Ocean Warming Accelerating Quicker than Thought

[cnm]

Why didn't I work out your silly bad math?

Yes. Let's see your math. Why didn't you work it out? You were the one who wanted to know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why didn't I work out your silly bad math?

Yes. Let's see your math. Why didn't you work it out? You were the one who wanted to know.

Because Johnlaw was talking out of his ass.

And he's been running away ever since.

 

[Chuz Life]

Assuming the "natural" causes are constant and consistent.

So allow for natural variability. What is your problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org

CO2

I don't know why you are taking a confrontational tone with me, when the article you just cited basically confirms my reasons for being a sceptic about all the so called "data."

From the article you just linked to:


Thus it is concluded that:

• CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the Antarctic ice cores suggest.
• The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
• The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.
• The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.
• The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.

I was (and still am) looking for evidence to the contrary and as I said before, so far those questions have gone un-answered.

 

[cnm]

I don't know why you are taking a confrontational tone with me, when the article you just cited basically confirms my reasons for being a sceptic about all the so called "data."

I linked to the source of the graphic. What part of the graphic do you dispute?

Assuming the "natural" causes are constant and consistent.

It shows atmospheric CO2 as being reasonably consistent in the pre industrial phase. So I contend it's pretty obvious what is 'natural' and what is 'man made'.

This from the article is just pure bullshit, contradicted by all evidence. It's on a denier site after all, which conflates the present with millions of years ago.

• The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.

 

[toobfreak]

Ocean Warming Accelerating Quicker than Thought

Good! Good! Now I can go to Rehoboth Beach earlier in the Spring!

 

[cnm]

I was (and still am) looking for evidence to the contrary and as i said before, so far those questions have gone un-answered.

Evidence to the contrary of what?

 

[cnm]

YES.

Assuming the "natural" causes are constant and consistent.

Which they are NEITHER.

Oh, I see, you deny the science. If records aren't a perfect flat line they are neither constant nor consistent. Got it. Real nature has no variability and scientists don't realise this.

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't know why you are taking a confrontational tone with me, when the article you just cited basically confirms my reasons for being a sceptic about all the so called "data."

I linked to the source of the graphic. What part of the graphic do you dispute?

Assuming the "natural" causes are constant and consistent.

It shows atmospheric CO2 as being reasonably consistent in the pre industrial phase. So I contend it's pretty obvious what is 'natural' and what is 'man made'.

This from the article is just pure bullshit, contradicted by all evidence. It's on a denier site after all, which conflates the present with millions of years ago.

• The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.

You are taking a leap of faith to accept that validity of the graphic in question that I am not willing to take.

Where is YOUR proof that the graphic is correct and the conclusion we both quoted is wrong?

 

[Likkmee]

Earth has been warming and cooling for a LONG time. Settle down spaz.

What an idiotic comment. Never this fast. Get an education.

There are perfectly preserved palm leaf fossils that show they were frozen in hours......in Montana ! YOU get educated

 

[Chuz Life]

Oh, I see, you deny the science..

Projection noted.

 

[cnm]

Where is YOUR proof that the graphic is correct and the conclusion we both quoted is wrong?

What is the conclusion we both quoted?

 

[cnm]

Where is YOUR proof that the graphic is correct

Science doesn't do proof, if does evidence. This is pretty compelling evidence of CO2 levels over 1000 years. That denier site uses a couple of scattered outlier results using stomata density in limited samples to suggest this is incorrect. In modern times stomata density results matches this very closely, as the time period goes back it diverges more. I'll accept this as the more likely scenario until better research is presented. As do the vast majority of scientists. That's what science is all about.

CO2 Ice Core Data

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm still interested in someone explaining the physics of how atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean now all the way down to 6,500m. That must take A LOT of energy. How hot must the atmosphere be to add heat to a column of water 6,500m deep?

Now you're getting it.

Getting what, that you have no answer? Just think about it. Not a dig, I'm not being glib, just think it through

Oh, I thought you were getting the idea the oceans hold a lot of heat. But, obviously, no.

They hold heat? I thought heat radiates toward cooler? Do the fishies eat the heat?

You're absolutely confident that atmospheric CO2 can heat the deep ocean? I think you're having second thoughts

Yet another Trumpette that thinks they know shit about anything.

Any large mass can absorb solar heat

Atmospheric CO2 is a driver of the greenhouse effect that can hold heat.

