Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Methinks you confuse colour temperature with graph colouring.

Nope. As a photographer I understand colour temperature. I also understand graphic interpretation.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Mama Mia!

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nope. As a photographer I understand colour temperature. I also understand graphic interpretation.

You wouldn't think so going off some of your posts.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Cliff notes. Molluscs are still with us after ~500 million years.

Actually that does not answer the question that you posed.

are there any studies using these same species that compares the age of the species to past climatic conditions?

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by catsketcher

Thanks Imaginary - that was interesting reading.



One problem with the science deniers - flat earthers, anti vaccers, moon hoaxers is that they are prone to cherry picking data. It is very important to not just pick data that suits your own view. There is so much data that you can always pick a null result of many studies to confirm your own view.

You could have also mentioned the anti-fluoride nuts. But sometimes the crazy whack-job conspiracy nuts might be right:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fluori...ediatrics-says

“The effects of this study are comparable to the effects of lead, and if these findings are true there should be as much concern about prenatal fluoride exposure,” Christakis told The Daily Beast.

The news stories today about this fluoride study are loaded with quotes from uninvolved scientists claiming the study is “flawed”.

Scientists are not immune to group think. It simply isn’t possible that 97% of scientists understand the complex system that is our planet. More like 0.097% actually understand. The rest “believe” they know. We’ve discussed Dunning-Krueger here before. The more certain you are of being right the greater the probability you are not.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Warming is uncontroverted. Recent observations in areas like the Arctic indicate significant warming - like 3+ degrees C in the US and Canadian Arctic. Less warming as you move towards the equator. And of course, the warming of the oceans. So yes - warming.
That's a pretty solid yes.
Let's not consider the hyperbolic reactions of media; let's confine this to science. And they haven't been ignoring natural forces (except for the unknowable ones )
That's YOUR assumption speaking there.

So far, this CO2 buildup and warming ARE abnormal/aberrant, as far as several hundreds of thousands of years go. They fit well with the known consumption of fossil fuel and other large-scale human activities, AND there is not yet a "natural" phenomenon identified that is capable of having comparable influence on either CO2 or warming.

If you're truly being a dispassionate skeptic, you have to work with all the evidence, and not just with your suspicion of an unidentified "natural" force.
Such cycles and trends are understood and none are known to have ever caused such a rapid CO2 buildup or the oddly correlated warming in the recent past. This heating is dominating or overwhelming natural cycles. You and Spencer can speculate all you want about other possible causes, but without some proof it remains just that - unfounded speculation. btw, are you a Creationist too?

M'kay, we know who's toeing the party line, but carry on...... or simply happens to be the most logical and best-fitting conclusion, and there is no competing hypothesis that comes anywhere near to being as well-supported or agreed-upon.
We're here because the CC debate is more contagious than chlamydia at an orgy, and can reliably be predicted to break out when certain demographics congregate.

Unless it was tongue-in-cheek, Gord requested an attempt at objectivity. Nobody is under the illusion that "dispassionate skepticism" will be achieved. You responded with your usual biased & unsupported assertions which only represent, at best, part of the science. Why do you think this is responsive or persuasive?

Yes, a long-term warming trend that encompasses the industrial revolution appears to be uncontroverted. Let's stick to global averages as the Arctic is subject to polar amplification and thus higher temps -- but that's exactly why you cited it, right?

You need a specific page cite to the IPCC report which says the warming trend is abnormal/aberrant, or whatever language is used. Otherwise the natural forces that seem so elusive to you are merely natural cycles since the last glaciation. You can look up yourself what science believes causes them, but it's pre-fossil fuels so presumably humans didn't play much of a role. There must be skepticism over the extent of any aberration or there'd be little basis for skepticism within the science itself. Unless you've been holding out on us and you're actually the well-credentialed scientist we've all been waiting to hear from.

It's either CO2 or its natural forces, the same ones which caused countless previous cycles of warming & cooling the past 10,000 years. This is some sort of red herring you've cooked up yourself since I don't think even Skeptical Science is silly enough to come up with such nonsense. They do, after all, have to retain some semblance of credibility to fund their PayPal account.

