Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

On a number of occasions you've complained when I simply present science (or present a journalist article on science) but don't offer any of my own thoughts.

And on numerous occasions, including this one, you find something about me to complain about, but have nothing to say about the actual science presented. And since the presentation of actual science certainly seems to have no effect on your skepticism, so you might as well bash the person who presents it.

I'm inclined to agree with whomever it was who recently called you a cynic.

It was Jack, and there's definitely some truth to it. But not the type defined by you:

Quote:
cyn·ic
/ˈsinik/

noun

1. a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.

I never believed you were purely self-interested or acting dishonorably, only extremely biased on account of your political partisanship (which you repeatedly make all too clear). This is what makes your posts suspect for many readers (or not), not whether the articles themselves amount to unjustified alarmism (or not). Not that most of us don't suffer from bias these days, it's just that some can discount it enough to present their positions with more objectivity, and therefore more credibility. But that requires at least some understanding of where the other side is coming from. Your approach to your opposition only serves to detract from your message, even though you may not understand that.

In an area of science that is itself unsettled, and of course so politicized, if people can't figure it out for themselves (few can) they'll naturally gravitate towards the positions of other like-minded people that they trust. That's why the credibility of the people communicating the science (and resulting policies) generally trumps (sorry) the science itself. It's just the way it is, and so there's no need to take responses (or non-responses) to your articles so personally.

[stevensuf]

Originally Posted by newhaul

it sounds good to me but it ain't profitable so gotta fight it . Even when its not going to happen we are back to cool I f and yes we are still in an ice age ( an interglacial period)
it is getting colder and will continue to do so .

IMHO I hope co2 does heat up the planet as the other option 100,000 years of ice sounds much less fun.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A picture is worth a 1000 words. (I did include some words)



This diagrams illustrates Earth's carbon cycle. It shows how carbon atoms 'flow' between various 'reservoirs' in the Earth system. Reservoirs are shown as rectangular blocks; flows between reservoirs are indicated by arrows. The sizes of reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon (GtC). Flows between reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon per year (GtC yr-1). Red arrows and numbers indicate flows and changes in reservoir sizes associated with human activities such as burning fossil fuel and land use changes. Black numbers and flow arrows indicate typical values prior to major human influence. The values for human influences represent the state of the carbon cycle in the mid-1990s (20 years later, human influences are higher).

https://scied.ucar.edu/imagecontent/...e-diagram-ipcc

Good one, and no (additional) words necessary. But I recall Gordo posting one several years ago that was even better.

Notably, it shows only one (one-way) arrow for fossil fuels, thereby reflecting that it's been sequestered for 1000s of years and therefore throws the natural carbon cycle off from the balance it enjoyed prior to the mass consumption/emissions of oil & gas (or so the theory goes). So what about, as Reef raised in the last thread, all the additional people and its associated land development, livestock, etc. that have accompanied this mass burning of fossil fuels? Would not these non-fossil fuel sources of carbon also be part of the added CO2 in the atmosphere that exceed the capacity of the natural sinks to absorb?

P.S. My question has nothing to do with ID'ing the source of the CO2 using isotopes, etc. I'm only asking about total added CO2 in the modern industrial era which exceeds the absorption rate and therefore winds up in the atmosphere.

P.P.S. L-E: How am I doing so far? Meeting your standards of carbon-cycle know-how to be permitted to post on CF?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes - all temperature data sets are adjusted. Satellites do not really measure temperatures, they measure proxies. The Remote Sensing Systems web site has a good explanation. Remote Sensing Systems

Ironically, those dismissive of climate science used to use RSS data because it was cooler that UAH data. With Versions 4.0 of RSS and 6.0 of UAH, the latter is favoured.

I use both sites. The RSS has better graphical representations of the atmosphere.

One of the major adjustment for land-based temperatures is Time of Observation Bias. In the US many of the station readings are done by volunteers who are not as rigorous with taking reading at the same time. This requires an adjustment.

actually jack I choose to use the UAHdata just because I have always used it . There is nothing inherently wrong with the RSS datasets they mirror the UAH just about a 1/4℃ higher than the UAH data.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

My only qualm is over science's inability to quantify how much measured CO2 actually produces an amount of measured warming. Same qualm as Reef highlighted, and the dilemma every other mainstream & skeptic scientist who doesn't opine that all of the added CO2 contributes to all of the warming.

Here's my Readers' Digest attempt at the AGW proposition:

The subject matter experts are pretty sure that:
(numbered for your convenience)

1. the pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been under 300 ppm for many, many thousands of years.
2. increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. We've acknowledged this since at least 1959 (Thanks Gord M), and probably earlier
3. the CO2 level has shot up to over 400 ppm and is projected to keep rising. This rise is unprecedented in speed and magnitude. There is no known "natural" phenomenon that has ever produced anything similar
4. the observed CO2 rise fits very well with our best estimates of fossil fuels consumed.
5. there is no satisfactory "natural" explanation for the warming we're experiencing, and likely to experience going forward

When you put this together, the logical result is that we've caused CO2 to build up, and that CO2 buildup is causing warming.

All the little disagreements and quibbles haven't dented any of the above points. There's no alternate explanation or hypothesis that comes anywhere near to adequately explaining the CO2 buildup or the observed warming, as well as AGW.

