AGW Scam Main Points

[Old Rocks]

Now Frankie boy, what is meaningless here is your and the other denialists rants. No matter what kind of drivel you post, the ice keeps melting, the world keeps warming, and the pH of the ocean continues to decrease.

CO2 spikes, temps collapse

Tell us why

@OldRocks, you can run, but you can't hide

OK. The Milankovic Cycles have been the primary driver of climate for the last 2 million years.

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The CO2 peaks after the Milankovic Cycles have warmed the oceans, and as the cycles change, the oceans cool and absorb more CO2, lowering the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Also, at the peak of the interglacials, there is more rock exposed, and weathering removes more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Note how sensative to an increase in CO2 the climate is. The increase in temperature when the Milankovic Cycles put more GHGs into the atmosphere is very rapid, while the decline into another ice age is slow.

So now we have increased the GHGs in the atmosphere to a point not seen in 20 million years. And at that time, there were no polar caps. This will have major effects, and is having effects right now. Deny it all, reality doesn't change one whit for your denial.

 

[Crick]

Care to explain why the scale numbers - which differ from EVERY other presentation of the SAME data - don't match the grid? You'd better have something good or I'm going to invoke the obvious answer: Photoshop*.


* - AKA "LYING"

Uh huh. Care to explain how no matter the scale, temperature plunges after CO2 spikes.

I'll give you that the chart I posted has the wrong scale because its IRRELEVANT to what the chart shows: temperatures collapse after CO2 spikes.

Every chart, no matter the scale FAILS YOUR AGWCULT THEORY

Irrelevant? Honesty is irrelevant? Good to know where you stand on that.

As to the spikes, as you have been told a dozen times, IT is what is irrelevant. NO ONE - do you get that? - NO ONE is disputing that increasing the Earth's temperature will cause CO2 levels to increase. Unfortunately for you, that does NOT prevent the completely separate process whereby CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and causes the planet to warm.

This point, that one process does not preclude the other, seems perfectly clear and perfectly simple. There are only two reasons I can think of that could be preventing you from comprehending it: severe stupidity or a political refusal. Whichever it might be, do us all a favor and fix it.

 

[SSDD]

Care to explain why the scale numbers - which differ from EVERY other presentation of the SAME data - don't match the grid? You'd better have something good or I'm going to invoke the obvious answer: Photoshop*.


* - AKA "LYING"

Uh huh. Care to explain how no matter the scale, temperature plunges after CO2 spikes.

I'll give you that the chart I posted has the wrong scale because its IRRELEVANT to what the chart shows: temperatures collapse after CO2 spikes.

Every chart, no matter the scale FAILS YOUR AGWCULT THEORY

Irrelevant? Honesty is irrelevant? Good to know where you stand on that.

As to the spikes, as you have been told a dozen times, IT is what is irrelevant. NO ONE - do you get that? - NO ONE is disputing that increasing the Earth's temperature will cause CO2 levels to increase. Unfortunately for you, that does NOT prevent the completely separate process whereby CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and causes the planet to warm.

This point, that one process does not preclude the other, seems perfectly clear and perfectly simple. There are only two reasons I can think of that could be preventing you from comprehending it: severe stupidity or a political refusal. Whichever it might be, do us all a favor and fix it.

If the absorption of IR by CO2 causes the planet to warm by the process you describe, where is the inevitable hot spot such a process would cause?

 

[Crick]

It is present.

Where is your evidence that the world is not warming?
Where is your evidence that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared?
Where is your evidence that the 120 ppm added CO2 is NOT from human sources?
In short, where is your evidence that would counter the mountains of evidence supporting AGW compiled in the IPCC's five assessment reports?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now Frankie boy, what is meaningless here is your and the other denialists rants. No matter what kind of drivel you post, the ice keeps melting, the world keeps warming, and the pH of the ocean continues to decrease.

CO2 spikes, temps collapse

Tell us why

@OldRocks, you can run, but you can't hide

OK. The Milankovic Cycles have been the primary driver of climate for the last 2 million years.

