Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is no correlation between sunspots and temperatures. (I posted this quite some time ago in another thread.)



We are warming

I see you still remember at least some of our prior discussions.

And I stand by my assertion.
its all the sun doing it .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Someone once posted -- at least a 100 times actually -- that correlation doesn't equal causation. In this case the consensus is about 1.5 - 1.8ºC since we started burning fossil fuels in earnest in the late 19th century. Warming -- whether human or natural caused -- produces more atmospheric CO2 all on its own. Notwithstanding, we are being told not only that this amount of temperature rise over the past 150 years is aberrant & abnormal, but that it is also a contributing cause of every severe storm, flood, species extinction, sea level fluctuation, glacial retreat, unusual snowfall, and record heat. All on account of a warming trend that scientists cannot agree on how much is from natural vs. human forces.

In other words, a graph showing correlation from a single temperature dataset only resolves it for those who made up their minds long ago, and have no further interest in objectivity.

sorry I couldn't resist .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You can't even get this right. The increase, using your numbers, is 115 ppm, which is a 40% increase. Not a 0.0115 % increase.

And they do not say the same thing. Slipping into the ppm or percentages re the total atmosphere is an irrelevance, but it's a cheap trick that deniers use to fool the punters ("how can altering such a tiny component of the atmosphere possibly have any effect? It's so minuscule!"). But I guess desperate times call for desperate measures. Or ad hominems. Or psycho-babble.

Sorry. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increased by 40+ % so far. It's too much, too fast, and we can find no similar natural occurrences in our "recent" (past hundreds of thousands of years) history. It sounds alarming because it IS alarming.

I don't even know why the CO2 level is suddenly contentious to you. I believe that you've stated many times your acknowledgement that there's really no scientific disagreement that CO2 is increasing. Or have you changed your mind on that?



That's the greater unknown, yes. But so far, and for at least the last 30 years, it's the best hypothesis, it gets stronger every year, and there's no credible alternative hypothesis. For how long do you plan to ignore this?

"No credible alternative hypothesis" would only work as a substitute for causation if warming & cooling cycles amidst warming & cooling trends were not a natural feature of earth's history. You're right that there seems to be little controversy over CO2 rise (except for maybe the ice core vs. stomata theories), but all of the assumptions & conclusions you make after that express more certainty than much of the mainstream science itself. That merely shows bias & predetermined conclusions, and are therefore not reliable.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Not to mention we are actually in the first few years of a long term cooling phase. ( according to several well respected astrophysicists )

Please post several names of those astrophysicists please.

Meanwhile:

Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.

Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
Sarah Ineson, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood
Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
Amanda C. Maycock
National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
Amanda C. Maycock & Lesley J. Gray
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
Lesley J. Gray
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
Jerald W. Harder
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
Mike Lockwood

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncom...or-information

Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades (2019–2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one.

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.

Northumbria University, Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 1XE, UK
V. V. Zharkova
University of Bradford, School of Engineering, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK
S. J. Shepherd
University of Hull, Department of Physics and Mathematics, Kingston upon Hull, HU6 7RX, UK
S. I. Zharkov
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi Shamakhi Astrophysical Observatory Azerbaijan, AZ 1000, Pirqulu, Azerbaijan
E. Popova
National Research University, Higher School of Economics, 101000, Moscow, Russia
E. Popova

https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...or-information

The scientific basis, in theory and experiment, underlying greenhouse gas warming is as robust as any aspect of modern science.

Richard D. Schwartz - former chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Missouri–St. Louis.

https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/...73-22-1-44.htm

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And I stand by my assertion.
its all the sun doing it .

That is an evidence-free assertion, and you know it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

sorry I couldn't resist .

A cartoon post from a cartoon character.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

"No credible alternative hypothesis" would only work as a substitute for causation if warming & cooling cycles amidst warming & cooling trends were not a natural feature of earth's history. You're right that there seems to be little controversy over CO2 rise (except for maybe the ice core vs. stomata theories), but all of the assumptions & conclusions you make after that express more certainty than much of the mainstream science itself. That merely shows bias & predetermined conclusions, and are therefore not reliable.

plant stomata are wrong because it doesn't fit their ( the MMGWC) narrative .
It shows that there was much more co2 in the atmosphere at the turn of the 20th than would fit their its all man and fossil fuel so lets tax them out of existence narrative .


