot decade in the thirties

citation please.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

+0.13 is still warming, just at a slower rate. Cooling involves negative numbers.

Or we could just shelve the pedantry, look at the exact same data, and say that +0.13 means we're still in a warming trend, but avg. temperatures have been cooling the past 5 years.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Or we could just shelve the pedantry, look at the exact same data, and say that +0.13 means we're still in a warming trend, but avg. temperatures have been cooling the past 5 years.

That is not what newhaul claimed.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong as usual.

From https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/n....1751_2014.ems

Year Total Gas Liquids Solids Production Flaring Capita

2014 9855 1823 3280 4117 568 68 1.36

Cement production 568*100/9855 = 5.8% of total carbon emissions.

What's the total non-fossil fuel derived carbon emissions?