Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
I'm still waiting for him to reply to the potholer54 climate series that he dismisses simply because it's on youtube.
Or any of the peer reviewed studies showing that there is an upward trend int temps for the last 40 years, despite solar cycles and the el nino/la nina cycles.
Or any of the peer reviewed studies showing that there is an upward trend int temps for the last 40 years, despite solar cycles and the el nino/la nina cycles.
Last edited:
... And the anthro causation component is?......
As I've told you literally dozens of times, no one (in my opinion) has sufficient knowledge of the Earth's climate system(s) that is anywhere close top being able to deliver any kind of substantiated answers.
Time to get over it buddy... Not everything has an answer (at least that is accessible today).
The same oceans that you are identifying as warming?.. Here's the 411 for ya... The capacity for water to carry soluble CO2 in suspension decreases as the water temperature rises... How is it possible for the Earth to be warming due to AGW (anthro CO2), causing the oceans to warm AND acidify?.. It is a physically impossibility based on the scenario you paint in which you ID anthro CO2 as the smoking gun.
Ya see, here's an excellent example of the obvious conflicts in your position... You observe an effect; you arbitrarily assess a cause and consider the entire relationship factual.... In the above case, you are defying the laws of physics, but that somehow doesn't stop you from ignoring reality to support baseless suppositions.
You've been shown junior.
I don't subscribe to youtube science champ... I can appreciate that you consider it very solid and peer-reviewed (as you have viewed and approved it), but that just don't cut it.
You want to be taken seriously in this discussion mentalfloss, refrain from posting youtube videos as proof of anything other than your naivety.
Last edited:
What do you think?
Our activities are taking stored carbon, which has been removed from the carbon cycle for millions of years, and putting it into the system again. For starters.
Yeah, but that's not answering the question, can you answer the question? The question is:
What sort of understanding is needed to say that our burning of fossil fuels is resulting in more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, resulting in an energy imbalance and an acidifying ocean?
You're like a damned zombie, you just don't learn. I've explained this to you multiple times now, and you repeat the same thing, over and over again.
Even parrots at the pet store pick up new phrases now and then.
The capability for water to hold a solute is dependent on more than just temperature. It also depends on partial pressure of the gas above the solution. The change in temperature is two orders of magnitude less than the change in partial pressure.
Do you understand what that means?
Think about it. It is not physically impossible. The forcing from the pressure is greater than the forcing of the temperature, so the solution absorbs more gas. It shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend...
What on Earth makes you believe that the carbon's natural state should be "in storage"... It's just a one-way street with you, ain't it -? Hell a parallel argument to yours is that the organics/carbon was unnaturally trapped millions of years ago and has therefore unnaturally altered the system.
The above emboldened represents the flaw in your view... You say it's an imbalance, but refuse to recognize that very same "imbalance" existed on the other side when the organics were unable to return their carbon content actively into the environment.
The extension of your logic could argue that the removal of that carbon from the system resulted in the oceans not being acidic enough due to the removal of that component. But that's counter to your argument and will never be recognized.
It'd be nice if you worked a little harder to exemplify that premise... But that wouldn't jibe with the contemporary greenie belief that the world should remain in some form of arbitrary stasis where they can set the global thermostat to the most beneficial conditions to humanity.
Guess what, this planet doesn't exist for the comfort of humanity and the ecotards.
.. And you're blaming the changes in atmospheric pressure on anthro CO2?.. Further, you're the one that is pissing and moaning about the oceans heating-up AND acidifying. On top of it all, there are many factors that influence the solubility of anything an water, pressure and temperature are not the only components; but this would complicate the analysis, wouldn't it?.. It's much easier to just ignore those pesky little components, right? Maybe compensate for 'em wilth skewed and/or faulty statistical modeling?
It means that you maintain a one dimensional view of a 3 dimensional world.
Is everything in your little world so cut and dry that you can boil-down the most dynamic system on the planet to a few components and that be suitable to provide a strong cause and effect analysis?