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The CO2 peaks after the Milankovic Cycles have warmed the oceans, and as the cycles change, the oceans cool and absorb more CO2, lowering the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Also, at the peak of the interglacials, there is more rock exposed, and weathering removes more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Note how sensative to an increase in CO2 the climate is. The increase in temperature when the Milankovic Cycles put more GHGs into the atmosphere is very rapid, while the decline into another ice age is slow.

So now we have increased the GHGs in the atmosphere to a point not seen in 20 million years. And at that time, there were no polar caps. This will have major effects, and is having effects right now. Deny it all, reality doesn't change one whit for your denial.

So CO2 does NOT drive climate

 

[jc456]

Now Frankie boy, what is meaningless here is your and the other denialists rants. No matter what kind of drivel you post, the ice keeps melting, the world keeps warming, and the pH of the ocean continues to decrease.

CO2 spikes, temps collapse

Tell us why

@OldRocks, you can run, but you can't hide

OK. The Milankovic Cycles have been the primary driver of climate for the last 2 million years.

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The CO2 peaks after the Milankovic Cycles have warmed the oceans, and as the cycles change, the oceans cool and absorb more CO2, lowering the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Also, at the peak of the interglacials, there is more rock exposed, and weathering removes more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Note how sensative to an increase in CO2 the climate is. The increase in temperature when the Milankovic Cycles put more GHGs into the atmosphere is very rapid, while the decline into another ice age is slow.

So now we have increased the GHGs in the atmosphere to a point not seen in 20 million years. And at that time, there were no polar caps. This will have major effects, and is having effects right now. Deny it all, reality doesn't change one whit for your denial.

One question, do you agree or disagree that the CO2 in the atmoshphere will saturate?

 

[Old Rocks]

venus

 

[jc456]

venus

So again, strawman. You do know that CO2 will saturate correct? Venus, apples to oranges, and doesn't answer my questiobn. If you wish not to answer the question, then just say you don't wish to, but sort of leads me to wonder why be on a messge board then.

My point was that once it saturates, it can't absorb any more, and added CO2 does not increase the saturation, it merely lowers its presence in the upper atmosphere. But at .04% of the atmosphere vs 96% at Venus merely means that Venus atmosphere is mostly CO2. It's hotter than earth, perhaps because it is closer to the Sun? Duh!!!!!!

 

[Crick]

CO2 spikes, temps collapse

Tell us why

@OldRocks, you can run, but you can't hide

OK. The Milankovic Cycles have been the primary driver of climate for the last 2 million years.

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The CO2 peaks after the Milankovic Cycles have warmed the oceans, and as the cycles change, the oceans cool and absorb more CO2, lowering the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Also, at the peak of the interglacials, there is more rock exposed, and weathering removes more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Note how sensative to an increase in CO2 the climate is. The increase in temperature when the Milankovic Cycles put more GHGs into the atmosphere is very rapid, while the decline into another ice age is slow.

So now we have increased the GHGs in the atmosphere to a point not seen in 20 million years. And at that time, there were no polar caps. This will have major effects, and is having effects right now. Deny it all, reality doesn't change one whit for your denial.

So CO2 does NOT drive climate

So, your stupidity is irremediable.

 

[Crick]

One question, do you agree or disagree that the CO2 in the atmoshphere will saturate?

With regard to the greenhouse effect, it is nowhere near "saturated".

See Is the CO2 effect saturated?

 

[SSDD]

It is present.

Where is your evidence that the world is not warming?

Even the IPCC acknowledges the lack of warming now...only the real nutters think it is still warming.

is your evidence that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared?

Who said that CO2 doesn't absorb IR. Absorption and retention of IR equals warming...absorption and emission does not. CO2 absorbs and emits at a very slightly lower wavelength which, by the way, puts its emission out of the range for another CO2 molecule to absorb.

is your evidence that the 120 ppm added CO2 is NOT from human sources?

What difference does it make if we add 1000ppm if CO2 doesn't cause warming...Lets see the hard observed evidence that CO2 causes warming.

short, where is your evidence that would counter the mountains of evidence supporting AGW compiled in the IPCC's five assessment reports?

