Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

RSS and UAH use the same satellite data, but employ different adjustments.

Your five year parameter is a cherry pick of a large El Nino event.

Understood, but why did the Spencer/UAH data (that Newhaul posted awhile back) show cooling over the past 5 years in the midst of the longstanding warming trend? Or are you disputing this? If so, is your dispute based on a misrepresentation of the UAH data, or is it based on the RSS data showing no cooling over the same period based on different adjustments? Once again, I'm simply trying to understand what you & Newhaul are arguing over.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The ocean, with around 38,000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons), contains 16 times as much carbon as the terrestrial biosphere, that is all plant and the underlying soils on our planet, and around 60 times as much as the pre-industrial atmosphere, i.e., at a time before people began to drastically alter the atmospheric CO2 content by the increased burning of coal, oil and gas.
Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually.
By absorbing increased carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the ocean reduces the warming impact of these emissions, were they to remain in the atmosphere. Nonetheless, the planet keeps warming.
However, carbon dioxide dissolved into the ocean causes seawater to acidify, threatening the ability of shellfish and corals to build their skeletons and affecting the health of other fish and marine species.

“The global carbon budget 1959–2011C” ~ by C. Le Qúeŕe et al.
➥ https://www.earth-syst-sci-data-disc...-1107-2012.pdf

“The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 from 1994 to 2007" ~ by Nicolas Gruber et al
➥ https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...b-article-info


I regret that my citations aren't more recent.

Recent enough for a good synopsis of the basic science I'm sure. Thanks.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Understood, but why did the Spencer/UAH data (that Newhaul posted awhile back) show cooling over the past 5 years in the midst of the longstanding warming trend? Or are you disputing this? If so, is your dispute based on a misrepresentation of the UAH data, or is it based on the RSS data showing no cooling over the same period based on different adjustments? Once again, I'm simply trying to understand what you & Newhaul are arguing over.

Both show short-term cooling from a very large El Nino event (variation). Both show long-term warming (trend).





newhaul (and Monckton) are cherry picking their dates.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you mean like cherry picking 1979 as the start date for arctic sea ice considering it was the highest in 50 years of the climate record.!!

The satellite data for ice extent starts in 1979.

I also use 1953 as a start date of the NSIDC ice extent chart. 1979 was NOT the highest in 50 years.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The ocean, with around 38,000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons), contains 16 times as much carbon as the terrestrial biosphere, that is all plant and the underlying soils on our planet, and around 60 times as much as the pre-industrial atmosphere, i.e., at a time before people began to drastically alter the atmospheric CO2 content by the increased burning of coal, oil and gas.
Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually.
By absorbing increased carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the ocean reduces the warming impact of these emissions, were they to remain in the atmosphere. Nonetheless, the planet keeps warming.
However, carbon dioxide dissolved into the ocean causes seawater to acidify, threatening the ability of shellfish and corals to build their skeletons and affecting the health of other fish and marine species.

“The global carbon budget 1959–2011C” ~ by C. Le Qúeŕe et al.
➥ https://www.earth-syst-sci-data-disc...-1107-2012.pdf

“The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2 from 1994 to 2007" ~ by Nicolas Gruber et al
➥ https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...b-article-info


I regret that my citations aren't more recent.

how about the hundreds of millions from submarine volcanic activity not to mention all of the of the other stuff like sulphur dioxide and all of the rest of the emissions that the ipcc and all the others don't take into account in the total ?( btw its easy they don't disclose it due to it being natural ) And in direct conflict with their studies terms of reference.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The satellite data for ice extent starts in 1979.

I also use 1953 as a start date of the NSIDC ice extent chart. 1979 was NOT the highest in 50 years.

not quite jack. Nimbus is earlier .
As is the U.S. DOE based on us navy charting.

What will be your next cherry pick??

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Both show short-term cooling from a very large El Nino event (variation). Both show long-term warming (trend).





newhaul (and Monckton) are cherry picking their dates.

how did I " cherry pick " anything

Lets see rss shows a .20℃ per decade rise
And UAH which shows a .13℃ per decade trend
Bet next year when the RSS updates their per decade trend it will be downgraded. By at least .04℃ per decade .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

how about the hundreds of millions from submarine volcanic activity not to mention all of the of the other stuf ...

Are you able to support any of that, so far, bald opinion?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

not quite jack. Nimbus is earlier .
As is the U.S. DOE based on us navy charting.

What will be your next cherry pick??

OK - show that data /graph from nimbus. Does it extend past 1953?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Both show short-term cooling from a very large El Nino event (variation). Both show long-term warming (trend).





This was my understanding as well, until you guys started arguing about it that is. It looks like the El Nino was in 2016 approx., so there's been some (averaged) cooling in the intervening 4 or so years. Thus far a roughly similar pattern both graphs show going back 40 years. In other words, not long enough to establish a cooling trend, but a few years of "cooling" nonetheless. What this few years of "cooling" in the midst of an overall "warming trend" means is a matter of opinion and so where the argument really lies. Gheez!

newhaul (and Monckton) are cherry picking their dates.

What dates? I thought we were discussing the past few years and in agreement about what the data says?

In my opinion, the term "cherry picking" is a bit overused to the point of being a misnomer at times. The problem is it implies willful misrepresentation, and I think this not only often mischaracterizes but is an all-too-easy tool used to try and discredit opponents rather than to point out actual data manipulation. I'm not vouching for anyone here, only pointing out that the data itself lends itself to manipulation, and it seems both sides engage in it to some extent and for their own purposes.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The satellite data for ice extent starts in 1979.

I also use 1953 as a start date of the NSIDC ice extent chart. 1979 was NOT the highest in 50 years.

No, but according to a graph from Curry produced in another thread, the mid-20th century was in fact a high point in Arctric sea ice extent over the previous 1000s of years. So starting with 1953 could in fact be a significant high point, thereby making the ensuing decades look more aberrant than they really are. I still wouldn't claim you were "cherry-picking," however, since there may be neutral reasons why the graph starts there (like 1979 when the sat data came online).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Are you able to support any of that, so far, bald opinion?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#5475914c5cbf


A tremendous synthesis of information took place in 2013, revealing our best value yet for the total amount of CO2 emitted from natural release events within Earth. They found:

33 measured degassing volcanoes emit a total of 60 million tons of CO2 per year.
There are a total of ~150 known degassing volcanoes, implying (based on the measured ones) that a total of 271 million tons of CO2 are released annually.
30 historically active volcanoes are measured to emit a total of 6.4 million tons of CO2 per year.
With ~550 historically active volcanoes total, they extrapolate this class of object contributes 117 million tons per year.
The global total from volcanic lakes is 94 million tons of CO2 per year.
Additional emissions from tectonic, hydrothermal and inactive volcanic areas contribute an estimated 66 million tons of CO2 per year, although the total number of emitting, tectonic areas are unknown.
And finally, emissions from mid-ocean ridges are estimated to be 97 million tons of CO2 annually.

Also from the article

Hydrothermal vents along mid-ocean ridges emit carbon and carbon dioxide in the form of 'black smokers' beneath the sea, but it is unknown whether this process results in a net increase in atmospheric CO2, or whether it's all sequestered before it enters the atmosphere. P. RONA; OAR/NATIONAL UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAM (NURP); NOAA

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK - show that data /graph from nimbus. Does it extend past 1953?

nimbus started in 1964 taking satellite pictures of the arctic sea ice

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

nimbus started in 1964 taking satellite pictures of the arctic sea ice

OK - now show us the data.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

how did I " cherry pick " anything

You started with an abnormal event, a very large El Nino.