Your question...

My only qualm is over science's inability to quantify how much measured CO2 actually produces an amount of measured warming.

...is moot! We got extra CO2, we got warming, nothing else yet comes close to explaining the warming as well as the hypothesis of AGW.


"Look out! that bus is going to run you over!"

"I dunno, I'm skeptical. Why can't you tell me how fast it's going and why you think it will hit me hard enough to be a problem? Moving out of the way is so haaaard. I'll just adapt to my injuries."


Besides, it's just one of Reefie's Socratic brain-teasers. I'm pretty certain that the required work has been done, but he's so coy about what sort of proof he'd accept that we can't begin to try to find it.

Explain what I don't understand about the carbon cycle (in your own words not just another link). If you can it will benefit me and others, but if you can't then, well, that speaks for itself.

Well, it might come out in any ensuing discussion of the above.



Let me first ask - are you still happy with everything you posted re the carbon cycle? Anything you'd revisit or clarify with hindsight?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes - all temperature data sets are adjusted. Satellites do not really measure temperatures, they measure proxies. The Remote Sensing Systems web site has a good explanation. Remote Sensing Systems

Ironically, those dismissive of climate science used to use RSS data because it was cooler that UAH data. With Versions 4.0 of RSS and 6.0 of UAH, the latter is favoured.

I use both sites. The RSS has better graphical representations of the atmosphere.

One of the major adjustment for land-based temperatures is Time of Observation Bias. In the US many of the station readings are done by volunteers who are not as rigorous with taking reading at the same time. This requires an adjustment.

Good to hear you consult both types of data. I believe the UAH data is favored by skeptics not just because it shows a lower warming trend, but because the way the data is interpreted by Spencer, Christy et al. Ditto for those on the other side of the debate with the RSS data. Little of any of the data tells us much on its own without expert scientific analysis & interpretation.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually jack I choose to use the Jay data just because I have always used it . There is nothing inherently wrong with the red datasets they mirror the UAH just about a 1/4℃ higher than the UAH data.

What are "the Jay data" and "red datasets"?

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle (which was true then as it is now) we had some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics.

In other words we were stupid in the 70ties and are now enlightened by the priest and popes.

The truth be said, in the seventies, the big fraud of CO2 was not organised as it is now. In those days the idea of scaring the world population into believing they needed to be saved from the bad rich who are destroying "our kids future" (this is always very effective) was but a wet dream.

Today and for the last 30 years, the charade is well organised, and whoever does not comply loses his job, is discredited or worse.

The warmist agenda to shift political power and resources towards the left and towards otherwise non viable industries, is possible due to the army of left wing idle minds who obey the mantra of "rich is evil, poor is virtuous" or word to that effect, and who believe they have the moral high ground when chanting, CO2 is bad for you, superglue, superglue.

Humans have not changed in the way they think and act, and between the times of the inquisition and today, I find many similarities in behaviour.

The difference between the seventies and now is that it was then possible to have a discussion about science, and skepticism was understood to be essential for the scientific debate. Today, the discussion is about beliefs and is akin to a religious gathering were the "other" church is wrong and will go to hell, guaranteed.

Meantime, the climate does what it has always done, variations are normal and natural and will go on regardless of what the various factions and religious zealots scream red in the face.

And rightly so. Imagine if humans had really the knob to turn for heating or cooling. Fortunately we don't or we would freeze the countries we don't like or perhaps boil them?

Those that are really in charge. Those who decide, are not normal. Do not expect normal reactions from them and don't be a fool pushing their agenda.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

P.S. My question has nothing to do with ID'ing the source of the CO2 using isotopes, etc. I'm only asking about total added CO2 in the modern industrial era which exceeds the absorption rate and therefore winds up in the atmosphere.

Red arrows and numbers indicate flows and changes in reservoir sizes associated with human activities such as burning fossil fuel and land use changes.

Just takes some addition and subtraction.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What are "the Jay data" and "red datasets"?

UAH and RSS . autocorrect has issues on this tablet with acronyms . I was eating a taco when I typed i was otherwise occupied and didn't look before posting . Sue me for it .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Marc1

Meantime, the climate does what it has always done, variations are normal and natural and will go on regardless of what the various factions and religious zealots scream red in the face.

This is not normal



No homo sapiens has endured the CO2 levels that currently exist.

Natural cycles would have us continuing to cool after the Holocene Optimum of 6000 years ago.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

UAH and RSS . autocorrect has issues on this tablet with acronyms . I was eating a taco when I typed i was otherwise occupied and didn't look before posting . Sue me for it .

Add them to your dictionary.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

IMHO I hope co2 does heat up the planet as the other option 100,000 years of ice sounds much less fun.

I am selling glacier insurance. It supplements my income from my post-rapture pet care service (payment in advance of course)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Add them to your dictionary.

I did when I corrected my post
Recent change of tablet.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

This is not normal



No homo sapiens has endured the CO2 levels that currently exist.

Natural cycles would have us continuing to cool after the Holocene Optimum of 6000 years ago.

if not for the homo sapiens starting to clear large tracts of land for farming about 5k years ago yes .