So a 1F increase in atmospheric temperature means the ocean 6500m will also increase 1F?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much must we lower CO2 in order to end climate change once and for all?

Does you lab work give a number?

That is very close to one of my (so far unanswered) questions.

Given the claim that so many scientists agree that "man" is causing the planet to warm. . . and given the fact that the planet has warmed and cooled "naturally" for millions of years before "man" first appeared... What percentage of the (oft disputed) changes we are seeing can be attributed to "nature" and what percentage is the result of "man?"

Where can we find the most scientific and agreed upon breakdown of THAT data?

Had Hillary won, these questions of ours would have gotten us long prison sentences

 

[JLW]

Why didn't I work out your silly bad math?

Yes. Let's see your math. Why didn't you work it out? You were the one who wanted to know.

Because Johnlaw was talking out of his ass.

And he's been running away ever since.

If I made a misstatement, I made a misstatement. It takes nothing away from the OP and the links thereto.

 

[cnm]

Had Hillary won, these questions of ours would have gotten us long prison sentences

Nah, you'd just have been laughed at as much as you are now. For instance, have you yet understood how sea ice can melt when surface air temperature is below freezing?

 

[skookerasbil]

That this is in CURRENT EVENTS is laughable. Climate Crusaders have been talking about stuff like this for well over a decade.....and to what end? Has not budged the Care Meter one iota. Congress could not possibly be any less interested.....for many, many years now. Which means the people have been unimpressed with the science....doy.....who cant see that?

Warming waters......I mean, c'mon now. It's a snoozefest in the real world. Paris is dead as is Crap and Trade. Zero legislation on climate change. Renewable energy....after 20 years.....still decidedly a joke = a fringe energy source. Nobody buys electric cars....for Christsakes, Ford sold more Focus models last year than all EV's combined!!

Hate to break it to the climate confused but banners dont mean dick. What do the k00ks have to hang their hats on.....lightbulb legislation?

It's an epic train wreck if one is a climate crusader in 2019.....nobody cares!

 

[RealDave]

How much must we lower CO2 in order to end climate change once and for all?

Does you lab work give a number?

That is very close to one of my (so far unanswered) questions.

Given the claim that so many scientists agree that "man" is causing the planet to warm. . . and given the fact that the planet has warmed and cooled "naturally" for millions of years before "man" first appeared... What percentage of the (oft disputed) changes we are seeing can be attributed to "nature" and what percentage is the result of "man?"

Where can we find the most scientific and agreed upon breakdown of THAT data?

Had Hillary won, these questions of ours would have gotten us long prison sentences

Wow Frank. Can you possibly get more ridiculous.

Your questions would only identify you are ignorant & naive & uneducated. As they do now.

 

[RealDave]

That this is in CURRENT EVENTS is laughable. Climate Crusaders have been talking about stuff like this for well over a decade.....and to what end? Has not budged the Care Meter one iota. Congress could not possibly be any less interested.....for many, many years now. Which means the people have been unimpressed with the science....doy.....who cant see that?

Warming waters......I mean, c'mon now. It's a snoozefest in the real world. Paris is dead as is Crap and Trade. Zero legislation on climate change. Renewable energy....after 20 years.....still decidedly a joke = a fringe energy source. Nobody buys electric cars....for Christsakes, Ford sold more Focus models last year than all EV's combined!!

Hate to break it to the climate confused but banners dont mean dick. What do the k00ks have to hang their hats on.....lightbulb legislation?

It's an epic train wreck if one is a climate crusader in 2019.....nobody cares!

Actually, these reports do matter to those with a freakin brain.

We have reduced the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Cleaner generation plants, higher mpg vehicles, green energy

As long as Trump is in charge, nothing will be done unless Congress does it. That should be over soon.

 

[RealDave]

Assuming the "natural" causes are constant and consistent.

So allow for natural variability. What is your problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org

CO2

I don't know why you are taking a confrontational tone with me, when the article you just cited basically confirms my reasons for being a sceptic about all the so called "data."

From the article you just linked to:


Thus it is concluded that:

• CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the Antarctic ice cores suggest.
• The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
• The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.
• The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.
• The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.

I was (and still am) looking for evidence to the contrary and as I said before, so far those questions have gone un-answered.

So, since CO2 levels rose in the past, it is impossible that man caused the raise in levels we see today.

Great reasoning.