Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Given that you studied climate science at a university, I assume you also took physics and chemistry. Below is a link to an article which is well written and short, nothing more complicated than what is covered in one year intro to physics and chemistry. Please read it and explain where the author has the science wrong, please be specific.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

first off the error . The earth is a sphere and his calculations are not based on that fact .
Recalculate factoring in for the curvature by reducing the energy absorption numbers by just over 1/2 .

[SV THIRD DAY]

Banana is an Apple.
If you don't get it... You will soon.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Nonsense you carbon based biped.

If it was not for CO2 you would not be around. By burning coal and hydrocarbons we are just doing a bit of recycling and since nature, in reducing atmospheric CO2 from about 7,000 ppm to the 300 or so ppm it is today created an incredible biosphere I think we are only being a bit responsible to give it an second chance at it.

Pollutant my but, if anything it's natures enhancer.

Given the facts, if what we want (who's we?), is to melt ice caps and get rised sea level, a climate we don't know much about, relocate most of coastal inhabitants and infrastructure including masses of refugees (we've seen nothing yet), have a mass instinction of species and relocation of much of the surviving ones so go for it, burn burn burn...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Given the facts, if what we want (who's we?), is to melt ice caps and get rised sea level, a climate we don't know much about, relocate most of coastal inhabitants and infrastructure including masses of refugees (we've seen nothing yet), have a mass instinction of species and relocation of much of the surviving ones so go for it, burn burn burn...

lets see you actually said the real truth here

" a climate we don't know much about. "

Where is this sea level rise that they keep alarming us about? ( and natural or not)
when do we need to relocate coastal residents ( what timeframe )
what is a mass instinction of species? Btw we have a mass explosion of diversification of species. Relocate them why ? ( we are talking about approximately 2mm per year rise of sea level due to natural causes. )
you really need to do your homework .

[stevensuf]

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ue-to-dry-air/


So if the world is hotter, why is wind declining? more heat is more wind, more heat is more rain, yet this study shows plant growth declining since 98 due to less water. It argues warmer air holds more water, true, but if the world is warming the seas should be evaporating more water and we should have more wind. Removing the external assumption that the world is heating up and we have less rain and less wind.
which means less heat, hence the decrease in plant growth.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ue-to-dry-air/


So if the world is hotter, why is wind declining? more heat is more wind, more heat is more rain, yet this study shows plant growth declining since 98 due to less water. It argues warmer air holds more water, true, but if the world is warming the seas should be evaporating more water and we should have more wind. Removing the external assumption that the world is heating up and we have less rain and less wind.
which means less heat, hence the decrease in plant growth.

well we are actually starting into a multi decadal cooling phase .

Now to call bs on the article you linked to

This study says differently

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ay-in-greening

As does this

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...h-study-finds/

Which do we believe?

I go with the ones backed with satellite pictures showing the greening.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ue-to-dry-air/
So if the world is hotter, why is wind declining? ...

Good question.

According to a recent study led by Chinese researchers. Results showed that approximately 30 percent, 50 percent and 80 percent of the stations in North America, Europe, and Asia respectively have lost over 30 percent of wind energy resources since 1979.
The study also reveals that global climate models can not simulate long-term trends in wind energy resources, indicating that the estimation of wind energy resources based on global climate models should be used with careful consideration.
“Observed and global climate model based changes in wind power potential over the Northern Hemisphere during 1979–2016" ~ by QunTian et al.
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31X?via%3Dihub

“Global review and synthesis of trends in observed terrestrial near-surface wind speeds: Implications for evaporation” ~ Tim R.McVicar
“... We analysed 148 studies reporting terrestrial u trends from across the globe (with uneven and incomplete spatial distribution and differing periods of measurement) and found that the average trend was −0.014 m s−1 a−1 for studies with more than 30 sites observing data for more than 30 years, which confirmed that stilling was widespread. Assuming a linear trend this constitutes a −0.7 m s−1 change in u over 50 years ...”
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22169411007487

“Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness” ~ by Robert Vautard et al.
“Surface winds have declined in China, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the United States and Australia over the past few decades1,2,3,4. The precise cause of the stilling is uncertain ...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo979

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Good question.

