Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949415]How did this get published?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Because of this (see it now?):

"These oscillations of the estimated terrestrial temperature do not include any human-induced factors, which were outside the scope of the current paper."

AND

because Zharkova generally agrees with much of the official AGW position. Didn't you just say so yourself?

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Exile;2949438]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How did this get published?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Because of this (see it now?):

"These oscillations of the estimated terrestrial temperature do not include any human-induced factors, which were outside the scope of the current paper."

AND

because Zharkova generally agrees with much of the official AGW position. Didn't you just say so yourself?

My question was for newhaul.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What makes you think that scientists haven't considered "natural sources"?

Who said they haven't? The skepticism is that they haven't considered them enough in the rush to "prove" that MMGW is some sort of existential threat, and so that's where most of the time, energy, money & research are going. Why whine to me when you can just go back a couple of pages and read Judith Curry's interviews about why she was so ready to leave academia? I don't care which theory you choose but you don't seem to even understand the other side of the debate, so it's a waste of time debating with you. So what are we debating exactly?

Do you not think that a natural forcing capable of increasing CO2 by 10% or more would stick out like a sore thumb?

It's NOT just about the level of CO2 (although natural forces can influence to some degree), it's ALSO about natural forces in their own right. What is your argument here? That all warming is derived from CO2? OK fine, you & Jack. Argue about it with a climate scientist. But surely you understand that there are other (minority) positions out there. Try it out with them!

I thought you said you were leaving? Did we pull you back in?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3mC5Nci7gs

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Dr Porteus should have studied them instead of an extensively commercially farmed fish having a "LC" (as in "least concern") threatened species rating.

guess who sits on a number of advisory panels?

If you’re referring to aquaculture, sea bass may actually benefit from climate change in uk waters due to sst increases (according to the same grant grabbing scientists). There’s a big difference between wild and aquaculture. Ocean acidification ranges from minor to major impacts across aquaculture and wild native species ( only DIRECTLY commercially sensitive species seem to be studied for some reason ). Who’s do you thinks funding the research?

No more wild bass if they can’t close their life cycle but no such a problem in aquaculture.

Any ideas what bass use their sense of smell for? Sniffing CF BS? I see exiles an expert in this area, maybe get him to help you with your homework.

P.s nice to see you referring to a quality source for a change, IUCN holds much more credibility than trip advisor in this field... reminds me, I’m due a holiday!

[Exile]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949452]

Originally Posted by Exile

My question was for newhaul.

It was the second time you asked the exact same question and it was answered, so I thought you should get the exact same answer again. Is there another answer you'd like to throw out there?

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Exile;2949470]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It was the second time you asked the exact same question and it was answered, so I thought you should get the exact same answer again. Is there another answer you'd like to throw out there?

newhaul keeps making the same assertion. My question is rhetorical , as the publication of that paper refutes his assertion.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

OK - show me the scientific research on natural forcings.

Why, are you still mystified why they pale in comparison to research on MMGW, or still don't understand why it's difficult to get them peer-reviewed? Don't try and distort the grounds for why there's an imbalance in the research, or better yet go to Climate, Etc. and argue the specific point with Curry. I'm sure she can provide all the specifics you demand, but I wouldn't recommend trying out your sophomoric debating tactics with her.

[Exile]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949472]

Originally Posted by Exile

newhaul keeps making the same assertion. My question is rhetorical , as the publication of that paper refutes his assertion.

Then explain HOW it refutes Newhaul's assertion. Or counter Newhaul's response that it was published for an astrophysics audience. Or whatever, anything's better than another episode of THE RIDDLER.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

Any ideas what bass use their sense of smell for? Sniffing CF BS? I see exiles an expert in this area, maybe get him to help you with your homework.

Always lots of shouts of BS and a hundred other derogatory labels, but rarely specific explanations why. It doesn't bother me in the least, but it speaks volumes about the level of discussion.

[Puddleduck]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949378]

Originally Posted by Exile

We shall await the appeal.

No need just play the ball. His science (not opinion) conforms to the mainstream view. Winners and losers, loss of biodiversity and complex reef habitat. It’s all just spun differently under a GBR umbrella... cha cha cha change!

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Exile;2949475]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Then explain HOW it refutes Newhaul's assertion. Or counter Newhaul's response that it was published for an astrophysics audience. Or whatever, anything's better than another episode of THE RIDDLER.

newhaul's assertion

Originally Posted by newhaul

now days they will allow the natural forcings to be studied but if you put much in your conclusions I bet you wouldn't get published .

And we are cooling . It is all due to the sun.

Zharkova's conclusion.

This trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600.

She specifically avoided human induced causes and only included natural forcing conclusions in her paper, which according to newhaul "wouldn't get published ."

BTW - when I pointed out the warming prediction early in this thread, newhaul responded:

Originally Posted by newhaul

really read her papers not some writers misinterpretation .

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2947580

The article was published in Nature Scientific Report, not an an astrophysics journal.

Scientific Reports is an online, open access journal from the publishers of Nature. We publish scientifically valid primary research from all areas of the natural and clinical sciences.

Nature does publish an astronomy and planetary science journal as well as a space physics journal. Those would be directed at astrophysicists.

[newhaul]

And the sun rises in the east and west in the west .

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Puddleduck;2949484]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No need just play the ball. His science (not opinion) conforms to the mainstream view.

May I see some evidence to support this assertion? I assume you are referring to the mainstream view in science and not public opinion.

There is apparent contradiction between paragraphs 1&2 and paragraph 296 of Vastas' judgement.

[newhaul]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949489]

Originally Posted by Exile

newhaul's assertion



Zharkova's conclusion.



She specifically avoided human induced causes and only included natural forcing conclusions in her paper, which according to newhaul "wouldn't get published ."

BTW - when I pointed out the warming prediction early in this thread, newhaul responded:



http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2947580

The article was published in Nature Scientific Report, not an an astrophysics journal.



Nature does publish an astronomy and planetary science journal as well as a space physics journal. Those would be directed at astrophysicists.

if your going to quote her you really should not cherry pick what you quote .
Or did you miss the degree of cooling she stated that is as she says is likely to happen in the coming grand minimum .

Heck it will take us warming from the end of it in approx 2050 in till 2600 to get back up to the baseline we are at now.

And it is all due to the sun.
Prove me wrong.

You can't because it is a fact of the real world.

[Exile]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949489]

Originally Posted by Exile

newhaul's assertion



Zharkova's conclusion.



She specifically avoided human induced causes and only included natural forcing conclusions in her paper, which according to newhaul "wouldn't get published ."

BTW - when I pointed out the warming prediction early in this thread, newhaul responded:



http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2947580

The article was published in Nature Scientific Report, not an an astrophysics journal.



Nature does publish an astronomy and planetary science journal as well as a space physics journal. Those would be directed at astrophysicists.

So where's the part you mentioned about Zharkova's allegiance to the mainstream AGW position? Does the paper rebut that position or is it consistent therewith? Not rhetorical, I know nothing about this scientist except she's an advocate of solar output theories, and that her predictions seem far off in the future.

Fair point about the astrophysics audience.