Computer models are not evidence...all observed evidence is of a correlatory nature and doesn't serve to prove anything.

 

[Crick]

It is present.

Where is your evidence that the world is not warming?

Even the IPCC acknowledges the lack of warming now...only the real nutters think it is still warming.

Wrong. What has taken place is a reduction in the rate of surface warming. Warming of the oceans has accelerated and the radiative imbalance at the ToA is increased.

is your evidence that CO2 doesn't absorb infrared?

Who said that CO2 doesn't absorb IR.

Several posters here have made that claim. Several more routinely respond to evidence of IR absorption with statements like "CO2 does not drive climate" and "Where's your experiment?".

Absorption and retention of IR equals warming...absorption and emission does not.

You've never attended a single class in thermodynamics and thus your opinion is wholly uninformed. Additionally, you've spouted several different streams of complete nonsense in this area and several others; making your reasoning abilities more than suspect.

When the Earth is in a state of equilibrium, it radiates precisely what it receives. When the amount of absorption taking place in the atmosphere is increased by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, that temperature rises to a new equilibrium.

Imagine a tank with a steady flow of water entering and leaving. The tank reaches an equilibrium level. Now restrict the exit flow. What happens? The equilibrium level rises.

CO2 absorbs and emits at a very slightly lower wavelength which, by the way, puts its emission out of the range for another CO2 molecule to absorb.

Two of those three bands overlap. Besides that, the point is essentially moot. Given that any photon leaving a CO2 molecule has only a 1 in 2,500 chance of hitting another CO2 molecule and 2,499 out of every 2,500 photons striking CO2 molecules originated from another material , the effect is completely insignificant. Energy is held in CO2, in the Earth, in the Oceans and in the other components of air.

is your evidence that the 120 ppm added CO2 is NOT from human sources?

What difference does it make if we add 1000ppm if CO2 doesn't cause warming...Lets see the hard observed evidence that CO2 causes warming.

Here

short, where is your evidence that would counter the mountains of evidence supporting AGW compiled in the IPCC's five assessment reports?

Computer models are not evidence...all observed evidence is of a correlatory nature and doesn't serve to prove anything.

That the temperature of the Earth has been increasing is not the product of a computer model.

That an increasing radiative imbalance exists at the ToA is not the product of a computer model.

That the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been increasing is not the product of a computer model.

That CO2 absorbs infrared frequencies not absorbed by any other atmospheric component is not the product of a computer model.

That the source of almost every bit of that added CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels is not the product of a computer model.

That the Earth's ice and snow cover are disappearing at an unprecedented rate is not the product of a computer model.

That the oceans are acidifying at a rate in excess of periods of mass marine extinctions is not the product of a computer model.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is present.

Where is your evidence that the world is not warming?

Even the IPCC acknowledges the lack of warming now...only the real nutters think it is still warming.

Wrong. What has taken place is a reduction in the rate of surface warming. Warming of the oceans has accelerated and the radiative imbalance at the ToA is increased.





Several posters here have made that claim. Several more routinely respond to evidence of IR absorption with statements like "CO2 does not drive climate" and "Where's your experiment?".



You've never attended a single class in thermodynamics and thus your opinion is wholly uninformed. Additionally, you've spouted several different streams of complete nonsense in this area and several others; making your reasoning abilities more than suspect.

When the Earth is in a state of equilibrium, it radiates precisely what it receives. When the amount of absorption taking place in the atmosphere is increased by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, that temperature rises to a new equilibrium.

Imagine a tank with a steady flow of water entering and leaving. The tank reaches an equilibrium level. Now restrict the exit flow. What happens? The equilibrium level rises.

Two of those three bands overlap. Besides that, the point is essentially moot. Given that any photon leaving a CO2 molecule has only a 1 in 2,500 chance of hitting another CO2 molecule and 2,499 out of every 2,500 photons striking CO2 molecules originated from another material , the effect is completely insignificant. Energy is held in CO2, in the Earth, in the Oceans and in the other components of air.





Here

short, where is your evidence that would counter the mountains of evidence supporting AGW compiled in the IPCC's five assessment reports?

