Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[frigidweirdo]

OKay, you've just made more claims rather than backing up the previous ones.

Yeah...what's a natural law to a believer...I see you didn't look up Henry's law and remain blissfully ignorant....the fact that you didn't doesn't alter the fact that colder water holds more CO2...

Here, try an experiment for yourself...careful though, this is actual science...science where you do something and then observed the results and apply those results to the real world...think you can handle a bit of truth?

Get yourself a couple of bottles of club soda...or coke, it really doesn't matter...put one in the refrigerator overnight and leave the other out on the counter...next morning, open them both....put the cold one back in the refrigerator and leave the warm one out on the counter...go to work...or the welfare line, or your purveyor of porn...whatever you do with your days....when you come home in the evening, pour yourself a glass of the club soda on the counter...note the lack of bubbles and the flat taste....now do the same with the bottle you left in the refrigerator....while it won't be as bubbly as a freshly opened bottle because of the pressure in the bottle, you will find that it is quite a bit more bubbly than the bottle left on the counter...take a taste and you will see that it is not nearly as flat as the bottle left on the counter....

If you have access to a Ph testing kit.. you might test the Ph of the freshly opened bottles and note them down...you will note that the Ph of the colder bottle is lower than the warmer bottle...this is because the cold liquid holds more CO2 than the warm liquid...now you could play with the air pressure above the liquid and get different results but this experiment should show you that cold water holds more CO2 than warm water...now apply what you have observed with your own eyes to the world's oceans...they behave just like the water in that bottle of club soda.....when they warm, they outgas CO2...when they are cold, they retain CO2....

If you have any brain at all, and even the smallest bit of critical thinking skills, you should be able to draw a reasonably accurate conclusion from your little experiment....do you believe the oceans are more acidic during cold periods when they are up taking CO2 and outgassing very little or do you believe they are more acidic during warm periods when they are outgassing at a far more rapid rate than they are up taking CO2?

The point was, I asked you to back something up, and then you went off on one without backing up what I asked you to back up.

I am supposed to just accept it when you go off on a 90 degree tangent?

I did...in fact, what I gave you was better than any amount of data...I gave you a simple experiment that would allow you to see the truth for yourself of what I am saying...what's the matter, afraid of a couple of bottles of club soda and what cooling one and leaving the other out on the counter will do to your faith....go ahead and do it...actual observation...seeing for yourself that the oceans were more acidic during colder times....seeing for your self that the claims of a warming planet will acidify the oceans is simply alarmist bullshit that even the most simple observation based experiment can debunk...what's the matter guy......afraid?

Your belief is that more CO2 will result in a warming world...well the fact is that a warmer world would result in warmer oceans and warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans....the more the water warms, the less CO2 it can hold.

No, what you did is go off on a tangent. You think it's better than what I asked for, I think you went off on a tangent.

But I've given you the chance to show me that I'm wrong thinking you're going off on a tangent, from the post after the one you replied to. We'll see.

Giving you a means to see the truth regarding the ability of a warm liquid to hold CO2 vs a cold liquid is a tangent? You wanted evidence and I am delivering it to you on a silver platter...well actually on your kitchen counter and you call that a tangent? It says a great deal about your critical thinking skills....doesn't it.

Yeah, because it isn't what I asked for. It's something different.

I didn't ask you about the ability of liquid to hold CO2 and the differences in temperature.

Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.

You said that there aren't enough fossil fuels on earth to raise the PH levels of oceans to dangerous levels.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with A) the amount of fossil fuels or B) what levels are dangerous or c) how much fossil fuels are required to reach that level.

You're talking about how CO2 functions within water. All very well and good if that were what we were discussing...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fine you want to talk about Henry's law.

Okay, back to your previous post.

You say the warmer oceans get the more CO2 they'll give off. So am I taking it what you've said is the warmer the oceans the less ability the oceans have of holding CO2?

Therefore the warmer the planet, the less effective the oceans are at dealing with man made CO2, which means that there'll be more CO2 in the atmosphere, increasing the warming, decreasing again the ability of the seas to take in CO2?

So you admit that the ocean acidification claim is nonsense? I ask because these false beliefs you have must be taken on one at a time... You accept that the observable facts show that the oceans were more acidic when the earth was colder and that warming does not put the life in the oceans in danger of dying in an acid bath. You accept that fact and renounce your belief in ocean acidification due to global warming?

