Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

The parameters for ice extent changed from 10% coverage to 15% coverage. Heller has no clue about ice extent parameters.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Explain this from the 1999 ipcc report
And Dr Goddard
And yes it has a red circle on it .
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-40-years-ago/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sooner or later that's where a lot of reasonably minded people wind up, whether they're ordinarily concerned about environmental issues or not. Too much proselytizing and partisanship, too little pragmatism & reality. Sure, they'll respond favorably to pollsters, but I think they've mostly moved on.

I would likely be more receptive if their terms of reference ( the IPCC's) didn't forbid the science from looking at natural forcings.

The funny is when all of the natural forcings are put into the emissions and man causes are removed the models are almost perfectly aligned with what is being actually observed.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is it really a collapse of the species or just a matter of them not being able to smell the bait?

they’re visual predators

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The parameters for ice extent changed from 10% coverage to 15% coverage. Heller has no clue about ice extent parameters.

when was the last time you were in the arctic??

I admit my last time was in the winter of 1989. ( and I'm not wanting to do that again)

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Does that cover it ???

If you’re referring to you’re lack of understanding of sea water chemistry then yes. Thanks.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

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

... And finally, emissions from mid-ocean ridges are estimated to be 97 million tons of CO2 annually...

According to astrophysicist Ethan Siegel, writing for Forbes (per Newhaul’s citation):

“... And finally, emissions from mid-ocean ridges are estimated to be 97 million tons of CO2 annually.
Add all of these up (surface & subsurface volcanoes), and you get an estimate of around 645 million tons of CO2 per year...
... it's overwhelmingly clear what's caused the carbon dioxide increase in Earth's atmosphere since 1750.
In fact, even if we include the rare, very large volcanic eruptions, like 1980's Mount St. Helens or 1991's Mount Pinatubo eruption, they only emitted 10 and 50 million tons of CO2 each, respectively. It would take three Mount St. Helens and one Mount Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount that humanity is presently emitting.
The Earth's mantle is full of trillions of tons of carbon alone, and if even a small percent of it were added to the atmosphere, it has the potential to be absolutely catastrophic for the planet. But given the scales of the eruptions we actually have, less than a billion tons are emitted per year thanks to volcanic activity: a small enough amount that our planet can sequester roughly the same amount on a per-year basis.
If not for the influence of humans, the climate and carbon dioxide concentrations would be stable. Rising CO2 is a problem that we're actively causing, and if we want to fix it, that's up to us, too.

Siegel references:

“Deep Carbon Emissions from Volcanoes” ~ by Michael R. Burton et al. (behind paywall)
➥ https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa...dFrom=fulltext

➥ “Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)” By Robin Wylie
➥ https://www.livescience.com/40451-vo...taggering.html

Wylie says, in part:
“... And we're getting there; the last twenty years have seen huge steps in our understanding of how, and how much CO2 leaves the deep Earth. But at the same time, a disturbing pattern has been emerging.

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along ...”



***


Global volcanic carbon dioxide emission estimates contain uncertainties and are variable, but there is virtually no doubt that volcanism adds far less carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans.
Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons,
These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than (ALL) volcanic emissions.


So, "how about the hundreds of millions (according to Newhaul's source actually 97mt) from submarine volcanic activity", continuous over geologic time scales?
Did they cause our current warming?
Are they unaccounted for (in models)?
Or, were they, perhaps part of the "balance", prior to industrialization?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

a natural event but none the less we are in the second El Nino event since and we are still cooling but I didn't cherry pick anything . I post all the relevant data and charts as warranted.

A "natural event" can be abnormal. The current El Nino is extremely weak. We are in a warming trend with a cooling variation.

Your posts are the epitome of cherry picking.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I would likely be more receptive if their terms of reference ( the IPCC's) didn't forbid the science from looking at natural forcings.

Natural forcings are discussed in Chapter 8 of IPCC AR5.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And Dr Goddard

Tony Heller is an electrical engineer; he has no Doctorate in anything.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

when was the last time you were in the arctic??

I admit my last time was in the winter of 1989. ( and I'm not wanting to do that again)

When was the last time you looked the definitions on the NSIDC web site.

Extent defines a region as “ice-covered” or “not ice-covered.” For each satellite data cell, the cell is said to either have ice or to have no ice, based on a threshold. The most common threshold (and the one NSIDC uses) is 15 percent, meaning that if the data cell has greater than 15 percent ice concentration, the cell is considered ice covered; less than that and it is said to be ice free. Example: Let’s say you have three 25 kilometer (km) x 25 km (16 miles x 16 miles) grid cells covered by 16% ice, 2% ice, and 90% ice. Two of the three cells would be considered “ice covered,” or 100% ice. Multiply the grid cell area by 100% sea ice and you would get a total extent of 1,250 square km (482 square miles).

Frequently Asked Questions on Arctic sea ice | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The funny is when all of the natural forcings are put into the emissions and man causes are removed the models are almost perfectly aligned with what is being actually observed.

Bull do do

The late Holocene stands apart from equivalent intervals in other interglaciations of the last 800,000 years by registering greenhouse gas increases instead of decreases and in showing regional temperature stability in most regions instead of a shift toward glacial conditions (section 2). These anomalous responses implicate anthropogenic interference in the climate system. Independent ground truth estimates of CH4 and CO2 emissions sufficient to account for substantial parts of these inferred anomalies come from syntheses of archaeological and paleoecological data and from land use modeling (section 3). After more than a decade of debate over whether late Holocene climate was natural or anthropogenic, the convergence of evidence from these several branches of scientific inquiry points to a major anthropogenic influence.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2015RG000503

and

Explanations for the industrial epoch warming are polarized around the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming (AW) and giant natural fluctuations (GNFs). While climate sceptics have systematically attacked AW, up until now they have only invoked GNFs. This has now changed with the publication by D. Keenan of a sample of 1000 series from stochastic processes purporting to emulate the global annual temperature since 1880. While Keenan's objective was to criticize the International Panel on Climate Change's trend uncertainty analysis (their assumption that residuals are only weakly correlated), for the first time it is possible to compare a stochastic GNF model with real data. Using Haar fluctuations, probability distributions, and other techniques of time series analysis, we show that his model has unrealistically strong low‐frequency variability so that even mild extrapolations imply ice ages every ≈1000 years. Helped by statistics, the GNF model can easily be scientifically rejected.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.....2016GRLEDHIGH

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Bull do do



https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2015RG000503

and



https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.....2016GRLEDHIGH

all of your sources are pro agw which is a bunch of bs and deep down you know its true its all cyclical.

The funny part is all the grief you give me but I have been correct on what is actually happening . Not to the hundredth of a degree but really close .

If I recall correctly last time we made a bet I said it would cool by a certain point and I was just .015 ℃ off ..

Well we are going to continue to cool for the next 3 years then go basically static for 4 years then cooling rapidly to an out a full degree C below the 1989- 2010 average within the next 11 to 13 years . So lets see what happens . I should be back in Thailand by then .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

all of your sources are pro agw which is a bunch of bs and deep down you know its true its all cyclical.

Science is pro agw because that is what the scientific evidence says.

Your ranting does nothing to show otherwise.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Science is pro agw because that is what the scientific evidence says.

Your ranting does nothing to show otherwise.

not all of it in fact more says natural than man made ..
Pull your head out of the MMGWC sand.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

not all of it in fact more says natural than man made ..

You have shown precisely none.