Computer models are not evidence...all observed evidence is of a correlatory nature and doesn't serve to prove anything.

That the temperature of the Earth has been increasing is not the product of a computer model.

That an increasing radiative imbalance exists at the ToA is not the product of a computer model.

That the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been increasing is not the product of a computer model.

That CO2 absorbs infrared frequencies not absorbed by any other atmospheric component is not the product of a computer model.

That the source of almost every bit of that added CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels is not the product of a computer model.

That the Earth's ice and snow cover are disappearing at an unprecedented rate is not the product of a computer model.

That the oceans are acidifying at a rate in excess of periods of mass marine extinctions is not the product of a computer model.

Wow with all these "unprecedented" changes you think it would be no problem to show how an INSTANTANEOUS 120ppm increase could cause it

 

[Crick]

It's no problem at all.

 

[SSDD]

Wrong. What has taken place is a reduction in the rate of surface warming. Warming of the oceans has accelerated and the radiative imbalance at the ToA is increased.

More lies. Everything you say is a lie crick.... Here is what NOAA says about the ocean heat content...

There is no acceleration of the warming of the oceans...in fact, it has shown a steady deceleration since 2003...about what one would expect with the lack of warming...and look at the size of the error bars during the claimed rapid increase from 1007 to 2003....they are huge. And if the sort of warming you claim were happening...thermal expansion would create an acceleration of sea level rise...not happening...the rate of sea level increase has been decelerating for some time.

As to the ToA...outgoing LW is increasing....not decreasing.

posters here have made that claim. Several more routinely respond to evidence of IR absorption with statements like "CO2 does not drive climate" and "Where's your experiment?".

Don't need one....your inability to produce one to support your claim that it does is sufficient. No need to try and devise an experiment that proves a negative when you can't come up with one that proves a positive.

never attended a single class in thermodynamics and thus your opinion is wholly uninformed. Additionally, you've spouted several different streams of complete nonsense in this area and several others; making your reasoning abilities more than suspect.

You have no idea what I have or have not attended. You claim back radiation...I say, based on the second law, and every observation ever made that it does not. You can not provide a single observed, measured instance of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature without some work having been done to make it move...and yet, you claim it happens. Who is naive and uneducated...who is operating on faith here?

the Earth is in a state of equilibrium, it radiates precisely what it receives. When the amount of absorption taking place in the atmosphere is increased by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, that temperature rises to a new equilibrium.

When has the earth ever been in a state of equilibrium? Look at the climate history of the earth and tell me when the earth has EVER been in a state of equilibrium. Change is the norm. You are living inside a computer model which is the only place the earth has ever been in a state of equilibrium.

a tank with a steady flow of water entering and leaving. The tank reaches an equilibrium level. Now restrict the exit flow. What happens? The equilibrium level rises.

Again, when has the earth EVER been in a state of equilibrium...name the period.

the temperature of the Earth has been increasing is not the product of a computer model.

It is not the product of CO2 either...most of the climb out of the little ice age happened prior to the middle of the 20th century...any increase since then is questionable due to the massive amount of tampering with the temperature record.

an increasing radiative imbalance exists at the ToA is not the product of a computer model.

LW out at the ToA is increasing...see above graph. If it were decreasing as you claim and the sort of physics you claim were happening, a tropospheric hot spot would be present....it isn't and nearly a million radiosondes say that it isn't. You have claimed before that it is present...lets see the actual observed, measured evidence...not computer model output that disagrees with real world measurement of both radiosondes and satellites.

the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been increasing is not the product of a computer model.

The "normal" level of CO2 in the atmosphere is far higher than 400ppm...coming out of an ice age results in increased CO2....just prior to entering the ice age that the earth is clawing its way out of, CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm...Why do you think that the CO2 level should not be climbing as the earth makes its way out of an ice age?

CO2 absorbs infrared frequencies not absorbed by any other atmospheric component is not the product of a computer model.

And then CO2 emits them...it doesn't store them...it emits them. Absorption and emission do not equal warming.....absorption and retention equals warming.

the source of almost every bit of that added CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels is not the product of a computer model.