No.

I'm talking to you about this aspect.

I asked you a question. I didn't expect arrogant bullshit in return, I kind of expected you to answer the question.

Here's CO2 levels in one place in Australia. Gone from 330 to 380 in the space of 40 years.

What about it...No one is arguing that CO2 levels are rising and have seen a significant rise since even 1998...but there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998 even though the hypothesis predicts that as CO2 climbs, the warming will become even greater due to all the claimed forcings...none of the claims has happened.

Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.

So, back to my point.

The oceans are taking up a lot of the CO2, which means we pump in say X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we're only seeing (X/2) turning into global warming.

Secondly, and probably quite important is what the Earth would be doing naturally. In theory we should be going through a period of global cooling. Now, if you take natural global cooling and you add this to man made global warming, you might not see the increases you'd expect if the Earth's temperature were stable.

Prediction models could, in theory, make their predictions based on natural global cooling, and different extents of this, but they're always going to be wrong (or most will be wrong) simply because we don't know what natural global cooling should be taking place.

Now, we get to the important part.

If A) we should be seeing natural cooling but we're seeing slight global warming and B) if we're clogging the oceans up with CO2 and at some point they're going to get annoyed and stop taking in this CO2, what do you think the outcome for the planet would be, based on these two assessments?

 

[SSDD]

Yeah...what's a natural law to a believer...I see you didn't look up Henry's law and remain blissfully ignorant....the fact that you didn't doesn't alter the fact that colder water holds more CO2...

Here, try an experiment for yourself...careful though, this is actual science...science where you do something and then observed the results and apply those results to the real world...think you can handle a bit of truth?

Get yourself a couple of bottles of club soda...or coke, it really doesn't matter...put one in the refrigerator overnight and leave the other out on the counter...next morning, open them both....put the cold one back in the refrigerator and leave the warm one out on the counter...go to work...or the welfare line, or your purveyor of porn...whatever you do with your days....when you come home in the evening, pour yourself a glass of the club soda on the counter...note the lack of bubbles and the flat taste....now do the same with the bottle you left in the refrigerator....while it won't be as bubbly as a freshly opened bottle because of the pressure in the bottle, you will find that it is quite a bit more bubbly than the bottle left on the counter...take a taste and you will see that it is not nearly as flat as the bottle left on the counter....

If you have access to a Ph testing kit.. you might test the Ph of the freshly opened bottles and note them down...you will note that the Ph of the colder bottle is lower than the warmer bottle...this is because the cold liquid holds more CO2 than the warm liquid...now you could play with the air pressure above the liquid and get different results but this experiment should show you that cold water holds more CO2 than warm water...now apply what you have observed with your own eyes to the world's oceans...they behave just like the water in that bottle of club soda.....when they warm, they outgas CO2...when they are cold, they retain CO2....

If you have any brain at all, and even the smallest bit of critical thinking skills, you should be able to draw a reasonably accurate conclusion from your little experiment....do you believe the oceans are more acidic during cold periods when they are up taking CO2 and outgassing very little or do you believe they are more acidic during warm periods when they are outgassing at a far more rapid rate than they are up taking CO2?

The point was, I asked you to back something up, and then you went off on one without backing up what I asked you to back up.

I am supposed to just accept it when you go off on a 90 degree tangent?

I did...in fact, what I gave you was better than any amount of data...I gave you a simple experiment that would allow you to see the truth for yourself of what I am saying...what's the matter, afraid of a couple of bottles of club soda and what cooling one and leaving the other out on the counter will do to your faith....go ahead and do it...actual observation...seeing for yourself that the oceans were more acidic during colder times....seeing for your self that the claims of a warming planet will acidify the oceans is simply alarmist bullshit that even the most simple observation based experiment can debunk...what's the matter guy......afraid?

Your belief is that more CO2 will result in a warming world...well the fact is that a warmer world would result in warmer oceans and warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans....the more the water warms, the less CO2 it can hold.

No, what you did is go off on a tangent. You think it's better than what I asked for, I think you went off on a tangent.

But I've given you the chance to show me that I'm wrong thinking you're going off on a tangent, from the post after the one you replied to. We'll see.

Giving you a means to see the truth regarding the ability of a warm liquid to hold CO2 vs a cold liquid is a tangent? You wanted evidence and I am delivering it to you on a silver platter...well actually on your kitchen counter and you call that a tangent? It says a great deal about your critical thinking skills....doesn't it.