Me I stand by my solar activity and cosmic rays theorem .
And all of the associated effects thereof .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is an evidence-free assertion, and you know it.

the evidence is everywhere just look around . Without the sun being like it is and we being where we are in relation to it none of what you see would exist .

Do you deny that fact??

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A cartoon post from a cartoon character.

the best part is early in this thread I actually providedvarious reports that supported every thing the cartoon said. Most of which is contradictory to itself .
Perhaps you should actually do some research on it .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

In other words, a graph showing correlation from a single temperature dataset

Had you read the the link to the Berkeley data set, or would have prevented you from posting a ill-informed assertion.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives.

Originally Posted by Exile

only resolves it for those who made up their minds long ago, and have no further interest in objectivity.

Know thyself - Socrates.

[sdowney717]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Who hasn't seen steam trains and steam ships from a century or more ago spewing out thick plumes of black smoke and thought to themselves "How inefficient is that?". Even during the second world war, trains and ships remained powered by steam with the main advance in technology being the replacement of coal with oil to power the burners for the boilers.


We should allow history to be the teacher. If Moore's law is anything to go by, in another century fossil fuels will, with almost no doubt imo, be consigned to history for the most part. Which makes it just as foolish to try and jump the gun on technology today as it would have been for the people of 1919 to jump the gun on steam power. And don't kid yourself. To replace fossil fuels to the extent decried by some is well and truly jumping the gun. In fact it's probably more akin to jumping the shark. Imagine, if you will, the Allied nations switching from steam power to an undeveloped technology in 1919 and the consequences of how that would have played out 20 years later.

And @LE. Pointing out that CO2 isn't even in the town, let alone the ball park, of toxicity at current atmospheric levels isn't exactly a red herring in the context of the analogy provided.

Thats a lot of assumption, cant lay wires in the ocean for electric ships.
Hydrocarbons burn, create heat, coal burns creates heat, that all there was, nothing fundamentally greater as in a wonderful new miracle technology.
Difference was external versus internal combustion, but it is still fire creating heat.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the evidence is everywhere just look around . Without the sun being like it is and we being where we are in relation to it none of what you see would exist .

Do you deny that fact??

The sun provides the earth with most of its energy. Solar activity varies 0.1% which is insufficient to affect climate change.

That is a fact..

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sdowney717

Thats a lot of assumption, cant lay wires in the ocean for electric ships.
Hydrocarbons burn, create heat, coal burns creates heat, that all there was, nothing fundamentally greater as in a wonderful new miracle technology.
Difference was external versus internal combustion, but it is still fire creating heat.

Nuclear energy provides heat to produce steam to turn turbines to run ships.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Please post several names of those astrophysicists please.

Meanwhile:



Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
Sarah Ineson, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood
Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
Amanda C. Maycock
National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
Amanda C. Maycock & Lesley J. Gray
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK
Lesley J. Gray
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
Jerald W. Harder
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
Mike Lockwood

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncom...or-information



Northumbria University, Department of Mathematics, Physics and Electrical Engineering, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 1XE, UK
V. V. Zharkova
University of Bradford, School of Engineering, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK
S. J. Shepherd
University of Hull, Department of Physics and Mathematics, Kingston upon Hull, HU6 7RX, UK
S. I. Zharkov
Nasir al-Din al-Tusi Shamakhi Astrophysical Observatory Azerbaijan, AZ 1000, Pirqulu, Azerbaijan
E. Popova
National Research University, Higher School of Economics, 101000, Moscow, Russia
E. Popova

https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...or-information



Richard D. Schwartz - former chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Missouri–St. Louis.

https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/...73-22-1-44.htm

all of the proper nods to the MMGWC overlords . (The ones that control the purse strings)

the quote about cooling from solar minima not being more than the model projected agw warming is based on flawed models. They have been proven by actual readings to be incorrect high by a factor of 5.

Try again and you really should read everything with a really skeptical mindset not just the studies that don't align with your personal views.
It will really open your mind ( if its not already to solidly closed )

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Had you read the the link to the Berkeley data set, or would have prevented you from posting a ill-informed assertion.


Know thyself - Socrates.

Better yet, simply informing the reader about the composition of the dataset would have potentially forestalled further challenge, as might not ignoring the correlation vs. causation problems inherent therein.

Socrates would hardly have approved of your manner of presenting "evidence" in support of your transparently biased, predetermined conclusions.