Entirely untrue. We don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation in the natural CO2 levels from year to year coming from the earths own CO2 making machinery.

the Earth's ice and snow cover are disappearing at an unprecedented rate is not the product of a computer model.

Really? Even faster than during the holocene optimum when temperatures far exceeded the present? Even faster than for most of earth's history when no ice at all existed at one, or both poles? Look at the temperature history of the earth crick...ice at both poles is the anomaly...not the norm.

The global mean at the time that the earth began its decent into the ice age which we are still in was about 20C...do you think ice was present at both poles if the global mean was 20C? The fact is, crick...on earth...ice at both poles is not normal...it has happened for short periods of time between long periods where there was no ice.

the oceans are acidifying at a rate in excess of periods of mass marine extinctions is not the product of a computer model.

It is a fact that warmer water outgassed CO2. Cold water absorbs CO2... You can't have it both ways...if the oceans are warming...which they are, then they are outgassing CO2 and becoming less acidic...if they are cooling, then they are absorbing more CO2 and becoming somewhat more acidic...but then if they are cooling, then your claims of warming, and ice melt, and catastrophe due to AGW are not true....the laws of physics don't let you have warming and oceans absorbing more CO2...it is an either or proposition. Either they are cooling and absorbing more CO2 and becoming more acidic in which case we have nothing to do with cooling and are screwed...or it is warming and the ocean is outgassing CO2 at a higher rate than it is taking it up. So which is it?

And by the way...which proxy are you looking at that would give you the resolution necessary to claim that anything, including imagined ocean acidification is happening now at a rate that is unprecedented? We have what...150 years of measurements at best and in most cases far less than 150 years....what sort of proxy are you looking at that gives you a resolution of less than 150 years? In short....the claim is a lie...it is hysterics...it has no foundation in fact...it is scaremongering....it is bullshit.

 

[Crick]

Wrong. What has taken place is a reduction in the rate of surface warming. Warming of the oceans has accelerated and the radiative imbalance at the ToA is increased.

More lies. Everything you say is a lie crick.... Here is what NOAA says about the ocean heat content...

That was heat content of the upper 700 meters. The contention ever since BTK 2013 (Distinctive Signals...) has been that the warmed ocean surface is being subducted BELOW 700 meters and is being replaced by colder water from the depths. This is clearly shown in BTK's familiar graphic:

as well as

and

and

There is no acceleration of the warming of the oceans

As the data above show, THAT would be the lie.

And if the sort of warming you claim were happening...thermal expansion would create an acceleration of sea level rise...not happening...the rate of sea level increase has been decelerating for some time.

Decelerating?

I think not

As to the ToA...outgoing LW is increasing....not decreasing.

You've got some nerve to call anyone else a liar then try this one AGAIN. I never said outgoing LW was decreasing, did I. I said the IMBALANCE was INCREASING. All you've shown here is that YES, INDEEDY-DOO, THE WORLD IS GETTING HOTTER. Kinda blows your previous claims out of the water as well.

posters here have made that claim. Several more routinely respond to evidence of IR absorption with statements like "CO2 does not drive climate" and "Where's your experiment?".

Don't need one....your inability to produce one to support your claim that it does is sufficient. No need to try and devise an experiment that proves a negative when you can't come up with one that proves a positive.

Why can't you show me a peer reviewed study showing the world isn't flat?

Get it?

You have no idea what I have or have not attended.

If you ever attended a class in thermodynamics, you dreamed your way through the whole thing - or at least till the instructor tossed you out on your keester. And I think if you had, you'd have said so. I took two semesters of thermodynamics and a third of heat transfer (ie non-equilibrium thermodynamics) at FAU in Boca Raton in 1981-82. The professor's name was Tessin. I aced all three classes. How about you?

You claim back radiation...I say, based on the second law, and every observation ever made that it does not. You can not provide a single observed, measured instance of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object at ambient temperature without some work having been done to make it move...and yet, you claim it happens. Who is naive and uneducated...who is operating on faith here?

You are. No one could get through a class in thermo at any level with this insane misconception.