Yeah, because it isn't what I asked for. It's something different.

I didn't ask you about the ability of liquid to hold CO2 and the differences in temperature.

Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.

You said that there aren't enough fossil fuels on earth to raise the PH levels of oceans to dangerous levels.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with A) the amount of fossil fuels or B) what levels are dangerous or c) how much fossil fuels are required to reach that level.

You're talking about how CO2 functions within water. All very well and good if that were what we were discussing...

It isn't surprising that you fall victim to practically every scam that comes along...you apparently lack the ability to look up even the most basic information.

Here, from a paper titled "Technological and Economic Potential of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction "Published in "Climate Change 2001"...you will find it referenced in IPCC AR4 I think...

"Current estimates have that there is not enough fossil fuel to drive the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide much above 2200 ppm"

Best estimates say that in order to actually turn the oceans acidic, the atmospheric CO2 would need to be in the 55,000ppm range in order to over come the ocean's buffering action as well as all the natural sinks...The fact is frigid, that you have fallen victim to alarmism that is not based on fact.

 

[SSDD]

The point I am making is that the predictions of the models don't reflect what we see in the real world...within a mere few weeks, every climate model has failed and can't even reflect what we observe in the real world with constant adjustments...why do you suppose that is? Well, let me tell you....the climate models are based on the "science" behind the greenhouse hypothesis and in turn the AGW hypothesis....if the "science" were correct, the models would have a damned good track record in so far as their predictive ability goes rather than a string of failure going back decades...

The hypothesis upon which the models are based is wrong therefore they are never going to be able to produce output that matches what happens out here in the real world.

You say the models have "failed". I'm wondering what you mean by "failed". Can you give me some examples of models that have failed and why you think they've failed?

Here just for starters: See the blue squares, they represent actual measurements made by balloons sent up into the atmosphere with thermometers among other instrumentation...note how closely the balloon (actual observed measurements) coincide with the two satellite data sets....see all the lines above those sets...they are the output of the models that are being used to predict all the gloom and doom that you have bought hook line and sinker...and that is just for starters...the list of failures the models have produced is to huge to even begin to post here...it stretches back for decades...

 

[SSDD]

Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.

So, back to my point.

The oceans are taking up a lot of the CO2, which means we pump in say X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we're only seeing (X/2) turning into global warming.

Simply not true...Again, refer to Henry's law...if the oceans are warming, then they are not absorbing CO2 as quickly as they did when they were cold....if the oceans are not warming, then the claimed global warming is not happening...you can't have it both ways....

And if you have measurements showing that ocean Ph is increasing while the atmosphere is growing warmer, then you are seeing misinformation....either the atmosphere is not warming and the oceans are in fact cooling,, or you are seeing data gathered at particular times to show a lower Ph...you are aware, aren't you that at different times of the day Ph levels for sea water vary wildly?...or maybe you aren't.

Secondly, and probably quite important is what the Earth would be doing naturally. In theory we should be going through a period of global cooling. Now, if you take natural global cooling and you add this to man made global warming, you might not see the increases you'd expect if the Earth's temperature were stable.

And what do you base that claim on?...model output? There certainly are no proxy data sets that can show resolution fine enough for you to make such a claim.

If A) we should be seeing natural cooling but we're seeing slight global warming and B) if we're clogging the oceans up with CO2 and at some point they're going to get annoyed and stop taking in this CO2, what do you think the outcome for the planet would be, based on these two assessments?

What actual observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence do you base the claim that we should be seeing cooling on?

And by the way, are you aware that the CRN...a triple redundant, state of the art temperature collection network that is so pristinely placed shows that the US is cooling while the major data sets with all their adjustments show the same warming trend in the US as for the rest of the world? Is there any reason to believe that if the CRN were extended to cover the face of the entire earth that it would not show the cooling trend that it shows in the US?

And while the US is showing a cooling trend...there is no data in support of the claim that we "should" be seeing a cooling trend...

 

[Crick]

Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.

So, back to my point.

The oceans are taking up a lot of the CO2, which means we pump in say X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we're only seeing (X/2) turning into global warming.

Simply not true...Again, refer to Henry's law...if the oceans are warming, then they are not absorbing CO2 as quickly as they did when they were cold....if the oceans are not warming, then the claimed global warming is not happening...you can't have it both ways....