You're hopeless....carbon stored in geologic formations is natural, and removed from the cycle between the biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and atmosphere...an energy imbalance is the difference between the energy entering the Earth system, and the energy leaving the Earth system....more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the partial pressure of the carbon dioxide, and more will dissolve, it's simple physics, as simple as the solubility-temperature relationship, and yes it both heats the globe and acidifies the ocean.
The funny part is that you think dynamic systems can't be understood in terms of cause and effect for few variables. You obviously have no idea. These are simple experiments that students learn in high school and first year university science courses.
The funny part is that you think dynamic systems can't be understood in terms of cause and effect for few variables. You obviously have no idea. These are simple experiments that students learn in high school and first year university science courses.
Maybe you're just a sh*ty communicator.
An imbalance is still an imbalance regardless of natural or unnatural storage/release... You seem hellbent on skewing your logic to custom-suit your argument on a one way basis and hide behind science although the principle you rely upon (balance) is entirely independent of natural/unnatural source.
That said, the earth rebalanced itself when these organics were removed from the system millions of years ago in the same manner that it adjusts today with the injection of those organics.
... Is that the same "imbalance" of energy that resulted in massive climate fluctuations on many occasions over the Earth's history?
Via your logic, more (anthro) CO2 in the atmosphere results in greater opportunity to trap energy and heat the Earth. That heating results in hotter oceans that results in a lower capacity to hold carbon in solution which results in a higher pH of the waters...
It wasn't so long ago that your (almost exclusive) focus was on CO2 acidifying the oceans and there was absolutely no mention of atmospheric pressures... Now that it comes to light that GW and ocean acidification is a conflicting argument, you morph the argument to be all about atm pressure.
Good to know that you haven't lost your touch on moving the goal posts when convenient.
Man, you are one arrogant dude, do you have to grease-up the sides of your head to fit it through door ways?
Like I mentioned dozens of times before, just because you believe that because you understand how a fan belt works doesn't equate with the ability to build an entire engine... But seeing how you are certain about your position, why don't you contact NASA, IPCC, meteorological societies, etc. and set them straight on exactly how the climate system(s) work. They will be forever grateful that the only person on the planet that has that depth of understanding is willing to share this compelling info.
Yawn...
You still here Avro? Hasn't mentalfloss regaled you with those youtube examples of high science?
You still here Avro? Hasn't mentalfloss regaled you with those youtube examples of high science?
ccasion5:It's your claim Captain.....on several threads.
Countless cases of fraud and multiple retractions by the IPCC and climatologists.
Still waiting for you to back it up with something.....anything.
You knock the youtube videos but fail to deconstruct any of them.
Have a good one buddy.:smile:
Funny, I've been trying to get him to tell me what the trend is as well. Despite clear evidence he dosen't know....or denies it.
Also like to know what he means by causation when he talks with Tonn.
Cause of what Captain? Warming of the globe that you deny is happening?
What a tangled web you weave.:lol:
Want to see how the mind of a denier works?
Look at post #512.
Maybe, people at work don't have any issues, my fiance doesn't either. Maybe you're the problem here.
No $hit. Yet I give you satellite measurements, ground measurements, spectroscopic, isotopic evidence that the enhanced greenhouse is very real, and very much a product of man's combustion, and all you can muster is crap about dynamic systems, as if that's a relevant critique of those findings.
It isn't.
You call me arrogant? You seem to think that you know better than people who have built careers out of understanding the context and workings of this system, and you can't even comprehend something as simple as the solubility of gases in water.
Will you answer the question, or keep evading as normal? The question, for a third time is:
What sort of understanding is needed to say that our burning of fossil fuels is resulting in more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, resulting in an energy imbalance and an acidifying ocean?
Gee whiz...I thought maybe someone would post something about evidence of global cooling....huh....guess I was wrong.
People at work?.. This means?..
Kudos on the communication skills.
Oh, but it is entirely relevant Mr. Science.
Your uber-superficial absolutely depends on your dramatic oversimplification of the system that you don't understand... Of course you'll be willfully ignorant of the dynamic nature of the system; you can't explain it in any meaningful form so your only option is to pretend that there are no dynamic interactions.