When has the earth ever been in a state of equilibrium?

I didn't say it was. I was using a hypothetical to make a point. Do you understand what hypothetical means? Oh... I see from your sig that you do not.

That the temperature of the Earth has been increasing is not the product of a computer model.

It is not the product of CO2 either...most of the climb out of the little ice age happened prior to the middle of the 20th century...any increase since then is questionable due to the massive amount of tampering with the temperature record.

So you do reject the greenhouse effect. Why can't you at least be honest about it? Hearing fundamental misconceptions from you is hardly novel.

LW out at the ToA is increasing...see above graph.

Of course it is. The world is getting hotter.

That an increasing radiative imbalance exists at the ToA is not the product of a computer model.

If it were decreasing as you claim

I have never made such a claim. As I just stated and as I have stated before (in detail) when you attempted to pull off this piece of shite, the radiative IMBALANCE at the ToA is increasing - the Earth is trapping a greater portion of its outgoing infrared due to the increased level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

and the sort of physics you claim were happening, a tropospheric hot spot would be present....it isn't and nearly a million radiosondes say that it isn't. You have claimed before that it is present...lets see the actual observed, measured evidence...not computer model output that disagrees with real world measurement of both radiosondes and satellites.

The contention among deniers that the hot spot is the sine qua non of AGW is incorrect. The spot is not a direct effect of AGW but simply a result of how it is believed greenhouse warming will affect the lapse rate. The hot spot is well observed over short times scales (see Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005). While UAH and RSS do not show a strong hotspot over long times scales, satellite data from UWA does. As I have stated before, the expert opinion, including from YOUR man John Christy, is that the shortfall in evidence of long term hot spots is "measurement uncertainty".

The quoting function is falling apart as it always does. I'm going to try to fill in what I think you're responding to.

That the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been increasing is not the product of a computer model.

The "normal" level of CO2 in the atmosphere is far higher than 400ppm...coming out of an ice age results in increased CO2....just prior to entering the ice age that the earth is clawing its way out of, CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm...Why do you think that the CO2 level should not be climbing as the earth makes its way out of an ice age?

The rate of temperature and CO2 level change over the last 150 years is grossly higher than at any point in the prior thousand years or more. The claim that we are simply coming out of an ice age is unsupportable. The average of the Earth's conditions that have existed over the history of the planet would destroy human culture in a fortnight. The significant parameters are the conditions under which human culture has developed.

And then CO2 emits them...it doesn't store them...it emits them. Absorption and emission do not equal warming.....absorption and retention equals warming.

You've missed a small point. IR radiation doesn't leave the Earth till it can radiate upwards without striking another absorbing molecule. As the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the average altitude where that final emission can take place increases. That increases the total heat held by the atmosphere. Additionally, heat transfer is not all radiative. Heat is transferred to other gases, to the oceans and to the Earth's surface by direct conduction. All that matter has the capacity to retain heat and as the total heat content of the system rises, the average temperature of every component does as well.

That the source of almost every bit of that added CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels is not the product of a computer model.

Entirely untrue. We don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the natural variation in the natural CO2 levels from year to year coming from the earths own CO2 making machinery.

Bullshit. Isotopic analysis shows that without a doubt, the source of virtually every molecule of CO2 above the pre-industrial, 280 ppm level is the result of the combustion of fossil fuel. That point is indisputable.

the Earth's ice and snow cover are disappearing at an unprecedented rate is not the product of a computer model.

Really? Even faster than during the holocene optimum when temperatures far exceeded the present? Even faster than for most of earth's history when no ice at all existed at one, or both poles? Look at the temperature history of the earth crick...ice at both poles is the anomaly...not the norm.

Yes, faster. And during the reign of homo sapiens, ice at the poles has been the norm.

The global mean at the time that the earth began its decent into the ice age which we are still in was about 20C...do you think ice was present at both poles if the global mean was 20C? The fact is, crick...on earth...ice at both poles is not normal...it has happened for short periods of time between long periods where there was no ice.