You never fail to demonstrate your ignorance and your inability to hang on to unwanted facts. This has been explained to you multiple times before. The partial pressure of CO2 has increased 42%. Thus the rate of uptake from that has increased 42%. The oceans temperature has increased about 0.07%. CO2 wins.

As we have seen on a dozen subjects, your conceptualization of natural processes has the gross simplicity of a small child's.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.

So, back to my point.

The oceans are taking up a lot of the CO2, which means we pump in say X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we're only seeing (X/2) turning into global warming.

Simply not true...Again, refer to Henry's law...if the oceans are warming, then they are not absorbing CO2 as quickly as they did when they were cold....if the oceans are not warming, then the claimed global warming is not happening...you can't have it both ways....

You never fail to demonstrate your ignorance and your inability to hang on to unwanted facts. This has been explained to you multiple times before. The partial pressure of CO2 has increased 42%. Thus the rate of uptake from that has increased 42%. The oceans temperature has increased about 0.07%. CO2 wins.

As we have seen on a dozen subjects, your conceptualization of natural processes has the gross simplicity of a small child's.

You quote two people, and then reply. Who are you replying to?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point was, I asked you to back something up, and then you went off on one without backing up what I asked you to back up.

I am supposed to just accept it when you go off on a 90 degree tangent?

I did...in fact, what I gave you was better than any amount of data...I gave you a simple experiment that would allow you to see the truth for yourself of what I am saying...what's the matter, afraid of a couple of bottles of club soda and what cooling one and leaving the other out on the counter will do to your faith....go ahead and do it...actual observation...seeing for yourself that the oceans were more acidic during colder times....seeing for your self that the claims of a warming planet will acidify the oceans is simply alarmist bullshit that even the most simple observation based experiment can debunk...what's the matter guy......afraid?

Your belief is that more CO2 will result in a warming world...well the fact is that a warmer world would result in warmer oceans and warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans....the more the water warms, the less CO2 it can hold.

No, what you did is go off on a tangent. You think it's better than what I asked for, I think you went off on a tangent.

But I've given you the chance to show me that I'm wrong thinking you're going off on a tangent, from the post after the one you replied to. We'll see.

Giving you a means to see the truth regarding the ability of a warm liquid to hold CO2 vs a cold liquid is a tangent? You wanted evidence and I am delivering it to you on a silver platter...well actually on your kitchen counter and you call that a tangent? It says a great deal about your critical thinking skills....doesn't it.

Yeah, because it isn't what I asked for. It's something different.

I didn't ask you about the ability of liquid to hold CO2 and the differences in temperature.

Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.

You said that there aren't enough fossil fuels on earth to raise the PH levels of oceans to dangerous levels.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with A) the amount of fossil fuels or B) what levels are dangerous or c) how much fossil fuels are required to reach that level.

You're talking about how CO2 functions within water. All very well and good if that were what we were discussing...

It isn't surprising that you fall victim to practically every scam that comes along...you apparently lack the ability to look up even the most basic information.

Here, from a paper titled "Technological and Economic Potential of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction "Published in "Climate Change 2001"...you will find it referenced in IPCC AR4 I think...

"Current estimates have that there is not enough fossil fuel to drive the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide much above 2200 ppm"

Best estimates say that in order to actually turn the oceans acidic, the atmospheric CO2 would need to be in the 55,000ppm range in order to over come the ocean's buffering action as well as all the natural sinks...The fact is frigid, that you have fallen victim to alarmism that is not based on fact.

Scam, what scam? Please, cut out the petty nonsense. I'm not here to be treated like you're a science teacher.
Basically, if you carry on doing this, I'm not going to debate with you.

The funny thing is, I ask you to prove something, you then post something else, then you criticize me for not being able to look stuff up. What the fuck? It's YOUR JOB TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.

Would it be hard to post a link?

http://unfccc.int/resource/cd_roms/...ls/IPCC_WG3_TAR_Mitigation_2001/Chapter_3.pdf

I have this, however I don't see IPCC AR4 there or any other reference to this.

Now, would this be the same year 2001 before we discovered loads more fossil fuels.

From 2010

How Much Fossil Fuel is in the Earth? : DNews

"Earth contains a finite supply of fossil fuels –- the big three being oil, coal and natural gas. And although we know it's finite, we don't really know how long they will last."