Oh, and keep peoples' personal religious beliefs out of it. That's pretty nasty stuff, but obviously not beyond the pale for people around here who are so filled with the conceit of their own self-righteousness that they're oblivious to other peoples' perspectives. What's even more remarkable is that you and others still put the blame elsewhere for not being able to win over adherents to your transparently biased views. But why respond forthrightly when you can just silence the discussion by getting the thread closed down? It does frustrate and anger YOU after all. Isn't that enough justification all on its own?

All of this begs the question: Why is even an attempt at reasonably objective, respectful adult discourse so frightening to you?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Scientists are not immune to group think. It simply isn’t possible that 97% of scientists understand the complex system that is our planet. More like 0.097% actually understand. The rest “believe” they know. We’ve discussed Dunning-Krueger here before. The more certain you are of being right the greater the probability you are not.

The 97% - 99% numbers come from published literature by climate scientists, not all scientists.

Here is James Powell methodology

Studies of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming that are based on literature surveys give higher and more consistent results than opinion polls. Using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five literature surveys (11-15 in the chart above) agree closely (literature survey 10 did not use rejection alone). The five comprise 54,195 articles from 1991-2015 and reveal an average consensus of 99.94%.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The 97% - 99% numbers come from published literature by climate scientists, not all scientists.

Here is James Powell methodology

Peer reviewed, so therefore no need to also cite the lengthy critiques of the process used to come up with the 97-99% "consensus." The same process that included leading skeptics such as Roy Spencer within this same "consensus." You can look it up on Google Scholar and cite it along with, or you can continue to engage in not very credible propaganda.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's either CO2 or its natural forces, the same ones which caused countless previous cycles of warming & cooling the past 10,000 years.

You are not going back far enough. For 800,000 years natural forces, primarily Milankovitch cycles, created a Goldilocks world in which CO2 levels fluctuated between 180 and 300 ppm.



Home sapiens evolved and their food crops were domesticated in that atmosphere.

The Holocene optimum occured 8000 years ago and the earth began to cool. That ended abruptly when we started to use fossil fuels and dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere raising CO2 levels from 285 to the current 410 ppm. Using carbon isotope analysis that nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.



Short term cycles such as solar cycles would also have us cooling. Despite newhaul's assertions we are still warming.



Natural cycles USED to dominate; they do not do so anymore.

[AllenRbrts]

Fortunately the amount of warming so far is 1C not 1.8C. remember 5C cooling had most of north America covered in ice.

When thinking about global temperature, remember that most of the earth is covered by water which changes temperature very slowly, so most of the change is over land.

Most past similar rapid temperature changes came with massive cataclysmic events like huge volcanos or meteors, there is no such event this time.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Most past similar rapid temperature changes came with massive cataclysmic events like huge volcanos or meteors, there is no such event this time.

or several smaller volcanic events

4 vei4 events have just as much effect as a single vei6 event and we have had an out 20 vei3 events this year and at least 3 vei4 events . And its going to get worse eruptive wise as we get deeper into the minimum and higher cosmic rays exposure.
And we are cooling .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It does. But you assumed a value judgement.

BTW - 0°C = 273.15K

the use of red at 270k is an intentional misleading attempt . The average person automatically associates red with heat so they use perception to their advantage
You know that its true .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

I agreed with you that stomata can be used as a CO2-concentration proxy.

However, the discussion we were having was specifically about what the CO2 levels were about 10K-12K years ago, and whether ice core data was more reliable, or stomata count data. And the most rational conclusion, per the Nature article, is that the ice core data is more reliable.


Yes it does. Starting in the second paragraph.

https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...5446/1815.full

so what about the statements that plant stomata show the co2 level to have been at as high as 395ppm at the start of the 20th century?
I posted the study remember.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I love how RM and newhaul misperceived a chart scale .

no its the misrepresentation that preys on the average persons perception of colors= temperature that is the problem .

Most people equate the color red with heat .
Doubt they arbitrarily chose to use the temperature colors
People equate white as neutral and blue as cold .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The 97% - 99% numbers come from published literature by climate scientists, not all scientists.

Here is James Powell methodology

I would love to actually see the terms of reference for this study .