Add into the mix that you absolutely rely on analyzing the effect and later making the science fit on a highly selective basis, and you see the folly upon which your house of cards is built
Kinda like that rubbish that anthro CO2 causes warming (oceans included) and a lower pH caused by the prevalence of CO2 in the atmosphere... You initial oversimplification was that higher concentrations of anthro CO2 lead to acidification.. When it's brought to light that there is conflict between increased temps and soluability, you move the goal posts and rely on one of the dynamic dynamic systems that you don't believe in.
Nice.
I call you arrogant because you are too proud to understand that not only do you not know what you don't know, you close your mind to anything that is in conflict with your belief system.
If it doesn't agree with Tonnington; it must be wrong... That is the height of arrogance... But then again, why haven't you schooled the world on this buddy... You have all the answers and they are sooo obvious, right?.. Go on, put your money where your mouth is, prove your position, and when you receive the Nobel Prize, you can announce that it will go to the Tonnington Home for Arrogant-Science-Guys-That-Need-to-Butter-Up-Their-Temples-To-Get-Through-Doorways Society.
Do that and I will happily retract me criticisms, but until then, you got nothing.
How many times do I have to tell you that no one has the answer.. I am not as arrogant as you, I am included in that group.
You really are daft.
Proof for starters, especially in the face of everything that has been said about higher temps decrease the soluability in water.
That will be a good start for you.
Co-workers. If you can't figure that out, then you have bigger problems than you remedial science comprehension.
Are you trying to be ironic on purpose?
I'm not the one who thought it was impossible that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will warm the planet, and can increase ocean acidification.
That is, you can't grasp the dynamics of gas solubility.
Fail, and spectacularly.
The solubility of a gas in a solution is directly proportional to it's partial pressure, and inversely to the temperature.
So, the magnitude is obviously what you seem to be having difficulty with. Let me help.
Temperature change to date, is what, 0.8°K? The change in atmospheric carbon dioxide has been, what, 100 ppm? So do the math. What is the percent change in going from 287.15 °K to 287.95°K? What is the percent change in going from 280 ppm to 380 ppm?
What should happen to the dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean? Increase, or decrease?
The difference is glaringly obvious, it's two orders of magnitude.
A good start for you would be to calculate these things for yourself.
Really? I never got that from you original statement:
"Maybe, people at work don't have any issues, my fiance doesn't either. Maybe you're the problem here."
Here's a little communication tip for ya: maybe it would have been easier to use the word co-workers.
... And according to you, atmospheric CO2 is the only possible component in the overall equation that can have that affect. Right?
Thanks teach, but that means very little considering you lean on highly flawed logic.
See below
Great.. So you're saying that the waters of all oceans on the entire globe (or bodies of water) are the exact same temps and subject to the exact same atmospheric pressures at the exact same time(s)?
That's quite an assumption.. Does that seem reasonable to you?
So, there are only 2 components that will have an effect on the pH of the globe's waters and they are universal and identical at any given time.
I never realized that it was sooo simple.
Fool Me Once
I wonder if Monckton knowingly misrepresents the data?
Wouldn't that be fraud?
Hmmm, no government investigations on him? No hacked emails?
I knew what he meant, it was quite obvious actually.
Clearly, it's the simple things that confuse you.
Which is why you ignore simple questions over and over again.
The Earth is Cooling
Our brothers of the FoS sister group show us satellite temperature trends of the lower troposphere since 1979, the start of the satellite record.
The curve is a combination of two satellite global temperature sets, one by the University of Alabama and the other by Remote Sensing Systems. So far, so good!
The best fit line between January 2002 and February 2010 yields a decline of 0.12 C according to FoS. Proponents of conventional regression analysis have argued that the trend since 2002 is actually a positive one, because the starting point of the trend is highly cherry picked in a local temperature maximum but not in an inflexion point, and because the final peak is not considered. The proponents think the yellow line has a better fit. The positive trend becomes clearer, when only considering the temperatures since early 2008. This shows that any short-term trend is possible depending on the starting point selected. What it tells us is that microtrends within a larger trend are not congruent and are not representative of the larger trend.
Apart from that, March 2010 is the warmest March in the satellite record. But…details! The problem of apparent positive trends is solved by tilting the diagram clockwise by about 16 degrees. This removes all doubts!