So why you're quoting something from 2001 I don't know.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The point I am making is that the predictions of the models don't reflect what we see in the real world...within a mere few weeks, every climate model has failed and can't even reflect what we observe in the real world with constant adjustments...why do you suppose that is? Well, let me tell you....the climate models are based on the "science" behind the greenhouse hypothesis and in turn the AGW hypothesis....if the "science" were correct, the models would have a damned good track record in so far as their predictive ability goes rather than a string of failure going back decades...

The hypothesis upon which the models are based is wrong therefore they are never going to be able to produce output that matches what happens out here in the real world.

You say the models have "failed". I'm wondering what you mean by "failed". Can you give me some examples of models that have failed and why you think they've failed?

Here just for starters: See the blue squares, they represent actual measurements made by balloons sent up into the atmosphere with thermometers among other instrumentation...note how closely the balloon (actual observed measurements) coincide with the two satellite data sets....see all the lines above those sets...they are the output of the models that are being used to predict all the gloom and doom that you have bought hook line and sinker...and that is just for starters...the list of failures the models have produced is to huge to even begin to post here...it stretches back for decades...

Would you say weather forecasts have got better since 1975? Probably. This is science. People have to make models, then if the model fails then they have more stuff to look at, then they make new models and they see. Models are probably getting more accurate as we understand more and more about our climate.

That doesn't mean all models are incorrect. It also doesn't mean people are wrong for making models which are incorrect.

It's part of Science. And as we move forward we're getting a better awareness of what is happening around us. However people like you are willing to just denounce everything. "oh, it failed, well then the whole science is bullshit and we should never look at climate change models again"

I disagree. I say that we look at the models and we see them for what they are. We also look at the data, and the data says things are changing. But then we look back at the models and why they failed, then we see that there are other factors at play here.

Then we come to a conclusion about what we believe could happen.

Now I'm quite loose about what could happen in the future. I don't know and I don't claim to know what will happen. What I can say is what COULD happen and give a variety of possibilities based on what I see. Some of the possibilities are quite bad, others less so.

Imagine you're standing on a cliff. You know part of the cliff collapsed a few weeks before. Do you stand right on the edge and look down and dare the cliff to collapse? Or do you stand a safe distance away? I'm the latter, you seem to be the former.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.

So, back to my point.

The oceans are taking up a lot of the CO2, which means we pump in say X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we're only seeing (X/2) turning into global warming.

Simply not true...Again, refer to Henry's law...if the oceans are warming, then they are not absorbing CO2 as quickly as they did when they were cold....if the oceans are not warming, then the claimed global warming is not happening...you can't have it both ways....

And if you have measurements showing that ocean Ph is increasing while the atmosphere is growing warmer, then you are seeing misinformation....either the atmosphere is not warming and the oceans are in fact cooling,, or you are seeing data gathered at particular times to show a lower Ph...you are aware, aren't you that at different times of the day Ph levels for sea water vary wildly?...or maybe you aren't.

Secondly, and probably quite important is what the Earth would be doing naturally. In theory we should be going through a period of global cooling. Now, if you take natural global cooling and you add this to man made global warming, you might not see the increases you'd expect if the Earth's temperature were stable.

And what do you base that claim on?...model output? There certainly are no proxy data sets that can show resolution fine enough for you to make such a claim.

If A) we should be seeing natural cooling but we're seeing slight global warming and B) if we're clogging the oceans up with CO2 and at some point they're going to get annoyed and stop taking in this CO2, what do you think the outcome for the planet would be, based on these two assessments?

What actual observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence do you base the claim that we should be seeing cooling on?

And by the way, are you aware that the CRN...a triple redundant, state of the art temperature collection network that is so pristinely placed shows that the US is cooling while the major data sets with all their adjustments show the same warming trend in the US as for the rest of the world? Is there any reason to believe that if the CRN were extended to cover the face of the entire earth that it would not show the cooling trend that it shows in the US?

And while the US is showing a cooling trend...there is no data in support of the claim that we "should" be seeing a cooling trend...

I disagree with you, in fact I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

You have two things. One is the oceans are warming and less CO2 is being taken up. Yeah, and? The other is the oceans aren't warming. Yeah, and? You haven't said which one you agree with, you've made statements and nothing more. So..... what do I say? I don't have anything to say.

What data do I use to suggest we should be going through a period of natural cooling?