According to a recent study led by Chinese researchers. Results showed that approximately 30 percent, 50 percent and 80 percent of the stations in North America, Europe, and Asia respectively have lost over 30 percent of wind energy resources since 1979.
The study also reveals that global climate models can not simulate long-term trends in wind energy resources, indicating that the estimation of wind energy resources based on global climate models should be used with careful consideration.
“Observed and global climate model based changes in wind power potential over the Northern Hemisphere during 1979–2016" ~ by QunTian et al.
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31X?via%3Dihub

“Global review and synthesis of trends in observed terrestrial near-surface wind speeds: Implications for evaporation” ~ Tim R.McVicar
“... We analysed 148 studies reporting terrestrial u trends from across the globe (with uneven and incomplete spatial distribution and differing periods of measurement) and found that the average trend was −0.014 m s−1 a−1 for studies with more than 30 sites observing data for more than 30 years, which confirmed that stilling was widespread. Assuming a linear trend this constitutes a −0.7 m s−1 change in u over 50 years ...”
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...22169411007487

“Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness” ~ by Robert Vautard et al.
“Surface winds have declined in China, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the United States and Australia over the past few decades1,2,3,4. The precise cause of the stilling is uncertain ...”
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo979

lower wind speeds overall well look at overall solar output and you will see a correlation .

Here is the sunspot smoothed numbers .
See anything ??

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Given that you studied climate science at a university, I assume you also took physics and chemistry. Below is a link to an article which is well written and short, nothing more complicated than what is covered in one year intro to physics and chemistry. Please read it and explain where the author has the science wrong, please be specific.

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

Allen, I understand your fervor, and i can guess your motivations after 30 years of debating this subject.
I have absolutely no interest in reading your link much less in analysing it's flaws, just like I refuse to listen to the "news" screaming the sky si falling the sky if falling in order to sell advertising space on radio or TV.

There are thousands of false and flawed and skewed and prejudiced "articles" that promote the fallacy that humans with their 0.0012% contribution to the atmosphere are causing catastrophic and precipitous climate melt down, and that such minuscule contribution is "pollution".

i simply volunteer my point of view at this stage. Take it or leave it since your mind and all the other warmist minds are set in the concrete of your values acquired at age 10 or earlier and that happen to correspond with the general philosophy of global warming. The bad rich pollute, the good guys protest.

Having experienced the devastation that different people in authority play on young defenseless minds (all in good faith mind you) with fabrications of boogeyman and scarecrows and end of the world fallacies, I can only hope that one day, in the not too distant future, people will be dragged in front of courts for promoting falsehood for personal gain.

I wait with baited breath.

Meantime I still wait for an answer from anyone telling me how much we must reduce our CO2 production to reduce the temperature by one degree.

And whilst you are at it, tell me how much will the temperature reduce if humankind goes to live on the moon permanently.

My educated guess to the latter is ZERO.

[stevensuf]

Originally Posted by newhaul

well we are actually starting into a multi decadal cooling phase .

Now to call bs on the article you linked to

This study says differently

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/im...ay-in-greening

As does this

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...h-study-finds/

Which do we believe?

I go with the ones backed with satellite pictures showing the greening.

I am trying to point out the contradiction, If the world is getting hotter , then surely trees should be growing faster and there should be more plant growth, so something is wrong.


You cant have less rain and wind in a warming world, simply not possible.


Now in a cooling world we would expect less rain, less wind and slower plant growth.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by newhaul

lower wind speeds overall well look at overall solar output and you will see a correlation .

Here is the sunspot smoothed numbers .
See anything ??

We show that surface wind speeds have declined by 5–15% over almost all continental areas in the northern mid-latitudes, and that strong winds have slowed faster than weak winds. In contrast, upper-air winds calculated from sea-level pressure gradients, and winds from weather reanalyses, exhibited no such trend. Changes in atmospheric circulation that are captured by reanalysis data explain 10–50% of the surface wind slowdown. In addition, mesoscale model simulations suggest that an increase in surface roughness—the magnitude of which is estimated from increases in biomass and land-use change in Eurasia—could explain between 25 and 60% of the stilling. Moreover, regions of pronounced stilling generally coincided with regions where biomass has increased over the past 30 years, supporting the role of vegetation increases in wind slowdown.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo979

[ImaginaryNumber]

Ocean acidification may reduce sea scallop fisheries

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0921151435.htm

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Ocean acidification may reduce sea scallop fisheries

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0921151435.htm

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

We show that surface wind speeds have declined by 5–15% over almost all continental areas in the northern mid-latitudes, and that strong winds have slowed faster than weak winds. In contrast, upper-air winds calculated from sea-level pressure gradients, and winds from weather reanalyses, exhibited no such trend. Changes in atmospheric circulation that are captured by reanalysis data explain 10–50% of the surface wind slowdown. In addition, mesoscale model simulations suggest that an increase in surface roughness—the magnitude of which is estimated from increases in biomass and land-use change in Eurasia—could explain between 25 and 60% of the stilling. Moreover, regions of pronounced stilling generally coincided with regions where biomass has increased over the past 30 years, supporting the role of vegetation increases in wind slowdown.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo979

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Earth Is Getting Greener
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12226

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Climate change and agriculture
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clim...nd_agriculture