Have you ever noticed that when deniers talk about the past, they seem to NEVER restrict their observations to the HUMAN past. It's always the past of this great ball of rock. Well, we're not worried about this ball of rock. We're worried about the humans on its surface.

the oceans are acidifying at a rate in excess of periods of mass marine extinctions is not the product of a computer model.

It is a fact that warmer water outgassed CO2. Cold water absorbs CO2... You can't have it both ways...

You can if you describe the situation accurately. The bulk of the added CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from human sources, not outgassed from the ocean. The CO2 levels above the oceans are not being controlled by CO2 from the oceans but by what WE are putting there. We are increasing ppCO2 far faster than solubility is decreasing in the warming ocean (keep in mind, oh thermo-whiz, that temperature ratios in such calculations always use Kelvin). A 42% increase in ppCO2 trumps a 0.3% increase in absolute temperature. The oceans are acidifying.

if the oceans are warming...which they are, then they are outgassing CO2 and becoming less acidic...if they are cooling, then they are absorbing more CO2 and becoming somewhat more acidic...but then if they are cooling, then your claims of warming, and ice melt, and catastrophe due to AGW are not true....the laws of physics don't let you have warming and oceans absorbing more CO2...it is an either or proposition. Either they are cooling and absorbing more CO2 and becoming more acidic in which case we have nothing to do with cooling and are screwed...or it is warming and the ocean is outgassing CO2 at a higher rate than it is taking it up. So which is it?

It is your mistaken oversimplification.

And by the way...which proxy are you looking at that would give you the resolution necessary to claim that anything, including imagined ocean acidification is happening now at a rate that is unprecedented? We have what...150 years of measurements at best and in most cases far less than 150 years....what sort of proxy are you looking at that gives you a resolution of less than 150 years? In short....the claim is a lie...it is hysterics...it has no foundation in fact...it is scaremongering....it is bullshit.

You really ought to do a little more reading. Periods of ocean acidification in the past, including instances of mass marine extinction events, have taken place over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. We DO have the resolution to time such events.

So, looks like once again, you were wrong everywhere. Impressive record.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now Frankie boy, what is meaningless here is your and the other denialists rants. No matter what kind of drivel you post, the ice keeps melting, the world keeps warming, and the pH of the ocean continues to decrease.

CO2 spikes, temps collapse

Tell us why

@OldRocks, you can run, but you can't hide

OK. The Milankovic Cycles have been the primary driver of climate for the last 2 million years.

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

The CO2 peaks after the Milankovic Cycles have warmed the oceans, and as the cycles change, the oceans cool and absorb more CO2, lowering the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. Also, at the peak of the interglacials, there is more rock exposed, and weathering removes more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Note how sensative to an increase in CO2 the climate is. The increase in temperature when the Milankovic Cycles put more GHGs into the atmosphere is very rapid, while the decline into another ice age is slow.

So now we have increased the GHGs in the atmosphere to a point not seen in 20 million years. And at that time, there were no polar caps. This will have major effects, and is having effects right now. Deny it all, reality doesn't change one whit for your denial.

So, CO2 does NOT drive climate

 

[indiajo]

That was heat content of the upper 700 meters. The contention ever since BTK 2013 (Distinctive Signals...) has been that the warmed ocean surface is being subducted BELOW 700 meters and is being replaced by colder water from the depths. .

Is this really the physics you learn in the US?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That was heat content of the upper 700 meters. The contention ever since BTK 2013 (Distinctive Signals...) has been that the warmed ocean surface is being subducted BELOW 700 meters and is being replaced by colder water from the depths. .

Is this really the physics you learn in the US?

It's AGWCult physics.

They will believe anything no matter how stupid

 

[Crick]

That was heat content of the upper 700 meters. The contention ever since BTK 2013 (Distinctive Signals...) has been that the warmed ocean surface is being subducted BELOW 700 meters and is being replaced by colder water from the depths. .

Is this really the physics you learn in the US?

I didn't get this from school. This idea came from Gille 2002, Domingues et al 2008, Kim et al 2009, Lyman 2010, Balmaseda, Trenberth & Kalllen 2013 and others.

To what physics do you refer?