Things like this. Here is just a few examples, I'm sure you don't need me to throw massive amounts of data at you. I'll make my point.

Each time it appears that the temperature rises to a peak. It simply starts quite low and then rises steadily over a (relatively) short period of time, before sinking back down again. We have three examples, all about 100,000 years apart. Yes they differ. The last one saw the peak, then a drop and then an up down up down for a long period of time before dropping further in one place, but a drop in another place.

But it did drop from this peak. We saw a peak, and then we saw it go up again. Have we reached this peak? Yes, we probably have. Can anyone say for certain? No they can't.

HOWEVER, the point here is that natural global cooling could be playing a part in the process.

Therefore go back to the possibilities for the future, well we could be seeing man made global warming on a much higher scale than we're actually experiencing, couldn't we?

 

[Old Rocks]

The point was, I asked you to back something up, and then you went off on one without backing up what I asked you to back up.

I am supposed to just accept it when you go off on a 90 degree tangent?

I did...in fact, what I gave you was better than any amount of data...I gave you a simple experiment that would allow you to see the truth for yourself of what I am saying...what's the matter, afraid of a couple of bottles of club soda and what cooling one and leaving the other out on the counter will do to your faith....go ahead and do it...actual observation...seeing for yourself that the oceans were more acidic during colder times....seeing for your self that the claims of a warming planet will acidify the oceans is simply alarmist bullshit that even the most simple observation based experiment can debunk...what's the matter guy......afraid?

Your belief is that more CO2 will result in a warming world...well the fact is that a warmer world would result in warmer oceans and warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans....the more the water warms, the less CO2 it can hold.

No, what you did is go off on a tangent. You think it's better than what I asked for, I think you went off on a tangent.

But I've given you the chance to show me that I'm wrong thinking you're going off on a tangent, from the post after the one you replied to. We'll see.

Giving you a means to see the truth regarding the ability of a warm liquid to hold CO2 vs a cold liquid is a tangent? You wanted evidence and I am delivering it to you on a silver platter...well actually on your kitchen counter and you call that a tangent? It says a great deal about your critical thinking skills....doesn't it.

Yeah, because it isn't what I asked for. It's something different.

I didn't ask you about the ability of liquid to hold CO2 and the differences in temperature.

Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.

You said that there aren't enough fossil fuels on earth to raise the PH levels of oceans to dangerous levels.

Nothing you have said has anything to do with A) the amount of fossil fuels or B) what levels are dangerous or c) how much fossil fuels are required to reach that level.

You're talking about how CO2 functions within water. All very well and good if that were what we were discussing...

It isn't surprising that you fall victim to practically every scam that comes along...you apparently lack the ability to look up even the most basic information.

Here, from a paper titled "Technological and Economic Potential of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction "Published in "Climate Change 2001"...you will find it referenced in IPCC AR4 I think...

"Current estimates have that there is not enough fossil fuel to drive the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide much above 2200 ppm"

Best estimates say that in order to actually turn the oceans acidic, the atmospheric CO2 would need to be in the 55,000ppm range in order to over come the ocean's buffering action as well as all the natural sinks...The fact is frigid, that you have fallen victim to alarmism that is not based on fact.

You know, SSDD, we have some capital liars here that pull all kinds of figures out of their asses, but I do believe that you have just taken the blue ribbon. We get to 55,000 ppm, there won't be any oceans.

 

[SSDD]

Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.

So, back to my point.

The oceans are taking up a lot of the CO2, which means we pump in say X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we're only seeing (X/2) turning into global warming.

Simply not true...Again, refer to Henry's law...if the oceans are warming, then they are not absorbing CO2 as quickly as they did when they were cold....if the oceans are not warming, then the claimed global warming is not happening...you can't have it both ways....

You never fail to demonstrate your ignorance and your inability to hang on to unwanted facts. This has been explained to you multiple times before. The partial pressure of CO2 has increased 42%. Thus the rate of uptake from that has increased 42%. The oceans temperature has increased about 0.07%. CO2 wins.

As we have seen on a dozen subjects, your conceptualization of natural processes has the gross simplicity of a small child's.

Sorry crick...you couldn't be more wrong...but hey, you believe what you like... The fact is that when atmospheric CO2 was 1000ppm, 2000ppm, 3000pp, and higher still the oceans were not acidic...and in fact, most modern marine life evolved under just those sorts of conditions...once again, the belief of warmers does not mesh with reality...