Now, even the longer-term trend since 1979 (red line) is negative. Nobody claims that a time axis must be strictly horizontal. The earth itself is also tilted. Think big!
Let us now have a look how our cooling trend since 2002 (or 1979) fits into the large scale, i.e. the start of the instrumental temperature record, which approximately coincided with the start of increased CO2 output. The image below shows the instrumental record of global land/surface temperature anomalies as compiled by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
If we consider the graph a set of stairs (see stairs drawing by Kurt Tucholsky to the right below), we are now standing at the top (while new stairs are will be added on in the future). Our reference point is the ground floor, i.e. 1880, which broadly concides with the start of the dramatic increase in CO2 emissions. Although we feel safer downstairs, we go steadily up over time, sometimes two stairs forth and one step back. These are the many micro trends on our journey. The overall trend is up in the long term. In fact, any trend larger than a decade and a half since 1880 has been a positive one. So, what are considered meaningful reference points that characterize the staircase as a whole? Clearly the ground level at the start and the top level at the end. The characterization of any temperature trend, long or short term, relies on its starting and end points, and on the resulting slope. Different trends obviously have different starting and end points. So, even if they coincidentally have the same slopes, they are at different elevation levels, i.e. temperature intervals, and hence they are not equal.
Using Tucholsky’s simple sketch as illustration: standing on the middle stair half way up, we deniers conclude that the staircase is flat, because the stair is flat. We do not consider the stair’s elevation with respect to the starting point, i.e 1880. Well, you got the message: any microtrend within a larger trend is not representative of the large trend– only by coincidence. While this complex explanation is needed to convey something every 9th grader understands, it is required to nail it into the stubborn denier brains. Denial is a defense mechanism that does not follow logic! It is classified as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality (source: Wikipedia).
Let’s now look at absolute temperatures all of which are viewed relative to the same reference point of 1880. The NASA hit list of the hottest years is (1) 2005; (2) a cluster of 2009, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007. The current El Niño (added to the other warming mechanisms) lets predict higher temperatures for 2010. The denialists’ inadmissible equation of short term trend (since 2002) and long term trend (since 1880) explains the apparent contradiction of a flat temperature trend in the hottest decade on record. Last but not least the University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite temperatures on their own for the same time interval as the FoS plot above. Spot the global cooling since 2002.
Last but not least the University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite temperature anomalies on their own for the same time interval as the FoS plot above. Spot the global cooling since 2002 (or whenever)?
But we can easily produce an intermediate downwards trend (since 1979, the start of satellite data) by mirror imaging the diagram about a horizontal axis and reversing the time scale. Now we have global cooling on this scale, as indicated by the falling regression line.
The climate trend and best-fit questions are very well discussed in the video by John Sinclair underneath.
YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Party like it's 1998
I wonder if Monckton knowingly misrepresents the data?
Wouldn't that be fraud?
Hmmm, no government investigations on him? No hacked emails?
I knew what he meant, it was quite obvious actually.
Clearly, it's the simple things that confuse you.
Which is why you ignore simple questions over and over again.
The Earth is Cooling
Our brothers of the FoS sister group show us satellite temperature trends of the lower troposphere since 1979, the start of the satellite record.
The curve is a combination of two satellite global temperature sets, one by the University of Alabama and the other by Remote Sensing Systems. So far, so good!
The best fit line between January 2002 and February 2010 yields a decline of 0.12 C according to FoS. Proponents of conventional regression analysis have argued that the trend since 2002 is actually a positive one, because the starting point of the trend is highly cherry picked in a local temperature maximum but not in an inflexion point, and because the final peak is not considered. The proponents think the yellow line has a better fit. The positive trend becomes clearer, when only considering the temperatures since early 2008. This shows that any short-term trend is possible depending on the starting point selected. What it tells us is that microtrends within a larger trend are not congruent and are not representative of the larger trend.
Apart from that, March 2010 is the warmest March in the satellite record. But…details! The problem of apparent positive trends is solved by tilting the diagram clockwise by about 16 degrees. This removes all doubts!