 

[Crick]

And has been explained to YOU on multiple occasions, all those periods you mention developed over hundreds of thousands to millions of years allowing time for the ocean's pH to be buffered by the weathering of calcium carbonates ashore. One of the very few times in the past when CO2 rose as quickly as it is doing now resulted in the Permian Triassic extinction event, killing nearly 95% of all marine species.

And you fail to address the 42% change in pp CO2versus the 0.07% change in temperature. You would properly address that by admitting that you were wrong.

 

[SSDD]

Would you say weather forecasts have got better since 1975? Probably. This is science. People have to make models, then if the model fails then they have more stuff to look at, then they make new models and they see. Models are probably getting more accurate as we understand more and more about our climate.

Perhaps marginally better but we haven't learned much since 1975 regarding weather systems that we didn't already know.

That doesn't mean all models are incorrect. It also doesn't mean people are wrong for making models which are incorrect.

All global climate models are incorrect because they are based on flawed science.

It's part of Science. And as we move forward we're getting a better awareness of what is happening around us. However people like you are willing to just denounce everything. "oh, it failed, well then the whole science is bullshit and we should never look at climate change models again"

If it is science, why then are the failed hypothesis and the resulting failed models not scrapped and replaced with a hypothesis upon which models can be made more accurate...CO2 is not the driver of the global climate and so long as that is the premise of the models, they will continue to fail.

Now I'm quite loose about what could happen in the future. I don't know and I don't claim to know what will happen. What I can say is what COULD happen and give a variety of possibilities based on what I see. Some of the possibilities are quite bad, others less so.

And you are willing to spend crazy amounts of money and do irreparable damage to the world economy based on what "could" happen as predicted by failing models? How crazy is that?

Imagine you're standing on a cliff. You know part of the cliff collapsed a few weeks before. Do you stand right on the edge and look down and dare the cliff to collapse? Or do you stand a safe distance away? I'm the latter, you seem to be the former.

Do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that the earth is in fact standing on a cliff?...or is that just more alarmist handwaving....The fact is that nothing whatsoever in the climate is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability.... Standing on the edge of a crumbling cliff paints a picture that is quite different from your normal state...if you live a "normal" life and suddenly are doing intravenous drugs, having unprotected sex with prostitutes and junkies, and going out at night to rob liquor stores then you are standing on a cliff as evidenced by the fact that you have stepped outside your natural variability....when the earth's climate gets even close to its boundaries of natural variability, let me know....because we aren't even close right now...in fact, historically speaking, it is damned cold, the atmosphere is starved for CO2 and there is ice at both poles....

 

[Crick]

Show us a model that does not assume AGW that even comes close to hindcasting the temperature trends of the last 100 years.

 

[SSDD]

I disagree with you, in fact I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

You have two things. One is the oceans are warming and less CO2 is being taken up. Yeah, and? The other is the oceans aren't warming. Yeah, and? You haven't said which one you agree with, you've made statements and nothing more. So..... what do I say? I don't have anything to say.

Doesn't matter which I agree with...the point is that you can't have it both ways....

What data do I use to suggest we should be going through a period of natural cooling?

Do you see the time scale on those graphs?....with time scales like that do you really believe that you can say that we should be cooling now? What do you think the resolution on those graphs is?...and can you use that resolution to make 100 year predictions?

 

[SSDD]

Show us a model that does not assume AGW that even comes close to hindcasting the temperature trends of the last 100 years.

All of them crick....all GCM's are spectacular failures.

 

[Crick]

Show us a model that does not assume AGW that even comes close to hindcasting the temperature trends of the last 100 years.

All of them crick....all GCM's are spectacular failures.

You don't seem to have understood the question.

Show us a GCM that does NOT assume human GHG emissions will warm the planet that even comes close to hindcasting the last 100 years.

PS, the claim that GCMs which do make such assumptions fail is a simple lie.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Would you say weather forecasts have got better since 1975? Probably. This is science. People have to make models, then if the model fails then they have more stuff to look at, then they make new models and they see. Models are probably getting more accurate as we understand more and more about our climate.

Perhaps marginally better but we haven't learned much since 1975 regarding weather systems that we didn't already know.

That doesn't mean all models are incorrect. It also doesn't mean people are wrong for making models which are incorrect.

All global climate models are incorrect because they are based on flawed science.

It's part of Science. And as we move forward we're getting a better awareness of what is happening around us. However people like you are willing to just denounce everything. "oh, it failed, well then the whole science is bullshit and we should never look at climate change models again"

If it is science, why then are the failed hypothesis and the resulting failed models not scrapped and replaced with a hypothesis upon which models can be made more accurate...CO2 is not the driver of the global climate and so long as that is the premise of the models, they will continue to fail.

Now I'm quite loose about what could happen in the future. I don't know and I don't claim to know what will happen. What I can say is what COULD happen and give a variety of possibilities based on what I see. Some of the possibilities are quite bad, others less so.

And you are willing to spend crazy amounts of money and do irreparable damage to the world economy based on what "could" happen as predicted by failing models? How crazy is that?

Imagine you're standing on a cliff. You know part of the cliff collapsed a few weeks before. Do you stand right on the edge and look down and dare the cliff to collapse? Or do you stand a safe distance away? I'm the latter, you seem to be the former.

Do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that the earth is in fact standing on a cliff?...or is that just more alarmist handwaving....The fact is that nothing whatsoever in the climate is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability.... Standing on the edge of a crumbling cliff paints a picture that is quite different from your normal state...if you live a "normal" life and suddenly are doing intravenous drugs, having unprotected sex with prostitutes and junkies, and going out at night to rob liquor stores then you are standing on a cliff as evidenced by the fact that you have stepped outside your natural variability....when the earth's climate gets even close to its boundaries of natural variability, let me know....because we aren't even close right now...in fact, historically speaking, it is damned cold, the atmosphere is starved for CO2 and there is ice at both poles....

Everything we use to predict the future is based on "flawed science", however this might be a far more accurate reading of the future than what you're saying. Whether you like it or not you're also predicting the future. And you're saying there is no problem with the way things are going so we shouldn't do anything about it. Based on what? Well by the looks of it based on a get out clause that other people might not be 100% spot on, therefore we should regard everything they have ever done as wrong.

That's far worse than people using science and making predictions that might not be 100% accurate.


As for why aren't hypothesis replaced? Well actually they are. Scientists are always changing, trying to become more accurate. I don't know where you got the idea that scientist are always trying to prove the same thing. They're not.

Am I willing to spend lots of money to not destroy the only world we have? Yes.

Money is money, it doesn't make life. There are things that are far more important than money.

The world economy won't be destroyed because people are being more careful with the environment. Perhaps things will cost more and people won't be able to have a massive fuck of SUV to drive to their neighbor's house five meters away, oh no.

I don't drive a car, I've never owned one, and I don't want one. I don't need one. We can live closer to the Earth (or however you want to phrase it), but people are selfish and choose not to. So we kill the planet because we'd rather have a size XXXXXXX fat ass instead of actually living life properly.

 

[jc456]

What the fuck are you talking about, you ignorant ass?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm. Those of us alive today breathe air never tasted by any of our ancestors in the entire Homo genus.

You guys just flap your silly yaps, and never research anything that you claim. You are dead wrong, at the beginning of the last ice age, the CO2 levels were between 280 and 300 ppm.

Sorry rocks...I keep forgetting that you are one of those poor dupes who believes that the earth has exited the ice age that began at the mid point of the tertiary period and continues today and will continue till such time as there is no ice at the poles....as you can see from the graph below, when the decent into the ice age that continues today began, atmospheric CO2 was at about 1000ppm...

Do yourself a quick google of the term "current ice age" and read some of the 15,000 odd hits you get...learn something rocks...

Lordy, lordy, Cannot read a simple graph, eh. The current ice ages began about 2 million years ago. And the CO2 level was considerably less than 1000 ppm at that time. Since the Tertiary is roughly 65 millions years in length, two million years ago is hardly the midpoint.

So rocks....in order to melt the ice at one or both poles, and effectively end the ice age, the average mean temperature would need to reach about 18C...when has that happened?

My goodness, SSDD, you do enjoy playing the complete idiot. Melt enough ice to raise the sea level three feet, and most of the seaports in the world are in major trouble. With just on increase of 20 ppm over the normal 280, during the eemian period, about 130,000 years ago, the sea level was at least 20 feet higher than today. We have not even began to see the results of the present 400+ ppm in the atmosphere today. But that same inertia in the system means that when we do see it, we will be seeing it for a long time.

huh? Melting ice where?