Let us now have a look how our cooling trend since 2002 (or 1979) fits into the large scale, i.e. the start of the instrumental temperature record, which approximately coincided with the start of increased CO2 output. The image below shows the instrumental record of global land/surface temperature anomalies as compiled by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
If we consider the graph a set of stairs (see stairs drawing by Kurt Tucholsky to the right below), we are now standing at the top (while new stairs are will be added on in the future). Our reference point is the ground floor, i.e. 1880, which broadly concides with the start of the dramatic increase in CO2 emissions. Although we feel safer downstairs, we go steadily up over time, sometimes two stairs forth and one step back. These are the many micro trends on our journey. The overall trend is up in the long term. In fact, any trend larger than a decade and a half since 1880 has been a positive one. So, what are considered meaningful reference points that characterize the staircase as a whole? Clearly the ground level at the start and the top level at the end. The characterization of any temperature trend, long or short term, relies on its starting and end points, and on the resulting slope. Different trends obviously have different starting and end points. So, even if they coincidentally have the same slopes, they are at different elevation levels, i.e. temperature intervals, and hence they are not equal.
Using Tucholsky’s simple sketch as illustration: standing on the middle stair half way up, we deniers conclude that the staircase is flat, because the stair is flat. We do not consider the stair’s elevation with respect to the starting point, i.e 1880. Well, you got the message: any microtrend within a larger trend is not representative of the large trend– only by coincidence. While this complex explanation is needed to convey something every 9th grader understands, it is required to nail it into the stubborn denier brains. Denial is a defense mechanism that does not follow logic! It is classified as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality (source: Wikipedia).
Let’s now look at absolute temperatures all of which are viewed relative to the same reference point of 1880. The NASA hit list of the hottest years is (1) 2005; (2) a cluster of 2009, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007. The current El Niño (added to the other warming mechanisms) lets predict higher temperatures for 2010. The denialists’ inadmissible equation of short term trend (since 2002) and long term trend (since 1880) explains the apparent contradiction of a flat temperature trend in the hottest decade on record. Last but not least the University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite temperatures on their own for the same time interval as the FoS plot above. Spot the global cooling since 2002.
Last but not least the University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite temperature anomalies on their own for the same time interval as the FoS plot above. Spot the global cooling since 2002 (or whenever)?
But we can easily produce an intermediate downwards trend (since 1979, the start of satellite data) by mirror imaging the diagram about a horizontal axis and reversing the time scale. Now we have global cooling on this scale, as indicated by the falling regression line.
The climate trend and best-fit questions are very well discussed in the video by John Sinclair underneath.
YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Party like it's 1998
No. All I'm saying is that adding carbon dioxide in the amounts we are to the atmosphere will have that effect. That's from established science.
No, I'm not saying that at all... all the oceans of the world are exposed to increased partial pressure of carbon dioxide. The oceans are holding more heat. Do you know what an average is, and why it's useful?
I'm not assuming that at all.
See, when you infer things like this from what I said, it's clear that the communication problem is your inability to take these discussions seriously. I suppose there is another option...you just don't have a very solid grasp of scientific principles.
Plain english rebuttal to 'Global warming isn't happening' argument
The 2009 State of the Climate report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released in mid-2010, brings together many different series of data “from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean”. The conclusion? All of these independent lines of evidence tell us unequivocally that the Earth is warming.
The very accessible 10-page summary examines the trends for 10 key climate indicators using a total of 47 different sets of data. All of the indicators expected to increase in a warming world, are in fact increasing, and all that are expected to decrease, are decreasing:
The 10 indicators are:
The 2009 State of the Climate report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released in mid-2010, brings together many different series of data “from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean”. The conclusion? All of these independent lines of evidence tell us unequivocally that the Earth is warming.
The very accessible 10-page summary examines the trends for 10 key climate indicators using a total of 47 different sets of data. All of the indicators expected to increase in a warming world, are in fact increasing, and all that are expected to decrease, are decreasing:
The 10 indicators are:
- Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
- Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
- Air temperature over the oceans.
- Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one. (Although not included in the top 10 list, there is one major exception: models predicted that the stratosphere would cool and accordingly it is cooling.)
- Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
- Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
- Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
- Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
- Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
- Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.